Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 6 (6 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   2 comments

Life Arts

Alan Wolfe on Political Evil (BOOK REVIEW)

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 3 of 6 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H4 10/14/11

Become a Fan
  (21 fans)
- Advertisement -

But I cannot imagine that George W. Bush undertook to study Mani's work and influence, as Wolfe himself has. For this reason, I see Wolfe's learned discussion of Mani's thought and influence as a digression. Wolfe's learned discussion is tantamount to putting words in Bush's mouth. By associating Bush with Mani, Wolfe is carrying out an exercise in guilt by association.

Let's examine Wolfe's moves. Step one: Wolfe characterizes Bush's use of the terms "good" and "evil" to be Manichaean. Step two: In paragraph after paragraph Wolfe explicates Mani's teachings and his influence as though he (Wolfe) were alerting us to and forewarning us about the possible implications of Bush's Manichaean way of thinking.

In defense of his discussion, Wolfe would probably say that he is just drawing an analogy that might perhaps cast a broader light on Bush's Manichaean way of thinking. This is not an implausible line of argument.

However, in the context of discussing somebody else's use of analogies, Wolfe makes the following statements:

"But where there is a Holocaust analogy, must there be a Munich one [as well]? There is no logical reason why there should be: it does not follow that because Chamberlain's actions [in Munich] gave Hitler free rein to take over Czechoslovakia, domestic tyrants will always transform themselves into potential world conquerors" (page 131).

Amen, I say to Wolfe's reasoning here regarding the Munich analogy.

But let's go back to Bush and Mani. I have no problem with characterizing Bush's way of thinking about "good" and "evil," terms that he himself frequently used, as Manichaean. However, to quote Wolfe himself, "[t]here is no logical reason why there should be" any further connection between Bush's way of thinking in terms of stark contrasts and Mani's way of thinking.

Now, I would suggest a more neutral way of interpreting Bush's way of expressing himself regarding good and evil. My favorite author is the cultural historian and cultural theorist Walter J. Ong, S.J. (1912-2003). Among other things, Ong studied agonistic tendencies, most notably in his short book Fighting for Life: Contest, Sexuality, and Consciousness (Cornell University Press, 1981), the published version of Ong's 1979 Messenger Lectures at Cornell University.

- Advertisement -

For Ong, male agonistic tendencies involve the sense of adversativeness, the sense of being up against something.

For former President George W. Bush, good is up against evil.

Wolfe reports that Pete Singer "sarcastically dismissed Bush as "the president of good and evil'" (page 82).

Instead of sarcastically dismissing Bush as the president of good and evil, and instead of digressing about Mani and his influence, why not take Bush's own statements and claims and debate those?

To wit: "Bush says X is evil. But I [Alan Wolfe] say that X is not evil."

- Advertisement -

Or: "Bush says Y is good. But I [Alan Wolfe] say that Y is not good."

And so on.

If Bush is the leader of American counter-evil, then Bush as leader must make appeals to his followers, or else risk losing his followers.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6


Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Tell Liberals to Read Alan Wolfe's New Book

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

Thomas James Farrell is professor emeritus of writing studies at the University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD). He started teaching at UMD in Fall 1987, and he retired from UMD at the end of May 2009. He was born in 1944. He holds three degrees from Saint Louis University (SLU): B.A. in English, 1966; M.A.(T) in English 1968; higher education, 1974. On May 16, 1969, the editors of the SLU student newspaper named him Man of the Year, an honor customarily conferred on an administrator or a faculty member, not on a graduate student -- nor on a woman up to that time. He is the proud author of the book (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Was the Indian Jesuit Anthony de Mello Murdered in the U.S. 25 Years Ago? (BOOK REVIEW)

Who Was Walter Ong, and Why Is His Thought Important Today?

More Americans Should Live Heroic Lives of Virtue (Review Essay)

Martha Nussbaum on Why Democracy Needs the Humanities (Book Review)

Hillary Clinton Urges Us to Stand Up to Extremists in the U.S.

Matthew Fox's Critique of the Roman Catholic Church


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Because President Obama has been such a great disa... by Thomas Farrell on Friday, Oct 14, 2011 at 9:11:09 PM
re-elect more of the water torture? With the Repub... by David Weaver on Sunday, Oct 16, 2011 at 3:04:46 PM