Went last weekend to the Traverse Area Library's "Cinema Curiosa", a monthly series with different films (largely documentary and very left-leaning) and really excellent cookies. Playing for February was "The Weather Underground", about the extreme SDS faction.
If you're not familiar with the Weatherman, you can check out Wikipedia's entry about them. I'm not one of those pointy-headed intellectuals who makes ridiculous statements like "Terrorism never accomplishes anything". This is plainly false, and many of the most effective freedom movements in history used tactics that would today be described as "terrorism". (See The American Revolution, Mandela, Zionism, and more.) But it rarely works without serious consequences and even more rarely has the planned or desired effect.
The most consistently useless approach is the idea that blowing up dozens (or more) people, related only obliquely to the concerns of the revolutionaries will "Wake People Up" and bring about the long awaited fighting in the streets. I can't think of any example in history when this did in fact occur, and yet revolutionaries still seem to accept it as gospel (much like free market theory, but that's a topic for another article.) This was the delusion of the Weathermen, and it was later shared by Tim McVeigh, and is still employed regularly by Palestinian terror groups.
The interesting question for me in all this: How does one get to the point where this is a reasonable belief? My hypothesis is that it is based largely on an ability to stop recognizing the humanity of the other side in a disagreement.*** A big part of preparing soldiers for war is getting them to stop seeing the enemy as human beings, but instead as animals or devils or something else beneath contempt. There are countless examples of this behavior in every war in history (somewhat apropos to the current situation, one of the primary methods for dehumanizing is political cartoons). It is to the credit of the liberal movements throughout history that they tend to resist this dehumanization the most. From Jane Fonda to Sean Penn, there is a history of refusing to recognize a military enemy as inhuman and without any rights.
But it seems that rarely do they give the same benefit of the doubt to their "political" enemies. I have heard more liberals decry the evil of President Bush than of al-Qaeda. Talk about moral relativism! It's not that they think al-Qaeda is just misunderstood, but they are much more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to them then they are to people who might live next door.
This phenomenon is not new, certainly beliefs were much the same about Nixon and Reagan and Bush's father. But it *does* seem to be accelerating. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I support all (or even most) of Bush's policies. I'm not saying that he is the greatest President (or even a particularly good one). What I am saying is that I don't think he's evil, or deliberately trying to ruin the country, or in any way on a moral plane with Osama bin Laden. And implying otherwise, even for laughs, is the first step on a path that decends to a very dark place.
***Much of this is based on Jonathan Glover's excellent book "Humanity", which goes into much more detail about how human being overcome their moral and ethical beliefs and still commit horrible acts. Highly recommended.
As an outraged lefty, (by Bush, not by this post) I feel compelled to respond to defend my honor a bit. Firstly, you are indeed correct. Bush is not on anything like the same plane of evil as Osama he is however a problem that I as a liberal may in some small way help to deal with. In my opinion, as a lefty, Bush is completely unwilling or unable to competently fight the war on terror. (And I do agree that it is a war) Since he is the commander in chief of the tools that our country maintains to deal with these kinds of threats, he is responsible for dealing with the threat. And he hasn't. I would argue that we are less safe than we were before 9/11 and that until Bush is out of office, there is little hope that the policies will get better. Is Bush evil or just incompetent? It doesn't really matter, because in the end, until we get a new president, the problem is not going to be dealt with.
Understood. Agreed, even. I am fully in support of questioning Bush's policies. I am fully in support of challenging his actions, and attempting to elect someone else (though I'll admit to being quite picky about who that someone else is... I do not subscribe to the "anybody but Bush" doctrine). What I cannot support is demonizing him, in moral, ethical or emotional ways.
I think there is a difference between whether he is evil or incompetent. And I think that equating them (I'm not saying that your comment does) is dangerous.
Something must be done with the war in Iraq, and it becomes clearer every day that this President is not doing it. But incompetence is far more likely a culprit, along with skewed priorities. And a big part of the reason that the man fails so seriously is that he insists on seeing everything as a battle between good and evil, instead of seeing any nuance. Making the same mistake in opposition can only make things worse.
Thanks for the comment.
I think a lot of people are outraged by the lack of leadership by Bush. However, I don't think he is evil, maybe a littel incompetent, but not evil. As far as the incompetence plays into his Presidency, he is one man in a very large institution that is an administration. In short I think his incompetency is not a factor in the running of the government.
This brings me to my point. I think the Bush administration is acting on a personal agenda, and they are probably keeping to that agenda. Like the Congressmen in the 1800's who owned the railroads, and aloted the railroads, or themselves if you want to put it that way, all that land to build on.
If this "war" on terror (how can you war on an idealism?!? maybe crusade agianst it), as I was saying...if this crusade of Bush's is a convience or an annoyance to him has yet to be seen, but I think he puts his own agenda first.
I think I know your answer to this, but I'll ask it anyway: is there, then, any use to the labels good and evil? What exactly do we mean when we call someone evil? Is it just a tool to get people to stop thinking and react emotionally, or are there definitional example of evilness?
There may be genuine examples of evil in the world, but I doubt very much that they are really "useful" for anything.
Here's the problem: "Evil" is a moral (not ethical) judgment. And in the first place, I doubt there is anyone on Earth capable of making a completely valid *moral* judgement. That requires understanding all the circumstances and experiences of a persons life, as well as an absolute sense of what acceptable means on a moral plane. And if you're generally capable of doing that you don't really need religion because you're probably already divine. (No doubt some of those free to make blanket moral judgements feel that they deserve worship [see: Pat Robertson]).
That aside, here's the real pragmatic problem. The second you make a moral judgement you're no longer capable of honest discussion. A moral judgement isn't a hypothesis, its a dictate. And much like discussing religion, there isn't any wiggle room. When a conversation begins with "I have faith and nothing that you say or show me will change my view" then there is no conversation to have, and the only outcome is separation or violence. And ultimately, even if it isn't attached to a specific belief system, a moral judgement is a faith-based proposition. Because it requires an absolute system of moral principles, which you in your head are responsible for maintaining.
That isn't useful for anything but stopping discussions and getting people killed. And if you look at the great examples of "evil" in the history of the world, you will generally find the evil one in question declaring someone else evil first. Thus the cycle begins and feeds on itself. It would be far more useful look at how to make the situation better than sitting back and passing sentence.
Which isn't to say that there isn't any utility in discussing *ethical* principles. Because ethics deal with how best to live with each other and is malleable to new information. And most important, it isn't at all concerned with who is or isn't going to a fiery hot place for eternity.