As an agnostic, I've never spent time on "good and evil." However,

[Cyrano]

given what we've seen from this administration over the past four years, I'm beginning to reevaluate my beliefs.

I'm not talking about organized religion. I'm talking about abstract concepts that either destroy or benefit the well being of human beings and other life on this planet.

Whether from a religious, ethical, or purely practical viewpoint, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield/Rove, et al, are, IMO, pure evil.

[Cleita]

1. If not entirely, they are making a good case for it.

There are so many things that are inherently wrong that this administration is doing and they act as if they are entitled to do so. I mean lying, graft, theft of taxpayer's money, waging war on non-aggressors, torture of prisoners, refusing aid to the sick and elderly and everything any human being thinks of as being plain wrong is being blatantly practiced in front of us, without apology, as if it is justified or even normal behavior.

[Cyrano]

3. And about half of the people in this country were stupid, gullible, or,

just plain indifferent enough to vote for these Neanderthals. And as far as I'm concerned, they're as complicit in what's going on as the Germans during the '30s who said, "This doesn't concern me."

The road we're headed down is apparent to any rational human being. The fact that about half of the people in this country are still backing this fascist administration is beyond mind boggling. They are like the people who ended up in the shower rooms before the gas was dropped in, wondering where the soap was.

[IrateCitizen]

2. They're the realization of the evil that lies in every one of us...

Have you ever read Hannah Arendt at all? I would suggest you read some of her writings surrounding Eichmann in Jerusalem, most notably her work on "The Banality of Evil". That might help guide you to realize the problem with portraying BushCo as "pure evil".

BushCo does not represent "pure evil". For instance, I am sure that both Bush and Cheney are loving parents and husbands -- as well as imperfect ones at the same time. What they DO represent, however, is the capacity of every person who lives and breathes on this earth to commit acts of evil.

Going back to Arendt, what struck her about Adolf Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem was his descriptions of his duties and motivations as a member of the SS in addressing the Nazi "final solution". He was not motivated by any sort of anger, sadism, or anything that could easily be described as "evil". Rather, he was motivated by a personal drive to succeed in his role, a drive that allowed him to effectively put on bureaucratic "blinders" that prevented any kind of moral consideration as to the implications of his acts from entering into the picture. Arendt concluded that Eichmann was in no way unique for what he had done. On the contrary, he was incredibly ORDINARY, something that gave her even greater cause for alarm, because it indicated to her that the rise of Nazism was not necessarily a "one time only" event -- that humans had the capacity in them to very easily do something like that again.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al. are much the same in this regard. They aren't at all "evil" -- they're just succumbed to their desire for personal power, prestige and wealth. They don't consider the implications of their actions. What is truly frightening about them isn't their uniqueness, but the fact that their motivations are really so ordinary -- and that countless others, if placed in the same situation, would act in a very similar fashion.

[Cyrano]

4. Nonetheless, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, are today's oppressors.

And there's nothing banal about the results of their policies. These are some seriously bad people who are in doing there best (conciously or not) to destroy any semblance of a civilized society in the U.S.
And if they succeed, can the rest of the world be far behind?

Hannah Arendt and "the banality of evil" aside, the people currently running this country have the ability and power to set us back hundreds of years. That's not an abstract philosophy. That's reality.

On edit: as to Bush and Cheney being good parents, etc., I'm sure that Hitler was a great dancer and told jokes better than Churchill. These are Mel Brooks lines from "The Producers" but are totally relevant to your point.

[IrateCitizen]

5. I think you're completely missing my point...

I'm not saying that anyone in BushCo is somehow absolved from the consequences of their actions. Nor am I arguing that what they are attempting to put in place will not have disastrous consequences for many. I'm simply arguing against the point made by the OP that they are "pure evil". Describing them as such only serves to diminish the possibility of others doing similar things, because it makes it seem as if they have to be completely evil in order to do so.

The idea of the "banality of evil" is not that it is somehow lessened -- rather, it is that the capacity for acts of unspeakable evil lies within each and every one of us, a concept that is much more difficult to confront because it requires us to not only look outside of ourselves, but deep into our own souls as well.

Actually, I view this concept of "total evil" as one that has much in line with the neocons, especially the book out by Richard Perle and David Frum titled, An End to Evil. The neocons believe that evil is some kind of externality, manifest in the form of terrorism, that can simply be banished by eliminating the terrorists. In doing so, they fail to see the evil that arises from their own actions. Likewise, for those of us who categorize BushCo as "pure evil", it serves only to externalize those impulses, making us blind to them when they happen to manifest themselves in our actions at some point down the line.

Awareness of this uncomfortable reality requires different tactics, and makes the row that much tougher to hoe. Perhaps that is why there is such stiff resistance to it....

[hfojvt]

6. what Solzy said

You know, the Russian author of Gulag Archipelago, do not try to make me spell his name. He said something like: if only there were evil people somewhere committing evil deeds and it were only necessary to stop them, but the line dividing good and evil runs through every man's heart, and who wants to cut out a piece of their own heart?
Still, I have to say that someone who commits evil deeds because they have "succumbed to their desire for personal power, prestige, and wealth" is close enough to pure evil for me and it is far more important to cut the evil out of our body politic (that is stop the evil Republicans from comitting their evil deeds) than it is for me to examine the evil in my own heart.

[IrateCitizen]

7. No, it's always MORE important to examine the evil in your own heart

See my thoughts on the neocons and their attitude toward "evil", in post #5.

However, I'm not saying that diminishes in any way the importance of cutting out the cancer that BushCo represents from the body politic, because they are only helping millions turn toward the evil that lies in their own hearts with their constant drumbeat of nationalism and fear.

[hfojvt]

8. Not always

In this case, I think the mote is in my eye (or heart) and the log is in the eyes of the neo-cons and their sheeple. Maybe that is only because I have spent most of my life examining and diminishing the evil in my own heart and so it does not refute a general principle.
BTW (on edit): I read your post #5 before you suggested it, and I had the idea that I, at least, was not completely missing your point.