Moral ambivalence and equivalence - Academia strikes again!

Whilst browsing through the latest from fellow Homespun Bloggers, I came a cross a remarkable find on It's a Matter of Opinion. These Aussie bloggers were catching up on the latest news and views in the progressive community and found a real gem from a professor emeritus of political science at Adrian College. This fellow wants to point out the Saddam Hussein is really not all that bad.

Niccolo Machiavelli, writing 500 years ago, puts it to us bluntly: A leader, he says, "should care nothing for the accusation of cruelty so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal; by making a very few examples he can be more truly merciful than those who through too much tender-heartedness allow disorders to arise whence come killings and rapine."

Did I mention that this is appearing on Common Dreams, the progressive news and opinion site?

There is no danger that Saddam Hussein will be convicted of tender-heartedness. But if he had not been overthrown, today's average Iraqi would be better off financially and enjoy more personal security.

and a bit later:

It would be a horrifying commentary on Iraqi circumstances if a government like Saddam Hussein's is the best one possible there. But that may well be the case, and in that event it would be unjust to convict Hussein.

I wonder how some of the Iraqi bloggers would respond to this "insightful" analysis. Actually, that's not true; I don't wonder at all. I know exactly how they would respond. I can see now that it's a very good thing that we turned Saddam over to the Iraqis for trial.

Besides the breathtaking foolishness and moral ambivalence of this article, does it not strike one odd that a "progressive" writer would opine that a third world country is unable to govern itself? I thought this sort of thinking went out with the European empires.