(The title should actually read “anticipates” or “predicts,” not “preempts,” but I couldn’t resist)
Anyway, look at what she told Eli for his book review last cycle:
Ruth Wisse nonetheless feels just the opposite: George W. Bush was a bona fide neoconservative mostly because of his foreign policy. “Bush really took evil seriously,” she says, “that you can use the word, that you must use the word, that in fact morality has as much to do with the recognition of evil as the performance of good. And I think that’s one of the crucial things that separate liberals in generals from neoconservatives. It has to do with your attitude towards evil.”
Check out the following from Sandra’s post this morning:
Yes, Osama bin Laden had an important role in multiple horrifying events. Maybe he was indeed a “horrible person,” although I hesitate to label humans as “evil.” However, as someone who strongly affirms the preeminence of life, I shudder to imagine employing the death penalty against anyone.
And from Ketan’s response:
Even when capital punishment is dispensed fairly, for example, the action being punished is often the product of deeply regrettable life circumstances; in the most cases, we should take no glee in such punishment. But when the person being punished is completely, unequivocally evil, this logic does not apply. No life circumstance excuses, even in part, the mass slaughter of innocents. To feel joy upon such a monster’s demise is natural, and quite alright—it is joy for his victim’s memories, and for the vindication of justice itself.
This debate really goes back to first principles.
