Why U.S. politics devolves into good vs. evil

Without a clear "devil" to rally against, Americans turn the knives on each other.

By Henry G. Brinton, USA TODAY, January 23, 2012, 9A

Political debate in the USA is more civil when we have a devil to oppose, whether it is Adolf Hitler, Nikita Khrushchev, or Osama bin Laden. National unity reaches its peaks in times of crisis, such as World War II, the height of the Cold War and the early days of the War on Terrorism. When the threat passes, though, watch out. Because we then turn on each other.

Remember the 1990s? After the Soviet Union fell and the Cold War ended, Americans began to rip each other apart in some of the nastiest political fights of the past 50 years. We lost our devil and began to bludgeon one another, fighting over the Contract with America, appointment of the House chaplain and impeachment trial of President Clinton.

Seeing life as a battle between absolute good and pure evil is a form of dualism that has a long history, appearing in the Middle East about 2,500 years ago.

"A dualistic perspective on reality, claiming there is a pure evil force or person lurking out there, allows people to avoid blaming themselves or their own people for failures or frustrations they experience," says Matthew Skinner, associate professor of the New Testament at Luther Seminary in St. Paul. It is always easier to fight a devil "out there" than to do the hard work of solving our internal problems, as individuals and as a nation.

Needing a common enemy

The 9/11 attacks gave us a common enemy in the terrorists, and for a brief moment we were united. But that unifying moment passed quicker than you can say "Iraq War."

Osama bin Laden was a devilish character, and most Americans cheered when he was killed last year. But he was such a shadowy figure that I'm not sure he could have served as a rallying point for us. Bin Laden's messages were sporadic and unfocused, and over the years it was hard to tell whether he was even alive. Such foes unite us by giving us a focal point for our anger and aggression. But when the enemy disappears (or is hard to see), we demonize each other. Following our dualistic tendencies, we move toward the political extremes and begin to consider fellow citizens with opposing views to be our enemies. (See the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements.)

As comedian John Cleese has observed, "You can be as nasty as you like, and yet feel your behavior is morally justified. So, you can strut around abusing people and telling them you can eat them for breakfast, and still think of yourself as a champion of the truth, a fighter for the greater good, and not the rather sad paranoid schizoid that you really are."

That's what is happening now, as we move through the presidential primary season and then into the general election campaign. Candidates are putting tremendous amounts of time, energy and money into attacks on their opponents, while the blogosphere does what it does best: oozes with vitriol. "Super PACs" are fanning the flames with bucketloads of money, and the razor-edged ads that follow, and the cycle continues.

What we say we want

This political rage is growing in spite of the fact that 61% of Americans believe that the rude tone of U.S. politics is unhealthy for our democracy, according to a national poll in 2010 by the Center for Political Participation.

A reversal of this destructive trend will begin with the recognition that we are energized and united by a battle against evil. This tendency is a part of our cultural makeup, rooted deeply in our religious traditions. As Susan Garrett, professor of New Testament at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, points out, "New Testament authors sometimes portrayed enemies as under Satan's power," such as when Paul links "false apostles" to ministers of Satan (2 Corinthians 11:13-15), and when John associates a female prophet with teachings that he characterizes as "the deep things of Satan" (Revelation 2:20-25). In both cases, says Garrett, the enemies are most likely fellow Christians.

Such demonization helps us when we are fighting Hitler but hurts us when we are choosing the next president. So, like addicts who begin their recovery by honestly admitting that they have a problem, we need to accept the fact that we are drawn to a dualistic world view. It is a powerful and deeply rooted approach to life, but not the only one we can take. If we resist the temptation to see everything as good vs. evil, we will discover that there are no true devils in the race for the White House.

It's expected and within bounds for the Republican candidates to paint a less-than-flattering image of President Obama. That's fair politics. But calling the president a "socialist," as the now-sidelined Texas Gov. Rick Perry did, enters into the realm of demagoguery. Not to mention that the "socialist" label would come as a surprise to Barack Obama's most liberal supporters, who are deeply disappointed that he has turned out to be too moderate for their taste.

Of course, "a socialist" is less devilish than "the anti-Christ" — a scurrilous label applied to Obama by the Idaho man who fired a gun at the White House last November, and one that was suggested by a popular YouTube video in 2009.

Such demonization has continued in the just-completed South Carolina primary, as former House speaker Newt Gingrich attacked GOP front-runner Mitt Romney on the work he did as a venture capitalist at Bain Capital— odd for a conservative to accuse his opponent of being too much of a capitalist — and saying at midweek that the Romney campaign would "unendingly dirty and dishonest" ahead of the vote. (At least he stopped short of saying Romney's evil! And he won the primary!)

At the same time, Democrats are sharpening their knives and have made no secret they plan to attack the Republican nominee with devastating blows right up to Election Day in November.

Evil, not just wrong

I realize, of course, that a dualistic world view is an effective way to rally supporters and get out the vote. As Bill Reidway, a politically astute member of my congregation, said to me, "It's easiest to get votes when you can convince people the stakes are high — that is, that the other side is evil, as opposed to just wrong."

Since good and responsible people know that they should never compromise with evil, they end up entering the polling place with a battle mentality. But such an approach only makes sense when Satan is running for president — and despite what you might hear in the darkest recesses of the online world, Satan is not running in 2012. It would be much better for us, as individuals and as a nation, if we saved our righteous anger for the devils that will inevitably appear again as external threats to our nation. Not that foreign foes are a guarantee of domestic tranquility. The McCarthy hearings and Red Scare of the 1950s caused American politics to go off-road and get nasty, even though we had a common enemy. And we always need to keep in mind that the enemies of one generation can morph into the allies of the next.

Better for us to put time, energy and money into fighting the evils that are afflicting us internally, whether we choose to focus on battling substance abuse, racism, sexual addiction, domestic violence or the disintegration of the American family. As always, these threats are harder for us to face, because the demons are inside.

Henry G. Brinton is pastor of Fairfax Presbyterian Church in Virginia, and author of Balancing Acts: Obligation, Liberation, and Contemporary Christian Conflicts.