Speaking of Evil

Human beings do terrible, terrible things to each other. Rape, torture, mutilation, murder, at times done while loved ones are forced to watch or while displayed before a crowd, and done intentionally, brutally, for long stretches of time, and with words to amplify the pain. Then there are the great wasting plagues that are set upon others: the want and humiliation and hopelessness that come from poverty, racism, sexual exploitation, and other forms of distributed violence; and these are compounded by the neglect and indifference and condescension and overt rationalizations that add insult to injury. The list could go on, and it does.

How should one speak of these things? What words will do? Evil, sin, horror, cruelty, viciousness, an assault on human dignity—perhaps one can construct a sliding scale, but such consensus is unlikely. In public discourse, which is known for both euphemism and hyperbole, there are differences in and disagreement about appropriate usage when marking extremes of harmfulness. Most recently, President George W. Bush has used the term "evil" while setting out an aggressive foreign policy, while more liberal commentators have been quick to point out the arbitrary and dangerous features of that attribution. These retorts are also partisan, of course, but more than that, for they reflect (and enforce) the fact that the term "evil" is almost unintelligible within the standard lexicon of liberal-democratic political thought. (And with reason, for the development of modern political discourse was influenced by revulsion over the religious wars of the seventeenth century.) Thus, one can ask, is the term ever justified? Despite its obvious faults, I think that it remains a resource for public thought. As a preliminary step toward that end, this essay will outline four levels of analysis.

The first of these demarcates the use of the term in presidential discourse. President Reagan's "Evil Empire" and its reprise as President Bush's "axis of evil" are the most telling examples, although the term has been used more widely and now is used emphatically to denounce terrorism. It is hard for some of us to take these claims seriously, however, regardless of the fact that the specific regimes are tyrannical and that terrorism is a crime against humanity. One problem is that the attribution is so arbitrary. The evil to be found in those regimes is much more widely available, not least among American client states who practice state terrorism. Thus, such usage, and certainly the "axis of evil," qualifies as demagoguery. The phrase is a distorted representation that appeals to ignorance and arrogance in order to expand the speaker's political power while reducing public accountability. Evil must be fought, it seems, with strong executive power willing to use force, cloaked in secrecy, and not without recourse to nefarious methods. This is the Machiavellian license—evil exploits goodness, so governments must be prepared to be not good—but too often today it is used without a corresponding focus on an economy of violence. ¹

Such usage also is a classic case of simplification that plays well in a "sound bite society." ² By playing to the cognitive bias of the mass media audience, the president can easily keep the public at bay, righteously unaware of the often embarrassing web of relationships and causal connections that constitutes foreign affairs. "I don't believe there's many shades of gray in this war. You're either with us or against us; you're either evil or you're good." ³ Nor is the outcome in doubt: "I believe this is a struggle of good versus evil. And I don't mind calling evil by its name. And you know what's going to happen? Good will overcome evil with the leadership of the United States, and we're going to provide that leadership." ⁴ Such pandering to the public while maintaining executive control is a standard-issue hypocrisy. ⁵ True leaders would not encourage stupidity and demonize democratic deliberation, but why worry when we are so good? This...