Few things in life rival for annoyance the sanctimonious self-satisfaction of the prominently virtuous. In some arenas, such irritating rascals lord over their fellow mortals that they are more ardent church-goers. In others, they avow being more sensitive, more green, more tolerant – of anything other than doubted omniscience – more … you name it. Until today, however, articulating exactly what makes such people so infuriating has been problematic; a useful term with analytical underpinnings has been missing from many lexicons. Certainly it has been absent from mine. Thanks to Michael Rosenwald’s essay in today’s Washington Post, however all that has changed. In “Does being good make us bad?” (http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/c.jsp?item=http%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fwp-syndication%2farticle%2f2010%2f07%2f16%2fAR2010071606839_mobile.xml&cid=578815)
Rosenwald breathes life into the term moral license and supplies pointers to an analysis that suggests there remain sound reasons for cutting the cards when dealing with those who make a show of their virtue. Are there lessons for homeland security as well?
We begin with terminology. Moral license is how people rationalize away bad behavior by stacking it up against a past or future reservoir of good behavior. The stacking exercise invariably makes the bad pale in comparison to the good. The net result of this balancing act is that it leaves the ones performing it wearing a mantle of nobility in their own minds, despite the blood stains and bullet holes their reprehensible acts may have produced in the eyes of witnesses. How does this come to pass? Offset (my term, not Rosenwald’s). Adapted from international contracting in the defense business, offsets are legal trade practices between nations, often governed by laws or policies.
Offset is the way a government buying modern technology from a U.S. supplier can afford to do so or to improve its balance of trade by insisting on some form of consideration for the deal that will lessen the buyer’s burden. Sometimes, it can be in terms of co-production, where the American company has to agree that, as part of the deal, the foreign buyer will be allowed to manufacture some particular components at home, which the seller will then buy back or give credit to the buying country by a comparable price reduction. Sometimes it can be more along the lines of agreeing to pay for all or part of what the buyer needs by counter-trade or barter, i.e., by paying not only in cash but in whatever it is that the buyer country has in ample supply, whether it be oil or oranges. Applied to the algebra of moral calculation, however, offset is how we are now seeing people explain away apparent misdeeds or transgressions while trumpeting their nobility with gusto.
Where is this self-conferred moral license apparent? Look no further than the parking lot full of SUVs delivering attendees to an environmental protest. Or look for exercise aficionados unable to resist taking the escalator to their trendy fitness clubs. Yesterday, society would have branded them hypocrites or half-hearted believers in their stated objectives. Today, thanks to moral license, they can stray but hold their heads high. After all, they rationalize, is it not enough to promote the right cause and to sustain a net balance on the right side of the equation? If the promoter of the cause uses private jets and limousines that seem to leave a careless environmental footprint, this is acceptable as long as he trades in enough carbon credits to offset the apparent hypocrisy. If the fitness fan indulges in pampered conveyance to and from the gym, she can offset that by doing another half hour on the elliptical machine.
Finally, suppose extra airport security measures triggered by a Homeland Security alert ignore suspicious behaviors of hale and hearty young adults whispering in hushed tones and paying inordinate attention to what is inspected. There is no need to worry. We can offset that insouciance by intensifying supplementary baggage checks on a wheelchair-bound veteran who happens to be first in line at the departure terminal or on the stately grandmother who is the last to board – since without her we might have missed our quota for additional scrutiny. How about border security? Mobilize National Guardsmen – in installments – to perform administrative tasks while criminal entrepreneurs and illegal unfortunates break laws to improve their lot at others’ expense. The offset of visibly assigning more life forms to the situation belies the absence of an impact and sidelining of the problem. Or perhaps dispensing unsolicited (and unaccepted) apologies for American swagger on the world stage somehow offsets a calculated failure to draw hard lines and let enemies know that crossing such lines constitutes an act of aggression.
Who needs judgment, purpose, or focused attention to stated intent, when today’s offsets offer moral license to take the most expedient path? Is moral license epitomizing the kind of smartness that will one day lead us to slit our own throat? If so, at least we have a name to attach to this phenomenon so that future archivists will be able to chart its ascendancy with our decline.
-- Nick Catrantzos
Subscribe Now
AddThis
Nick Catrantzos + Tom Goff
- All Secure
- NICK CATRANTZOS is the lead author of the All Secure website and is the emeritus security director for a large public organization. He has also managed security aspects of corporate takeovers, response to international hostage situations, and finding and keeping secrets. He has been board certified in security management, licensed as a private investigator, and certified as an incident commander. He worked as a case officer for a discreet branch of public service. He protected stealth technology at Lockheed and, later, as a consulting security director for both Kroll and Control Risks, he assisted executives with workplace violence cases and with protecting VIPs and critical assets globally in volatile areas. Nick's partner, TOM GOFF, was a captain in the Military Police Corps, U.S. Army Reserve and has a law degree from the University of California at Davis. He is a former reporter for Fortune Magazine, was senior editor at New York Magazine and Esquire, and has provided crisis and communications counsel to senior executives at Fortune 500 companies, including Lockheed, ARCO, Microsoft, Nissan, and Sony Pictures.