I’ve always been told by members of the news media and their favored pundits that the difference between liberals and conservatives is the ability of liberals to perceive and respond to nuance.
As was explained to all, liberals have the sophisticated ability to understand that most issues are not black and white, but colored in shades of gray. A great example, for liberals, was President Bush. He had no ability for nuance. His world view was “Either you’re with us. or against us.” In contrast, many liberals noted that world affairs were much more complex than President Bush’s simple reduction.
Except with respect to “torture.” With torture, for liberals there are no shades of gray. Either detainees receive full benefits of both the Geneva Convention and the US legal system, or “torture” has been perpetrated.
Is the absolute rejection of even the suggestion of torture a core value of liberals?
Nuance would call for a careful, contextual evaluation of the facts, and negatives would have to be carefully balanced against positives. A core value that rejects the humiliation of detainees at Abu Ghraib would also reject the humiliation of Lyndy Englund.
The lack of nuance with regard to the “torture” issue is just another nail in the coffin of liberal hypocrisy.