It was hard enough to imagine a "Conscience of a Conservative", especially when you run the history of personal destruction politics or listen to, say, Nixon hold forth in private or imagine how it came to pass that Reagan could mine harbors and trade arms, just because.
Still...
But then, came along something called a "Conservative Soul", which was ... well, a misnomer, charitably put.
Now, we have "Conservatism's Core Decency".
Look, there are some wonderful Conservatives, but "Conservatism" doesn't have anything to say about "decency", does it?
For a picture, AS's reader illustrates, as convicted in his own words:
I don't actually think the [torture] issue is that complicated. Whether or not you think X is torture or not and whether you think it may yield useful intelligence or not is irrelevant. The use of torture or even the apparent use of torture is hurting the image and honour of the United States and thus hurting the war effort on the diplomatic and ideological fronts. It just isn't worth it. If you would concentrate on getting this message across, I don't think you would find too many people who would disagree with it.
To which AS's reply more or less concurs.
So, what was wrong with saying, "We don't torture, first, because it is wrong", not because it is bad for "our" image?
I have no problem doing the cost-benefit analysis, but it is the right-wing codling of the moral permissibility of torture that has been indecent.
And, it remains so, even under their latest formulation(s), that "we don't torture", unless we must or unless authorized by the President to do so or unless it is (subjectively?) called enhanced interrogation technique or unless it occurs 'not on U.S. territory'.
