Scapegoats coast to coast

Andrew Sullivan catches David Frum being unclear on the concept 'scapegoat'. (More charitably, it is possible Frum understands but is unclear about the value of relevance.)

For no sound reason, I am reminded of the single weirdest misuse of a legal-moral term I have ever encountered outside of an undergraduate paper. In olden days, in 1998, Bill Buckley was trying to come up with a 'device' that would let Pinochet walk, after the unpleasantness of arrest in London.

That device, surely, would focus on the concept of entrapment. General Pinochet had every reason to feel secure when in London, which he had several times visited since leaving office as President of Chile. He was given VIP treatment at the airport. The sudden imposition of detention, on the motion of a foreign judge, caught Pinochet while in a hospital receiving medical treatment.

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that entrapment, in the legal-moral sense, does not mean 'trapped', or 'taken by surprise'. Still, there is something otherworldly and wonderful about thinking what it would mean for the London police to be guilty of 'entrapping' Pinochet into committing the acts of which he stood accused. 'Your honor, the bobbies just left all these innocent Chileans lying around! And there they were. And here was I. I'm not made of stone, you know!'

LIkewise, it is wonderful to think of all guilty parties as, trivially, 'scapegoats'. Scapegoats coast to coast, since we are all sinners. Let each individual's sins be collectively piled upon that individual, who shall be made to bear the whole load of his personal responsibility! Does the party of moral values want to say this sort of system is too onerous?