When Evil Itself Becomes the Primary Foe

On Friday, George W. Bush made as broad and epic a statement as a president could. In the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, he said, “Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil.”

Repeatedly characterizing the tragic events and the forces behind them as “evil” and “evildoers,” Bush has given his rhetoric biblical, even mythic, resonance. In times of war and international conflict, foes often are characterized as evil--Ronald Reagan famously referred to the Soviet Union as the “Evil Empire”--but historians could not recall a president naming evil itself as his primary opponent.

Even when compared with President Wilson’s pledge to make the world safe for democracy, Bush’s declaration could seem symbolic of the very hubris that critics of the United States claim engendered the hatred behind the attacks.

Still, while some religious leaders, historians and cultural analysts feel that Bush may be overstating the country’s mandate and its capability, others believe he is well within the boundaries of appropriateness--as long as he recognizes the power of the sentiment such words evoke and shows responsibility in quantifying his goals as time goes on.

“The targeting of innocent citizens in peacetime fits everyone’s definition of ‘evil,’ ” said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Weisenthal Center in Los Angeles. “But once you invoke the term, you have a greater moral responsibility to make sure you’re not demonizing a people or a faith. Certainly, as rescuers continue to find body parts, as so many funerals take place with empty caskets, the word ‘evil,’ with all its dangers and connotations, seems perfectly appropriate.”

Although she too understands why last week’s horrors can evoke such a powerful word, Diana L. Eck, professor of comparative religion at Harvard University, cautions against its use as a rallying cry. “There is a danger using a term like this,” said the author of “A New Religious America.”

“It signifies the worst that we can imagine. ‘Evil’ is a crusading term.”

The president’s pledge to “rid the world of evil,” she said, “is not a response that is possible by human beings. That is beyond what we can do.” In fact, she thinks the president should reconsider his use of war rhetoric altogether. “I think that the language of crime is very good for this,” she said. “This is a crime against innocent human beings.”

Robert Schmuhl, a professor of American Studies at the University of Notre Dame, cannot think of any other president who has gone so far in retaliatory rhetoric. Reagan, he said, vilified the “Evil Empire,” but then “evil” was an adjective, not a noun.

The president, he suggested, should keep in mind that the international community may not be willing to join what essentially is a crusade. “And as religious leaders will tell you, there are many other forms of evil beyond what we witnessed last week, as horrible as it was.”

William Epps, pastor of Second Baptist Church in Los Angeles, agreed. “You cannot diminish how awful this deed is, but [Bush] should quantify it as the evil of terrorism. You’re not going to eradicate evil. The evil of terrorism maybe. [The evil] of drugs, maybe, but evil? We have to look at what we’ve done to incur the anger and wrath of others.”

Yet, some think Bush has indeed chosen carefully, and chosen well.

“ ‘Evil’ is not a subtle word,” said Barbara Wallraff, a linguist and senior editor at the Atlantic Monthly. “But this is not a subtle moment. It makes a lot of sense that he would choose that word, would choose to repeat that word.”

When she heard Bush vowing to find and punish the evildoers, she said, she thought his language sounded a bit “antique and biblical,” but as a politician, Bush’s task is to set up a campaign that is above criticism. “And no one is going to disagree with being against evil,” Wallraff said. “It’s a carefully chosen word, because we don’t know who exactly we’re up against and we don’t want to tie it to Islam, even Islamic extremists. . . . Certainly we’re leaning on the Taliban, but we want them to go along with us. When you think about it, he couldn’t have chosen a better word.”

While Bush’s first use may have been a gut reaction, his subsequent repetitions have been undoubtedly calculated. According to Stuart Spencer, a political consultant who worked with President Reagan, political figures tend to choose words that have particular personal definitions but use them strategically. When Reagan decided to call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire, Spencer said he was nervous. “I didn’t think the American public would accept it.”

But many of them did, and Spencer believes they also understand exactly what Bush means by his words. “He is making a point that these are evil people; they don’t do things in an upfront manner.”

Historian Simon Schama thinks anyone who is arguing semantics at this point “should take a powder.” During a segment on Canadian radio, he said, he took issue with English writer Margaret Drabble over this very subject.

“Margaret Drabble said it was unhelpful, and I got rather angry at this. For one thing, if this isn’t evil, then I don’t know what is. And if people are going to use superlatives, if people like Drabble are going to say super-super-naughty-wicked-bad--and they are--then they might as well say ‘evil.’ ”

Bush, he said, could be “a bit more economical” in his use of the word. The author of “Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution,” Schama thinks what has happened, and what is yet to happen, is far more complicated than a battle between good and evil. “Basically this is a rejection of the ‘Enlightenment,’ ” he said. “Voltaire saw the main conflict as being between societies of tolerance and societies of obedience. That is what we’re facing. [The terrorists] want us dead because we’re unacceptably tolerant.”

For Muslims everywhere, the idea of a war on evil likely evokes many emotions, not the least of which is fear. “My concern is when terms are used in such an open-ended way,” said Salam Al-Marayti, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Southern California.

“Then the fight is not just with the terrorists. It becomes larger [and] that is exactly what the terrorists want. Our policies should be aimed at the terrorists and not widening their audience.”

The need to make these distinctions and to express support for Muslims was recognized almost immediately by political leaders, including Bush, who visited a Washington mosque Monday afternoon. He denounced those who have directed their anger against Muslims in the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York City and the Pentagon.

“Muslim Americans make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country,” Bush said. “They need to be treated with respect.”

He then quoted the Koran: “In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil.”

*

Times staff writers J. Michael Kennedy and Cara Mia DiMassa contributed to this story.