Slate's Bizbox
readme: Policy made plain.

Deliver Us From Evil

By Michael Kinsley
Posted Thursday, Sept. 19, 2002, at 4:20 PM ET

Of all the explanations for Sept. 11, 2001, and the subsequent alleged war on terrorism, the least illuminating is that it's all about evil. We didn't know or didn't appreciate that there is evil in the world. Now we do know, or ought to. In President Bush's "axis of evil" speech last January, the first item on his list of truths "we have come to know" after 9/11 is that, "Evil is real, and it must be opposed."

William J. Bennett—the Martha Stewart of morality—takes up the theme in a quickie book, Why We Fight, a Web site (www.avot.org, "avot" being "Americans for Victory Over Terrorism"), and in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece. "It took George W. Bush … to revive the language of good and evil," Bennett slobbers." Until a year ago, he avers, "terms like 'evil,' 'wrong,' and 'bad' " were not in "the lexicon." And even now, a fifth column of "pseudo-sophisticated intellectuals" is undermining America's war effort with nefarious suggestions that it might be more complicated than that. Bennett's evidence that the concept of evil is endangered is pretty thin. He scrounges up a couple of professors making moral-relativist noises about understanding terrorists as people and the possibility that America's own actions may have contributed to America's current dilemma. Neither of them is actually quoted dissing the word "evil." My own impression, for what it is worth, is that concepts like "bad" and "wrong" did pop up occasionally before 9/11 and that there has never in our entire history been a proposition from which fewer Americans dissent than "Osama Bin Laden is evil." Calling terrorists "evil" requires no courage and justifies no self-congratulatory puffing. It's just not a problem.

But it's also not a solution. There are many people, unfortunately, who would be happy to hijack four airplanes, fly them into crowded buildings, and kill 3,000 Americans. In terms of malign intent, they all are evil. But only one of them managed to actually do it. The concept of evil tells you nothing about why—among the many evils wished upon the United States—this one actually happened. Nor does "evil" help us to figure out how to stop evil from visiting itself upon us again.

If the great essential truth about terrorism is that some people just hate the United States, the obvious next question is, Why? But that is precisely the question that offends the All-About-Evil crowd, because it leads in two unacceptable directions. One is toward psychology, attempting to understand how a human mind could plot the deaths of so many innocents and/or gladly die in carrying it out. "Root causes" is what this kind of thinking is called in the context of domestic social issues like crime and welfare, and conservatives regard it as a major liberal disease, with symptoms that include coddling criminals and forgiving sloth.

If the subjective basis for terrorists hating America is off limits for consideration, that would seem to leave the objective basis: Is it something we did, or didn't do, to them or theirs? But this violates the ancient conservative taboo (c. 1984, styling by Jeane Kirkpatrick) against "blaming America first." So, check and mate: Terrorism is evil, evil, evil—gosh, it's evil—and there's nothing else to discuss.

This is an astonishingly philistine, know-nothing posture for a group of people (mostly neoconservative would-be muscular-intellectual types) who generally preen as the guardians of intellectual standards. They are so afraid of the fallacy of "tout comprendre c'est tout pardoner" that they fall right into it: In order to avoid the danger that understanding terrorism might lead to excusing terrorism, they put understanding itself beyond the pale. This is not just anti-intellectual, but actually a hindrance to the war on terrorism. Blocking any deeper understanding of the terrorist's mentality and motives cannot be good for the war effort. Using the word "evil" to resist any more complex understanding of terrorism is doubly philistine because of what the study of evolutionary psychology is learning about how much of human behavior is hard-wired into our brains. Ordinarily conservatives are quite thrilled by the idea of a genetic basis for nearly anything and eager to accuse liberals of refusing to face the truth. The whole subject appeals to their treasured sense of futility. In this case, though, it is conservatives who are hiding from science. Advances in our understanding of the brain do indeed pose a challenge to the moral concept of blame or fault or guilt or, yes, even evil. But the challenge is not necessarily insurmountable. (Robert Wright explores and explains all this in his wonderfully lucid book, The Moral Animal.) In any event, wrapping yourself in the flag and burying your head in the sand—please take a moment to imagine Bill Bennett in this condition—is not an appropriate way to deal with an unwelcome philosophical challenge. It may not be evil, but it isn't very nice.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Michael Kinsley is a columnist for Time and the founding editor of Slate.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Notes From The Fray Editor:

While Kinsley's loyal readers welcomed back his fightin' spirit, there several well-crafted objections. Zathras offered up some root causes any conservative (save Bennett) could love; Joe explained—in a more measured way than some—how efforts to understand can cause more damage than they prevent. Gene made a liberal version of Joe's argument—that the rhetoric of "evil" makes retaliation easier—while Sarvis offered a more cynical version.

