Image via Wikipedia
There has always been a strand of Puritanism in American thought that survives in part as a Manichean division between good and evil. Rather than seeing the United States as a mixture of good and evil, many Americans see it as “the good guy” in the world with no major faults. Individuals who disagree are labeled as “unpatriotic,” told to “go to Russia,” or are called “America-haters.” Although I do not deny that there are individuals and groups of people who hate their country, not every critic of American practices hates the United States. Nor is someone who points out that there is much good in countries considered to be enemies of the United States, such as Iran. Many Americans want an overpowering, evil enemy state because many Americans are more Manichean, believing in sharp lines between good and evil, than they are Christian. Christianity recognizes that no being created by God is totally evil–traditionally, since evil is a lack of good, and thus a lack of being, a totally evil being could not exist. If Americans of all stripes are honest with themselves, they will see that they are capable of great evil. Philip Zimbardo, the Stanford psychologist who ran the Stanford Prison Experiment, showed how “good” people can turn evil when they have great power (as prison guards) over others (in this case, students who played the “prisoner” role). He notes the power of situational factors that can lead to a good person torturing and even killing innocent human beings.
Reinhold Niebuhr recognized that groups are capable of great evil just as individuals are, and Zimbardo’s work showed this to be the case. Nation-states are groups of people, and in any group unethical practices can arise that lead to people doing things that are evil under group pressure. No nation is immune to this. Was the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” as President Reagan affirmed? I would say “Yes,” with the qualification that there was good even in the old Soviet Union, and evil in the United States of America. In the War between the States, Generals Sherman and Sheridan engaged in the first modern war (with Lincoln’s endorsement)–both these generals and President Lincoln believed that war should be engaged against the civilian population. The brutality with which federal troops put down the anti-draft riots in New York as well as Sherman’s March to the Sea are evidence of the results. The United States Army was brutal in the Philippines war in the early part of the twentieth century, mowing down men, women, and children. The United States Army Air Corps engaged in the saturation bombing of Tokyo in March 1945, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by atomic bombs. President Roosevelt placed thousands of Japanese-American citizens in internment camps. In the Vietnam War, the United States dropped more tonnage of bombs than it did in the whole of World War II. The atrocities and torture in Iraq and Afghanistan (and in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba) are well known–torture has not been totally eschewed as the official policy of the United States, and the U.S. still sends prisoners to other countries to be tortured. Civil liberties, from the genocide of the American Indians to the mistreatment of the Irish, the Chinese, and of African-Americans, have not been uniformly honored in the United States. Does this mean the United States is an evil country? I do not think it is as evil as a totalitarian society such as the old Soviet Union or China under Chairman Mao, but it does mean that the notion of the United States as the paragon of virtue and (during the Cold War) the Soviet Union as the epitome of evil is a Manichean view that does not reflect the good and evil mixture found in all nation-states.
President George W. Bush held a simplistic, Manichean view of the world that many Americans eagerly followed. Saddam’s Iraq was an evil state, and the good United States was obligated to attack the evil state (at first for the alleged but missing “weapons of mass destruction” and then to “save the Iraqi people from Saddam”). Americans’ hubris was expanded by its view that it was the hero country liberating the Iraqi people from a Satanic dictator. Now Iran is the enemy, and the Neoconservative war cries are loud–and Americans are buying into the new lie as well. Yes, Iran’s president holds an evil position in his denial of the Holocaust. Nothing can justify his views, nor his support of the radical religious groups that have held the country hostage since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. However, Iran also has a working democracy, unlike many other states in the region, including states the United States supports. Israel has a vital interest in what Iraq does, and if Israel wants to defend its vital interests militarily, that is Israel’s task, not that of the United States. However, the Neoconservatives are appealing to American Manicheanism and demonizing Iran as the new “evil empire.” Hopefully Americans will see that all people are “fallen,” as well as all nation-states, and any positing of “We good, they bad” is misleading and leads to unnecessary wars and bad foreign policy decisions.
Gratiaetnatura's Blog 
Jan 10, 2012 @ 18:24:01
Sherman’s “March to the Sea” had a bona-fide (in the sense of good faith: in the sense of General Sherman’s intention as in Catholic moral theology) justification in just war theology, cf. John Keegan’s military history of the Civil War.
Sherman knew that Confederate commanders had the skills to maneuver outside of their supply lines and to get behind Union lines, most famously at Chancellorsville: but to do so, they had to live off the land. Therefore, Sherman made a military decision to destroy productive land and its crops so as to march to the sea.
This decision primarily harmed wealthy land-owners since ordinary people could refugee our and/or depend on Union troops for succor and trade. Those wealthy land-owners were paying for being both slave-owners and traitors, in Sherman’s mind.
Sherman and Grant were both moral men who hated war, whence Sherman’s “war is hell”. Whereas the Southern “cavaliers” glorified it and, up until the 1820s, the code *duello* both in contravention of Christian and Catholic moral teachings. John Calhoun used a pagan justification for slavery against which Spartacus prophetically revolted in the century before Christ: Calhoun said that the slave deserved her status.
The Union conducted itself with just-war forbearance. Grant and Sherman showed the Confederacy the consequences of rebellion using as little force as necessary, but that turned out to be a form of World War I trench warfare at the end.
Any “revisionist” hatred of Lincoln is just a repeat of his murder by Booth. Lincoln was our greatest President, but is hated by our rich because he was poor growing up. Grant was no great shakes as President but a military genius who like Eisenhower and unlike Patton, didn’t go about glorifying war. And Sherman was right.
War is hell.
Jan 14, 2012 @ 20:41:38
I prefer the idea that what is normally called evil is actually a great diminution of Being. Evil is boring. Bad people or people of bad habits are boring. Babies by contrast are very attractive due to the abundance of life and Being-ness. Whenever we do some regrettable thing we feel less alive and less radiant. I fear that the very notion of evil tends to create this polarization that makes people feel fine about maligning another people or persons and treating them or him as sub-human. I am not sure we accomplish anything worthwhile by repeating the name of Hitler or Stalin when we see someone whom we intensely dislike. As it turns out we did more harm to the Iraqis than Saddam Hussein. And a more diplomatic approach in Libya would have left many alive that are now dead. As regards Afghanistan something similar is true. Again it is best to talk of a person’s bad behavior rather than condemn the man by calling him bad. I believe Augustine adopted an idea similar to the above and maybe Boethius.
Jan 22, 2012 @ 14:49:49
Augustine indeed followed the Neoplatonists in holding that evil is the lack of good that belongs to an entity by nature. Aquinas later followed that position. To say that evil is an absence of good (which would also be an absence of “being” because goodness and being are convertible, is not to deny the reality of evil, but to deny its existence as a positive entity. Evil is always, according to this tradition, parasitic on good.