He said:
"While many times labeling behavior and attitudes as evil might be accurate, it is fraught with many traps. Once this type of labeling occurs, I must realize that I have, for all practical purposes, ended discussion with the other party. We are now adversaries and only one of us can move forward after the other is dominated. Your action is evil. You must repent and make it right. If I go so far as to consider the other party as being evil, then I am further justified in dealing with them violently without any remorse. In ridding the world of them I am reducing the evil in it which is a noble cause. I am free to use any methods to get rid of them just as long as my tactics stop just short of theirs. What is lost in this exchange is any opportunity for us to recapture the sense of "we"."
Great points. Let me respond. First, I agree that my use of the word "evil" was probably ill-advised. I used it, I think, for two reasons. One was simply my depression-induced frustration. The second actually relates to your other point--that I run the risk of furthering the "us v. them" mentality that I think this administration has used to govern.
You are correct. When we start to separate into us and them, we do start to disintegrate into dismissal and I am not trying to do that. I am partially frustrated by the clear sense that my opinion does not matter to the Republicans, but I am more trying to appeal to my friends and neighbors who align with Bush. I am not trying to pull away, but challenge them by holding up a mirror and saying "this is what you say you believe. Is that true?" That was the main way I used the word "evil." My friends and relatives who are conservative have been quick to use that word along with Bush, and you point out the perils of such use. I was using it to challenge that belief and suggest that we have to look inside if we are to talk about evil. Because I truly believe that we are all capable of evil and must always be aware of that potential. Evil is not just some abstract out there that we can project onto a Saddam or Osama, it also hides inside all of us. I was trying (again, probably illadvisedly and angrily) to pose the question: "you say that you believe in fighting evil, yet you tolerate this."
I really don't think that the Bush administration is evil, nor do I believe that their supporters are. I think they have done some very bad things, mostly because of this separation that you articulate so well. I am reminded of the lesson of Jimmy Swaggart--who we all remember liked to preach loudly about sexual sins while carrying on with a hooker in a hotel room. My conclusion from that was to be warned about our own weakness--that those who are convinced they are incapable of such actions are the most vulnerable. Bush and his supporters, I think, have so convinced themselves of their own purity that they cannot look inside with any integrity. That is a warning to all of us.
Again, your points are well taken. Even after I plugged your blog! :) As for the value of your points (combined with a buck getting me a cup of coffee), that does not apply to my Starbucks coffee. Hmm.... Starbucks......
1 comment:
Great discussion. I think that the good/evil dichotomy is one that has been overdone of late, too. I think that it comes both from folks conservative and liberal alike.
It reminds me of the assertion of Alan Wolfe that I wrote about last week. Many folks who are interested in America becoming a 'good' nation as opposed to a 'great' nation have become mired in the snare of arguing what goodness is rather than aspiring to any sense of greatness.
Personally, I think the search for goodness is noble...but so is the pursuit of greatness.
For what it's worth.
Post a Comment