Remarks From The Fray:

Say, for example, we consider among subjective root causes the idea that young Saudi or Egyptian males raised to put a low value on the lives of non-Muslims and to see killing themselves as religiously significant as long as they also kill someone else are rather more likely than other people to want to fly planes into buildings. Or, what about the idea that Western economies and to a lesser extent Western popular culture dominate a modern world in which Arab Muslims find it difficult to fit either their religion or their political habits, and some of them choose to indulge hatred against Westerners and especially Americans rather than accept responsibility for their own shortcomings.

You won't find too many conservatives unwilling to discuss either of these possibilities, though a few philistines like William Bennett may insist that murdering large numbers of people is just wrong and evil and incompatible with civilization as understood by anyone (what a killjoy that guy is). For Mike Kinsley and perhaps a few other people, though discussing these ideas is beyond the pale -- it smacks of insensitivity, even racism, as well as the unsophistication of blaming terrorism mostly on the terrorists.

I would find this less odd if I thought Kinsley's opinion of extreme Islamism or the more backward elements of Arab Muslim culture was any higher than William Bennett's. It almost certainly is not. It may not be as high. Whatever it is, he may not speak it aloud as long as there are domestic conservatives to accuse of philistinism, unsophistication and -- most damningly -- of not being very nice.

-- Zathras

(To reply, click here.)


When terrorist groups claim to be acting on behalf of the downtrodden, their supporters use vague language, such as "we need to understand the root causes" or "poverty causes violence" to create confusion and delay--delay that leads to more death and the growing power of those who would force their terror on us. Intellectuals asked us to try to understand what Germany wanted in the years prior to WWII. Their talking and attempts at diplomatic solutions through the League of Nations, for instance led to delays at a crucial time--and allowed Hitler and Mussolini to grow in power.

Kinsley acts as if it's only conservatives who are oversimplifying the discussion. They may be trying to shout down objections, but they aren't the only ones who think the problem of terrorism can be reduced to simple formulas. Still, when they argue that evil is sometimes clear and that it doesn't always need to be carefully examined when it presents itself clearly, they may be closer to the mark.

-- Joe

(To reply, click here.)


"Saddam is an Evil-doer". Its almost as if Bush thinks these people are freaks of nature, that are basically not people at all. He seems to have concluded from 9-11 that our goal should be to find them and kill them before they hurt us. To him it's as simple as that.

He isn't concerned that an attack on Iraq will likely feed the flames of anti-Americanism, and that anti-Americanism is what is so dangerous to our security. He doesn't understand that the best thing we can do to rebuild al-Qaida now is to attack Iraq without any real provocation.

As freaks of nature in Bush's mind, nothing we do will actually increase their numbers. We can only decrease their numbers by identifying them and killing them.

Hussein had chemical weapons at his disposal during the Gulf War and he chose not to use them. He understood that if he did use the chemical weapons, we would have finished him off. It's apparent that Hussein has a better understanding of repercussions then Bush has. Now that is a scary thought.

-- Gene

(To reply, click here.)


I am not so sure. Given that most of Bush's inner circle has had business dealings, weapons parties, and diplomatic teas with Saddam over the years, I think they have a pretty good idea of Saddam's human dimensions.

What they DO believe is that a critical part of human nature requires dehumanizing of the opponent. This is an ancient essential element of propaganda. And propaganda is the ONLY thing this administration really believes in.

-- Sarvis

(To reply, click here.)

(9/20)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Assessing Sarah Palin
| Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, John Podesta and others weigh in.
Colbert King: She's No HillaryEditorial: Is She Ready for This?
PLUS » PostPartisan: Quick Takes from Opinions