I became aware of this article by Adam Wolfson because my wife knew him while she was in college. She thought I might be interested to see what he had written a few years back for the National Review, and she was right. It's actually a pretty interesting article, and at least gives a much-needed break to the old stand-by criticisms of liberal motivations, like hating America and wanting the terrorists to win. That doesn't mean it isn't deeply, deeply flawed. It is, and as usual for conservative analysis of liberals, is a gross simplification of liberal philosophy.
These explanations no doubt have something to do with why the Left despises Bush. But there is more to their hatred than is generally understood — something more fundamental is at work. Almost all modern liberal thought begins with the bedrock assumption that humans are basically good. Within this moral horizon something such as terrorism cannot really exist, except as a manifestation of injustice, or unfairness, or lack of decent social services. Whether knowingly or not Bush has directly challenged this core liberal belief — and for this he is not easily forgiven.
There's some truth to this. I'm certainly not ashamed to say that I think there are a lot of shades of grey between black and white. Anyone with any sense of empathy should be able to understand that humans are very seldom motivated by classic cartoon villainy, complete with black cape and drooping mustache. We all do things that we know we shouldn't. How often are you motivated to do so by a driving desire to be evil? Did you drive to work today at fifteen miles over the speed limit to further an agenda of evil? Did you engage in neighborhood gossip to further an agenda of evil? Did you steal a newspaper, cheat on your spouse, underpay an employee or omit undocumented income from your tax returns because you are a person driven by evil? It's unlikely, even though all those actions are, to some degree, evil. Why is it such a crazy, moonbat liberal idea that humans can do evil without being evil, when we each exemplify that type of human fallibility on a daily basis?
But what should be clear and obvious is made obscure by liberal ideology. If we are to face the evil in plain sight, we must first properly fit words to facts. Bush calls the terrorists "killers" and "evildoers," and speaks of an "axis of evil." He affirms the need for the "violent restraint of violent men," and argues that military strength is necessary to keep at bay "a chaotic world ruled by force." He describes life under Hussein's rule in Iraq as a "Baathist hell." We live, the president warns, in "a time of danger."
My wife assures me that Mr. Wolfson is a pretty intelligent guy. He very well may be, but it smacks of smarmy, self-righteous ignorance to so openly and warmly embrace this kind of irresponsible rhetoric. Using broad strokes to misrepresent situations teeming with nuance isn't the calling card of a brave leader; instead, it's the embarrassing tactic of a weak politician pandering to an anti-intellectual and increasingly xenophobic base.
It's not that liberals can't deal with evil. I agree that we may view evil in different terms, but I don't believe that we can't parse it and actively ignore it. We're just not willing to let the evils of others justify evil as a response. Are the terrorists "killers" and "evildoers"? Absolutely. Does that justify hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Civilian deaths as part of the response to their actions? Was Iraq under Saddam a "Baathist hell"? For some, I'm sure it was. Does that justify an occupation that has destroyed huge swaths of that nation while funneling its money into the pockets of American corporations? These are the questions that conservatives have to ignore, because the answers are so glaringly obvious, and yet their supportive philosophy is based on leaps of logic that fly counter to those answers. Only the most callous and desensitized conservative could actually claim that killing a house full of children with a missile in an attempt to kill one terrorist operative based on faulty and uncertain intelligence is justified. But by employing words like "evildoers", "violent men", and "Baathist hell", they manage to keep things in black and white, as if seeing it that way made it so.
This kind of thinking isn't only wrong. It's dangerous. It leads to leaps of logic that jeopardize our ability to accurately assess and respond to events. In the conservative worldview, it's easy to assume Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were working together. They were both evil men, so surely they would work together, just like the Joker and the Penguin, or Lex Luthor and General Zod. That they weren't fictional characters is irrelevant, since the conservative concept of evil men is very much the same as comic book villains. Sure, we went to war to a large extent based on that fictional alliance, but that's okay. Evildoers. Killers. Violent Men. You understand, we had no choice.
That's certainly not the only example. They're incredibly frequent. Let's not forget that Dick Cheney
assured us that it was "reasonable to believe" that the anthrax attacks of 2001 were perpetrated by Al Queda. And now, of course, we keep hearing that the government of Iran is aiding Al Queda, and that you don't need actual evidence, because it should just be
obvious. C'mon. Evil helps evil. When can we start bombing?
I realize this article is a few years old now, but it still seems very relevant; maybe even moreso than when it was written. The entire McCain campaign seems to be based on this same sort of thinking. Liberals are to wishy-washy to trust. We need a "straight talker". Somebody who can get the job done. Somebody who won't ask pesky questions about global responsibility and social justice. Someone who knows how to handle an evildoer. Because there are countries to be bombed, civilians to be killed, nationalism to be stoked, blood money to be made and resources to be stolen. We can't be bothered with morality.
