57 online
 
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 41 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Life Arts    H4'ed 10/14/11

Alan Wolfe on Political Evil (BOOK REVIEW)

By       (Page 3 of 11 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.   2 comments
Message Thomas Farrell
Become a Fan
  (22 fans)

Subsequently, Wolfe says, "Not everyone shares the conviction that evil lurks within each of us, just waiting for its chance to burst out in acts of intentional cruelty or indifference to mass atrocity" (pages 81). This statement appears to be consistent with the previously quoted statement.

 

However, in discussing former President George W. Bush's use of the term "evil" as a noun, as distinct from an adjective modifying a noun, Wolfe also says, "the really important struggle in which Christians must engage lies not in defeating external evil but in recognizing the capacity for evil we have inside ourselves" (page 83). This statement seems to imply that Wolfe is himself a Christian who understands the traditional Christian doctrine of original sin. But this statement strikes me as being at odds with the two previously quoted statements that Wolfe makes.

 

Later, Wolfe says, "Whether inside us or out in the world, evil cannot be tolerated [by people who see themselves as dedicated to fighting evil], yet, unless we are capable of either transforming ourselves into sinless creatures or rendering the entire world anew, evil will have to be tolerated" (page 111). The first part of this sentence appears to be a critique of people who see themselves as dedicated to fighting evil such as former President George W. Bush. The next part of the sentence mentions the hypothetical possibility of somehow transforming ourselves into sinless creatures, showing thereby that the doctrine of original sin does not apply to us -- an impossibility. But this is as impossible as it would be impossible to render the entire world anew, leading Wolfe to conclude that "evil will have to be tolerated." Amen, I say to this conclusion.

 

Later on, after mentioning Lyndon Johnson and Dean Rusk and others, Wolfe says, "Their great mistake was simply the misuse of an analogy [with appeasement at Munich]" (page 139). But I am criticizing Wolfe's misuse of analogy by connecting Bush's use of the stark contrast between good and evil with Mani's teachings.

 

Apart from digressing about Mani and his teachings and influence, what exactly is Wolfe objecting to in Bush's way of thinking and talking about evil?

 

In a context in which Wolfe is not discussing Bush, Wolfe says, "As I have tried to stress, terrorism is a form of political evil rather than an embodiment of evil per se" (page 147). For Wolfe, Bush's way of talking about evil refers to evil per se. But Wolfe wants to hold out for discussing political evil, rather than discussing evil per se. Good distinction, eh?

 

However, regardless of whatever Wolfe's position may be concerning evil in individual persons, I hold that every single person is NOT born virtuous. Nobody is born virtuous. In short, every single person is born with a capacity for evil. The capacity for evil is an aspect of our human nature.

 

Nevertheless, I have no serious quarrel with Wolfe's points about how certain leaders take charge of state means of coercion to build up bureaucratic means for carrying out massive political evil, as Hitler and Stalin did in their respective countries.

 

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Thomas Farrell Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

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; Ph.D.in 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...)
 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

 
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

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?

Celebrating Walter J. Ong's Thought (REVIEW ESSAY)

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

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

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

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend