Is evil a purely religious concept?

Tonight I had to chuckle because some guy attempting to report on developments in the war with Iran said the following with respect to Trump:

This is all very tongue-in-cheek, but I’d argue that if we understand Trump through the lens of Erich Fromme’s diagnostic label of “malignant narcissist” (narcissistic, sociopathic, and sadistically cruel, basically), if we see him as singularly and spectacularly … dare I say it? … evil – then we can start to get our arms around it. And I’d argue that this doesn’t require resorting to the supernatural; although the alien “feel” of the concept – the way evil people seem inhuman – certainly temps us to assign some occult wellspring to it, but we needn’t do so.

Throughout history there have, in fact, been people who are “evil”, who have crossed some sort of rubicon where they take pleasure in destroying things and harming people. And we ignore this at our peril because “good” people have a great deal of difficulty understanding evil people or predicting their actions, simply because the evil are so untethered from any sense of empathy or common humanity and actually derive nourishment from things that would make most people feel debased. They truly do live in the “upside down” if you will.

When you think about it, this kind of dysfunction is never sustainable, so only a handful of people with particular abilities can rise to prominence and power for a time and appear for awhile to “succeed” at it. From the time Hitler rose to power until he put a bullet in his own head was only about a dozen years or so. Trump is even more time-limited due to his age and deteriorating mental and physical health, although you could argue he’s already been wielding political power for over a decade now – a decade we will never get back and that will be the work of generations to recover from – if in fact we ever truly do.

I other words evil – the kind that casually kills or torments people in mass quantities, as Trump has already done (think of the consequences of shutting down USAID alone, or his outsourcing of torture gulags to places like El Salvador, or his project of constructing prisons to put people in without due process or access to medical care) – exists whenever a person who has a talent for getting his own way without remorse is handed the reigns of power. The scope of the evil is basically the scope of the power. If you are the head of a religious cult you can fleece everyone and then when eventually the walls start to close in, get everyone to commit suicide. If you’re the head of a powerful country you can traumatize the populace (your own, and others) and start senseless wars and build dungeons and so forth.

I regard evil not as a mysterious force so much as the error of enabling the unrepentantly selfish to get their own way and allowing (or giving!) them access to unaccountable power over others.

Or maybe there’s a more accurate word than “evil” but I doubt there is one more evocative. But I’m curious what others think.

The existence of evil is one reason I believe a level of justice proportionate to this evil must come to pass if we have any hope of recovering from this. Some have described this as an “American Nuremburg”. Without that, the massive moral injury we are now enduring will never be healed.

1 Like

The moron hardly pays attention in his own briefings and seems uninterested in effectively governing the country. Being virtually asleep at the wheel and an active evildoer are incompatible.

I would suggest that it’s the very powerful people who supported and enabled Orange because they wanted to see what they could get out of him who are… malicious. I’ll call it malicious.

That hideous decay at the core of the U.S. political system is where the focus may be better placed, IMHO.

1 Like

Malicious is a good word, arguably less freighted with baggage. I like it.

I think the GOP embraced Trump and is enabling him because it serves their ends, and yes Trump is undisciplined, ignorant, etc. However … he also enjoys fantasizing about shooting and otherwise brutalizing people, and enjoys dominating and doesn’t care who it hurts (or kills) and literally cares about nothing but his own self-gratification. So it’s hard to tell whether Trump, the GOP, or specific lickspittles in the administration are more malicious. Maybe it takes all of the above, and they both need and deserve each other.

Also to the point of the quote in my OP, if Trump were merely incompetent, you would expect him to accidentally do something right or even neutral with regularity. So no, he’s malicious in his own right, because he invariably chooses the most destructive option.

Like so many before you, you touched upon it in your OP;

The key word here is, I think, malignant. In the same way a cancerous tumour is malignant. There is no purpose to a cancer, it’s just there, and it seemingly pops up at random. The causes may be external (like carcinogens, radiation, virus infections), and sometimes internal (cell mutations) with an enabler (genetic disposition). Cancer is malignant, as it slowly destroys its host organism from within. It does not aim to do so, it just does, by the very characteristics it has that makes us attach the label “malignant” to it. The parallels to Trump are uncanny. Add incompetence, and we can call it “malignant incompetence”.

1 Like

Is surely a subjective notion? Perhaps it would be better to focus on actions, rather than the person as well, generic labelling is after all a mainstay of Trump’s rhetoric. It is unlikely to gain any traction from supporters who hold the ill-informed idea that they need a champion (Trump) to battel against the (evil) things he then proceeds to demonise by playing on their base fears, and prejudices.

The problem is that justice is also a subjective concept, but it is fair to point out that there were other options here, before military intervention was even considered. Trump also might have sought help and opinions of allies before starting military action, rather than berating them after the fact. This unilateral decision again points to someone who tends towards autocracy, as a narcissist undoubtedly would when given any kind of power.

It’s worth remembering that (roughly) have of voting Americans chose to opt out of democracy here in favour of a man who had shown nothing but contempt ofr it, it’s processes, safeguards, the constitution and his oath of office. Labelling him generically with terms like evil isn’t going to dent that, at least I don’t think it is.

It’s perhaps an apropos comparison: “Judge Hebert likens knowledgeable participation in an aggressive war to a criminal act, namely murder. He states that the law must function as a deterrent to those willing and able to participate in such an aggressive war.”

Now is Senator Palpatine causing or preventing one? Best to start with the facts there, otherwise any supporters will simply point to the regime he claims to want to change as “evil”, and your arguments is on the back foot straight away, given the nature of the regime. Was military intervention on such a scale his only option? I’d have to say I am dubious, if so then at what point did decide the regime had to be changed, after he’d run for President on an anti-war ticket?

His likely motives here seem to have little to do with the nature of the regime in Tehran, given the way he has sucked up to Putin, and paradoxically treated Zalinski.

I had in mind more Trump’s full range of outrages, not primarily the war in Iran.

I think that when it comes to people like Trump, it’s helpful to recognize that they are outliers, unusual, even somewhat unique. That level of malice and incompetence and ignorance is not often seen. And at some point it tips over into a rarified realm that we’ve seen too often in history but tend to discount when actually confronted with it. If the term “evil” helps people stiffen their resolve to oppose it with everything they’ve got, then I’m okay with it – but as I conceded, “malicious” might be a less freighted or religiously colored / dependent term. Although still less evocative.

That IMO makes this an existential struggle. The Iranian war only makes it not just our problem (or for that matter, just us and the Iranians; the whole world is severely impacted, and it’s a perfect illustration for why war in the modern interdependent / interconnected world doesn’t make even economic or political sense).

One helpful principle is that with Trump particularly, “every accusation is a confession”. He projects constantly, without knowing he’s doing it, and in so doing telegraphs his every whim (I do not dignify it with the word “plan”) and usually what he is currently actually up to.

I don’t think the US can take three more years of this and survive. Maybe not even another year. And I’m not sure there’s any longer a viable path to quickly and decisively deal with him ourselves. The mid term elections could clean the GOP’s clock and set off a cascade of collapse in the GOP – or they might not happen at all. I wouldn’t count anything out at this point.

The other democracies are finally realizing they can’t appease or work with America and assume “regular order” or the appearance of it. Now I just wish they would invade us and depose this fucker. I’d rather the West have what’s left of our treasure than Russia and China. I’m not asking to be rescued, I’m asking the West to do what must be done to save ITSELF.

I would argue “evil” is an over simplification, as it distills it into a binary moral option that misses the deeper complexity of their personality.

While not formally in the DSM-5, the Dark Triad and Dark Tetrad are classified as subclinical personality constructs. They are as follows:

Dark Triad: Rating high in Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy

Think Napoleon or Nixon.

Dark Tetrad: Rating high in Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy with the inclusion of Sadism.

Think Vlad the Impaler or Caligula.

Either group is only interested in what directly benefits them and will use any tactic or method that achieves that end. The Triad group does not intend to overtly hurt anyone, they just don’t care who gets hurt along the way. The Tetrad crowd doesn’t care either, but they take a delight in directly hurting others.

I would place Trump in with the Dark Tetrad crowd.

As far as his competence…well, that has never been Donald’s strong suit. He may even be the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect… He reminds me of King Lear as he ages. It has an ironic twist in that he is a man of grandiose words slowly sinking into aphasia.

As much as I’d love to see JB Pritzker as attorney general in 2029 to hang all of these MAGA assholes by the short hairs…I don’t believe we’ll ever see it. A few aides may go to prison, others may be professionally destroyed, but there will likely be no great accounting of Trump and his ship of fools.

1 Like

Most western democracies likely have one eye on the end of this presidency, and they’re trying to manage the manchild in the White House, and the damage as best they can. It’s almost comical that Senator Palpatine thought he could talk about leaving NATO, without the consent of Congress, unilaterally start a war in the middle east that has global ramifications, and then sulk when allies he didn’t care to consult don’t immediately offer unconditional help he’s asking for, doubly so when you consider how he has betrayed Ukraine, to the slavering attentions of Putin.

I guess that depends what you mean by survive, the problem of how much power should reside in Congress and how much in the President is not a new one, but the last three Presidents all pushed the outside of the envelope there, even Obama, whose campaign promised the exact opposite.

Palpatine is of course rhetorically even more aggressive than his predecessors and the most defiant of Congress and the internal checks within the executive branch. The courts are already flooded with lawsuits involving the removal power, the authority to unilaterally revise immigration policy, the scope of the pardon power and authority over criminal investigations, his abrupt shifts in foreign policy and his compliance with the emoluments clause, to name a few. And who knows what there is to come?

I think the best way to view the problem of checking the executive powers of the Presidency is in a non-partisan way. And the problem of has a particular President abused this, is of course separate from whether too much power resides in the office of President.

FYI I despise Trump, as a human being and as a politician, and I quite liked Obama, but the powers of the presidency do not fluctuate according to partisan preferences, so there are two separate issues for me, one involving my subjective political and moral views, and the other a legal and constitutional one.

