Intellectual blah blah in Amercian Thought

Some of you know, others do not, that my thesis was on Nazism, but more than that, my thesis was on a moral dilemma. To put it simply, my thesis was on a historical event--the Holocaust--and how that event represented the ethos of polarized morality. Let's try that again. The Holocaust provided such an obvious description of evil that it made it hard, thereafter, to stick to some namby-pamby description of morality where there is good and bad in all things. Denying the Holocaust is one thing, but if you accept that the Holocaust happenned, then you have an outright example of evil. This is, in fact, why neo-nazis deny the holocaust. Even they cannot argue that it was virtuous.
That would be step one of my thesis. Step two was that this polarized morality, good v. evil, was representative of the nazis attempt to philosophy of polarization. In other words, the Holocaust, an obvious evil, was perpetrated by people who believed in absolute good and absolute evil. After WWII, the rest of the world shyed away from such absolutes. They wanted nothing to do with fascism and its attempts to polarize and so the philosophy practiced by the world after WWII was this de-polarized morality--good and bad in all things--as a rejection of the philosophy of the Nazi party and fascists world wide. See Orwell, Politics and The English Language.
The casualties in this de-polarization are many. In fact, I argued that one of the things that was de-polarized was the Holocaust itself. Films made light of the German's involvement in genocide, arguments have been made about what really were the "evil" events during WWII (Hiroshima, the bombing of Dresden, and the allies support of Stalin's own pogroms are often cited as examples), and even the perpetrators of the great evil were given clemincy in America (Werner Von Braun headed are space program, for instance, though he was in charge of the slave labor at the Mittelwerke rocket factory and a member of the SS).
Thus, due to an abandonment of polarizing morality, because of its fascist implications, the post-war--post modern--world is unable to seperate good from evil, right from wrong. That was my thesis.
So now, though I don't feel I've done justice to this idea, I feel the need to add. After all, I am in a doctorate program. That was my master's thesis. It seems only obvious that I add to my ideas and allow them to grow into, well, a career of intellectual endeavor. But that leaves a question: what is the next step with this thing?
I think I hit on the idea recently due to my wife's disturbance at the end of Mystic River. A week later, we watched Chicago together and I saw the same thing happen. Let me move back a step and try to explain. Stories are fairly simple. You have a hero, a protagonist, a whatever, and he/she is trying to do something. Then you have something standing in the way of the protagonist, an antagonist. Now, if the protagonist is successful then you have, according to dated terms, a comedy. If the protagoist fails, then you have a tragedy. But I have recently discovered a third option that has crept into the American story line. In this third option, the protagonist fails, but the story is told in such a way as to procure the sympathy's for the antagonist, who has succeeded. In other words, the good guy loses, but we're supposed to feel okay about that because the bad guy won. This can only be achieved if the audience cannot tell right from wrong, good from evil. In other words, this story only works if the audience cannot figure out who the good guy is and who the bad guy is. This story, therefore, only works if morality is de-polarized.
Take for example Mystic River, which I'm about to ruin. The hero of this story, the good guy, is Tim Robins character who was molested as a child and is still haunted by the event. The movie ends with Sean Penn killing Tim Robins over a case of mistaken identity--he thinks Robins is screwed up from the molestation and that he has become psychotic. The town, therefore, cannot get over what has been done to Robins' any more than Robins' character can. Tragedy. But the audience is supposed to feel good about the whole thing because Sean Penn has learned something about himself. Ahhh...a happy ending. He's learned that he should resume his life of crime with aspirations of forming and leading a mob. The ending is not tragic because Penn has overcome all odds to find himself. Of course, he's found out that he's a murdering asshole, not to mention that this self-acualization happens at the sacrifice of some poor guy who's lived an entire life as a victim only to be screwed over one last time by someone who's supposed to be his friend. The movie only works if you forget all that good/bad, right/wrong type of thinking. You have to assume that it's a sad thing that Robins' character is dead, but that his murder was a sort of cosmic accident, and that Penn is better off for having murdered his friend because now he can form a syndicate and take over Boston.
I don't know. These are just preliminary thoughts. A possible starting place really. Let me ruminate.