Bush's So Called "War Against Evil"

by Richard L. Franklin
4/27/07

"Demagogue" is often applied to one who spouts spurious oratory that nonetheless is emotionally stirring. We think of people such as Hitler, Mussolini, or the American neofascist Father Coughlin when we use words such as 'demagogue' or 'demagoguery'. These three men had an oratorical gift, which is why I never feel totally comfortable referring to the inarticulate Bush as a 'demagogue', most notably when he speaks off the cuff. In either case, his language is nonetheless often marked by some of the classic devices of demagoguery.

Such is the case when Bush takes a shot at those who question his reasons for the so-called 'war' in Iraq and Afghanistan. A growing number of Americans are coming to realize that the supposed ongoing 'war' is not even a real war. It's a bloody, imperialistic occupation of another country. A growing number of Americans are beginning to suspect the massive bloodshed and destruction inflicted on Iraq is being done simply to create a permanent outpost for Imperial America in the Middle East. As more Americans are becoming suspicious of what the cabal in the White House is up to, Bush is forced to fall back more heavily on the most common tools of jingoistic demagoguery, even though he scarcely has the verbal ability to become a true demagogue in the tradition of a Hitler or a Father Coughlin.

One of the most absurd examples of his rhetoric take place when he turns to an old and reliable obfuscatory term, namely "evil". When asked by reporters what the purpose of the current war is, he has more than once replied, "This is a war against evil." That kind of response seems to be extremely handy for putting a damper on any follow up questions. Reporters never follow up be asking Bush or Rice or Cheney what they mean by "evil".

Of all the words of the demagogic vernacular, "evil" is the most meaningless, yet one of the most emotionally charged words used by demagogues --- which is why they love using it.

So what exactly is an "axis of evil"? It admittedly sounds nasty, dangerous, and dark. We tend to feel we had best keep a wary eye on the members of an axis of evil and even keep ourselves primed for preemptive wars.

Well, it's time we called Bush on this kind of language. More exact parsing of comments and defining of words need to be somehow injected into public discourse. Rational thinking and speaking are absolutely essential in a democracy. Democratic theory has always embraced rational thinking as a core element of its very being. Never forget that democratic theory came primarily out of the Enlightenment, and rationality was a defining characteristic of that age. The whole democratic ethos is directed toward rational, open, lucid public discourse.

I propose a small start. Let's begin with the noun "evil". This word does not refer to anything among the furniture of the Universe. It is an absolutely empty term. It cannot properly refer to a single concrete object in the world. It does not. and cannot, denote a thing. It can only vaguely connote a vague darkness or diabolism. It also admittedly suggests a powerful dislike or fear on the part of the speaker, but tells us little more. In practice, it's main purpose is to stir up negative emotions about persons or events, thereby gaining popular support for killing or imprisoning people or making radical societal changes that serve a ruling class..

Once strong, negative emotions are stirred up, demagogues use these feelings to generate popular support for such niceties as foreign wars, empire building, concentration camps, torture, and the elimination of civil liberties at home.

Philosophers refer to "evil" as a reification. Put more simply, the word "evil" has no referent whatsoever. It refers to no more than empty air, or perhaps some kind of amorphous, veiled, supposedly pernicious phantasm. We never know, even murkily, what that something is. We only know it is very, very bad, and we must destroy it before it destroys us.

The pure relativity of the word "evil" becomes evident when we note that Hitler was adored as a savior by millions, while still more millions came to see him as a dangerous menace to civilization. Those who adored him saw him as a good man, a veritable savior of the German people, while his detractors labeled him as an "evil" maniac; however, those who described him as mentally ill and being an extreme danger to world peace were actually saying something.

Those who label certain criminals of the world as little Hitlers in order to suggest those people are "evil", really are not saying anything more than something like, "I hate those people". The term "evil" places targeted individuals or groups into groups who require some attention, but does little to rationally understand or effectively deal with such people.

This brings me back to Bush's "war against evil". What has been spent in the way of treasure, human life, and the prestige of America is incalculable. It therefore would be prudent to be precise about exactly what it is that we have bought for ourselves with these enormous costs. Saying we are being called upon to fight "a war against evil" is pure, unadulterated, manipulative propaganda, calculated to stir up emotions of fear and hatred. Popular attention is thusly turned from such horrors as America's genocidal policies and its role in global poisoning.

Amorphous, elastic, non-denotative words are worthless noises. When Bush tells us the current, so-called "war against evil" will protect us from mushroom clouds, he has drained a blatant lie of any meaning whatsoever by framing it within a "war against EVIL". We have no idea what he has said. Is such meaningless speech worth spending lives and treasure upon? Is it worth the devastation of our economy for decades to come? Is it worth massive destruction of environments for millions of years to come?

As my final look at the word "evil" (or its close relative, the word "bad"), permit me to offer this prosaic example of what such words really mean, assuming they mean anything at all. Suppose you decide to make a lemon pie. To do so, you buy lemons and sugar. If the lemons turn out to be saccharin sweet, you would probably label them as "bad" because they failed to answer your interest in having tartness in your pie. If the sugar turned out to be tart, you would probably label it as "bad" because it failed to answer your interest in having sweetness in your pie.

So what does this suggest about these appellations? It simply tells us that "good" and "bad" have no core meaning other than being an indication that X does or does not answer to certain wishes or interests a person has. It's really that simple. I kid you not.

Beware of the "fog of war", and try to avoid contributing to that fog with this kind of metaphysical nonsense or to allow semantic folderol to confuse your own thinking about what your government is doing or not doing. Those who use empty terms such as "evil" should be called upon to give us real, tangible reasons for their acts. We must challenge the penchant of the White House illusionists to make meaningless noises with their mealy mouths.

Richard L. Franklin is the author of 'The Mythology of 'Self-Worth'