You are correct it’s an old debate, going all the way back to Hamilton (in favor of a strong, almost dare I say “unitary” executive) & Jefferson (embraced rather than feared protest movements) – with Aaron Burr filling a Trump-like role in that drama, except that he never made it into power. What that proves is that the Founders were certainly aware of the existence of people like Trump, and he’s nothing totally new under the sun.

Yes they are two separate issues and the question of how much power should reside in the executive is not a partisan question. Obama in fact actually deported substantially more immigrants than Trump has – though he managed to do so without universally and fully denying them due process.

So this FAFO moment for the US is not entirely the responsibility of the GOP. It is a structural weakness that Democrats AND Republicans have opportunistically leveraged – to our everlasting shame.

Don’t forget the role of the voting public, and the golden rule…”people is dumb”.

Tell them what they want to hear, play on their basest fears and prejudices, and you’re half way there, rhetoric is a very powerful tool, especially in the hands of people who lack any scruples.

I agree that is the most likely outcome, given that so many Democrats even now seem to not really understand (or at least not to care about) how to meet the moment in most other ways as well. The Dems who take campaign $ from corporations and outfits like AIPAC – which is most of them – have shown little evidence that they’re re-evaluating their priorities and principles, and even those who are, see it as a temporary calculus, just another manifestation of them blowing with the wind.

Progressives are gaining considerably in this environment and a number of youngsters coming up through the ranks have acquitted themselves very well, and have pulled off, or very nearly pulled off, a number of upset victories. If only via the Old Guard gradually dying off, they would eventually dominate, and then it would only be a question of whether the system would succeed in corrupting and subsuming them once in power (and how quickly).

The problem is that there isn’t time for that to play out incrementally.

The U.S. has never in its history been the country so many in it espouse it to be. There are far too many selfish bigots in it who at every turn, do something to block what are in reality the fairy tales of freedom and prosperity for all.

2 Likes

It took 40 years of political polarity with 10 years of bad legislation, a bad supreme court decision and outright violence to bring America to a Civil War. Oddly, it was an election that drove the final nail in…

Even allowing for social acceleration we still have 5-10 years left before things get terminal. If they do become terminal, it must mean the system could no longer support the sovereign weigh of morality and power.

If I hear the phrase “this isn’t who we are” one more time, I will die of terminal barfing. You are absolutely correct, and our failure to address this is why it keeps coming up.

1 Like

Machiavellian, to be precise…

One could also say “malevolent” but that’s leaning more into a moral judgment again.

Of course there’s the old dictum, “never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity” but it seems clear by now that Trump is not merely stupid and certainly not hapless. He’s actively drawn to harming others and oblivious to any knock on effects, even those that will eventually impact him. He clearly does not consider himself part of the human family except as a competitor to anyone who’s not himself, and that competition is to him a zero-sum game.

Trump is the puppet in all of this. His time will come when his utility and ROI tank. His rantings, tariffs, wars…all a cost of doing business. Collateral damage. Business is good…for the ones that own the multi-nationals…

I take your point, but business is also good for Trump personally, in terms of personal wealth (a major measure of his self worth), narcissistic supply, and enjoyment of dominance and cruelty.

At this moment, Trump holds actual power, and the multi-nationals and tech bros and so forth are playing a dangerous, calculated game where they could be harmed by Trump on a whim or by his stupid policy decisions, but they are gambling they will end up with a net gain.

This is largely a tactic that the tech bros are more comfortable with because of their bias toward disruption and clearing away of obstacles but it’s less comfortable for oligarchs in other industries who might prefer stability or at least a more measured approach. Also they would rightly discern that the tech oligarchs seem THEM as among the obstacles to be cleared.

It will certainly be interesting to see who blinks first. If indeed anyone does … it has always been true that the wealthy think they can control political power and public sentiment. They can’t always.

I would argue that things got terminal a long time ago. Perhaps as long as 250 years ago. This whole political system grew out of power in the hands of rich, white males and despite attempts to correct that, it has never fully shuffled off that yoke.

1 Like

Picture Republicans, the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025, monied elites as Franz von Papen and Trump\MAGA as Hitler\NAZI.

Any agenda you want installed you need two things. An electable figurehead and a figurehead that is willing to do anything you ask once elected.

Trump is that figurehead…in spades…

It’s purely a transactional arrangement. As von Papen found out, sometimes installing crazy has a downside. Republicans have discovered that fact, too…

Sure , Trump is getting rich. He can smear his orange ass with crabmeat…as long as tax legislation favors the 1%, regulations are stripped from corporations and money is cheap in the financial markets.

Once he installs his Fed Chair he can deliver on the third promise.

The top 1% of individuals control 31.7% of all wealth in America. The top 1% have obtained 1,000 times more wealth per household than the bottom 20% since 1989.

These are the ones you need to be worried about. As Carlin said, these are the “owners of this country.” Until they get pissed, Orangzilla can run amok all day.

My barometer for any politician who wants to “save” this country, lead the charge on reversing Citizens-United. Repeal the PLCAA, Section 230 & FISA.

And you won’t see a politician like that, either…