Timing is everything in life and sometimes things happen when they do for a reason. That opening sentence makes me wonder how many other euphemisms I could cram into one sentence if I really tried. I wrote a few days ago about getting a Watchtower pamphlet from a Jehovah’s Witness canvasser on the topic of war and violent conflict. Since then, the primary canvasser and a different journeyman assistant came to my door and wanted to discuss the pamphlet. I am sure that the Jehovah’s Witness organization cares a lot about war and violent conflict, but I suspect it is a theme that they have workshopped enough to know that its a good hook to get people talking, which really seems to be their primary goal. I like a good conversation and while I am completely unlikely to ever set foot in a Kingdom Hall, I may well have a conversation with this nice fellow the next time he happens by. I will take him out to the patio and offer him a drink and we will sit and discuss war and violent conflict until he tries to do one of two things. If he tries to shift to another topic, I will resist. If he declares that the only thing between us and war and violent conflict is God and that God and Jesus Christ is our only hope for salvation, he will have a less friendly debate on his hands. I completely understand the nature of the slippery slope I am choosing to stand on with this Jehovah’s Witness, but some topics are worth it and I think in today’s environment, war and violent conflict is one such topic and I want an opportunity to sharpen my arguments accordingly.
While the Jehovah’s Witnesses are out beating their drum about war and violent conflict, there is an amassing of evil intent underway in the world. One of the funny things about evil intent is that it usually thinks of itself as unusually righteous and rarely declares itself as evil. Evil generally refers to profound moral wrongness or malevolence – actions, intentions, or qualities that cause significant harm and violate fundamental moral principles. The concept has several dimensions. Evil typically involves deliberately causing suffering, destruction, or injustice to others. This distinguishes it from mere accidents or mistakes. But it is necessary to point out that “injustice” is a normative standard that will require the eye of the beholder to define. Evil acts violate widely held moral principles like respect for human dignity, fairness, and compassion. They often involve treating people as mere objects rather than as beings with inherent worth. The world tends to bifurcate itself in a way that allows for at least two worldviews of where evil resides. Half the world has condemned Vladimir Putin as a war criminal for his part in the Ukraine War and yet he is being openly embraced by China, India, and North Korea. That means that 3 billion people (since we can only count people as standing behind their national company line) do not see Putin as evil. Meanwhile, 32 countries representing 550 million people have either declared Putin a war criminal or worse (several have declared him guilty of genocide). That means that about 5 billion people in the world are either on the political fence about this issue or simply don’t care enough to have a point of view. The U.S. is in the group. I imagine someone starving and stuck in a cycle of tribal conflict in Africa or a Palestinian refugee wondering if he will ever have a home again might have a hard time focusing on whether Putin’s acts are truly evil or not. I’ll even bet that a bag of rice or the gift of an AK47 might influence their view of the situation. Pragmatism has a nasty way of overwhelming moral perception and has since the dawn of man. Sometimes its pragmatic to get on board with whatever program is underway and adjust your moral code accordingly. Sometimes its just pragmatic to keep your head down and your mouth shut. And lastly, sometimes a person or country has a finite amount of caring it can share with the world and they just tune out. I’m not sure where the U.S. sits in that array.
We usually reserve “evil” for serious wrongs rather than minor transgressions. Calling someone evil takes a lot of emotional energy to do. It suggests something that goes beyond ordinary wrongdoing into territory that’s particularly heinous or destructive. Religious traditions often frame evil as opposition to divine will or goodness. Secular philosophy might define it in terms of unnecessary suffering, violation of human rights, or corruption of virtue. Some view it as an active malevolent force, while others see it more as the absence of good. The word “evil” carries strong emotional and moral weight. People might disagree about whether specific acts qualify as evil versus merely wrong, bad, or misguided – these judgments often depend on cultural context, personal values, and philosophical frameworks. Calling a person evil is particularly hard. I have done it in regard to several people I have known and interacted with. Two of them turned their evil in my direction, in my opinion, and it was palpable. Another I knew and could see the lack of moral fiber, but he did not cast that evil directly on me. I have since watched that evil get spewed out at innocents in the world, which is why I list him as an evil doer.
Euphemisms distort thought and distract. The concepts that surround the definition of evil are subject to all sorts of euphemisms. Euphemisms for evil intent are softer, indirect terms used to disguise or minimize the severity of harmful, malicious, or destructive actions and motivations. You can call it “Ethnic cleansing” instead of genocide. There is the ever-popular “Collateral damage” that refers to civilian casualties. You can use “Pacification” for violent suppression. “Protective custody” can mean imprisonment without trial. And “Reeducation” can be just another term for indoctrination or brainwashing. These euphemisms work by using clinical, technical language, emphasizing supposed benefits or necessities, abstracting away human suffering, and, most importantly, shifting responsibility away from decision-makers. The danger of such language is that it can make people less aware of the true nature and consequences of harmful actions, making it easier for bad actors to gain acceptance or avoid accountability.
I recently read an opinion piece about the euphemistic change of the Department of Defense into the Department of War by Donald Trump. The argument that “Defense” is a euphemism and that “War” is a more accurate description of what goes on in the Pentagon is so misguided as to be horribly detrimental to our society. No entities are more adept at producing euphemisms than governments. Trump’s rebranding on Friday of the Department of Defense as the Department of War is being characterized as a worthy blow against government euphemism. George Washington created the War Department as a Cabinet-level agency in 1789 to oversee the Army. Then, in 1947, the service branches of the U.S. military were merged under the National Military Establishment, headed by a defense secretary. Two years later, Congress created the Defense Department, headquartered in the Pentagon. Trump’s executive order cannot undo the legislation enacted in 1949, but it authorizes “Department of War” for use in labels and communications. Trump also proposes that Congress make the change official, and the National Defense Authorization Act (which normally passes in December) would be a natural vehicle. This is not about being “delicate” about what we call our military complex, as the opinion piece suggested. Trump said Friday afternoon in the Oval Office: “I’m going to let these people go back to the Department of War and figure out how to maintain peace.” The problem is, he has put them on the slippery slope of violent conflict by suggesting that we should call it a War Department and that we need more of a warrior culture.
Meanwhile, Trump is making my point for me by using National Guard troops for domestic purposes — in L.A., D.C. and perhaps soon Chicago and next, Boston. If those troops are commanded by the War Department, rather than the Defense Department, what does that say about the military’s role at home and abroad. By stripping away the euphemism, the name change bluntly highlights for the citizenry that he is making war against the American people. He said exactly that in his recent Apocalypse Now tweet in the harshest and crassest way. And now Trump is stripping America’s Everyman, Tom Hanks of his announced award at West Point, telling us all that we need to be less pacifist than Hanks (Captain John Miller) and more warrior like Robert Duvall (Colonel Bill Kilgore). We are now on the slipperiest slope known to man, the slope where hope is replaced by aggression.