Should we call Bush "evil"?
In response to Glenn Greenwald's post about whether Manichean turnabout is fair play, when it comes from Bush detractors...
Calling Bush and his party "evil" is accurate but not sufficient.
I certainly agree that to say "he's evil, and that's that" is moronic and unproductive.
Also, I don't hold with those who think the evil and malfeasance are all about personal profit.
It appears to me that the Bushies' motivating force is that oft-cited Leo Strauss mentality -- the idea that there is a class of people who know what's best, the good people, and shifting power to those people (who, as it happens, are already quite powerful) is the best way to fight all the bad in the world. Little -- if any -- of his record contradicts that perception of his worldview.
The danger of the "that's that" mentality is that it does little to help us understand, communicate, and (if the fates and voters allow) undo the damage these bastards are wreaking upon our country.
The danger of not stressing the fundamental evil (or choose whatever comparable, non-moralistic language you prefer to describe non-stop lying, wanton killing, and active disregard for the less-fortunate) is that many folks are disillusioned with politics in general and respond to the Democrats' more-than-occasional acts of mediocrity with apathy or protest votes.
I think it's vitally important that the message be well understood that today's GOP has lost its DC privileges for the foreseeable future -- that is, if our American democracy is still capable of doing its job.
The choice isn't between two evils, or two mediocracies. One party has gone terribly, terribly wrong, and that needs to be much better and much more widely understood, through a combination of well-researched, nuanced analysis and plain talk about how historically terrible, untrustworthy, and dangerous this gang is.