Hannah Arendt: Don’t Kill People
We’ve imbued our political
parties with morals. For example, Republicans care about life. Thus, they will
appoint pro life judges. Democrats care about human rights. Thus, they’ll be
better at foreign policy—saying NO to Russia.
Bviously this is simplified.
Also obviously I have no right to write about Hannah Arendt. A brilliant
thinker.
This weekend I watched the
movie Hannah Arendt. I
knew about her peripherally like in the sense she was one of the people (émergie
who fled Nazi Germany) who helped ferment The New School where my daughter
went.
Once I saw the movie I was
able to sort her into—Oh you thought that up, that line of thinking, about the
question of evil. The movie released in 2012, Hannah Arendt died in 1975. Some
of her books are:
The Origins of
Totalitarianism (1951). Revised ed.; New York: Schocken, 2004.
The Human Condition (1958) Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A
Report on the Banality of Evil (1963). (Rev. ed. New York: Viking, 1968.
I was surprised at how
relevant and timely the movie felt. The notion of evil and abdicating what we
know is right in order to achieve a particular outcome that we believe is
ultimately right. For example voters in Alabama. Voting for a man who likely if
elected will be thrown out of the Senate or at least censored because they
1)
Cannot bring themselves
to vote for a Democrat
2)
They feel Judge Roy
Moore will be a moral leader and see to it that the “right” people get on the
Supreme Court
3)
Some believe that he’s
God’s chosen (more on that later)
Belief is a tricky thing
because in some of these cases people have abandoned their beliefs wholecloth.
They’ve left off thinking all together.
Hannah Arendt in her pursuit
of understanding evil in a post WWII, post-Hitler, post-Auschwitz, nuclear world
struggled with alliances and fealties. She would not sacrifice what she
believed just to keep things normal, to protect the status quo, or to satisfy
family, friends, or country. That isn’t how philosophy works. Philosophy isn’t
nationalistic or gender-specific. It has affairs and dabbles in various camps
in order to get a reading, a report of what that space occupies. Thus, she
angered many Jews.
When she wrote that evil was
ordinary and that given a chance we would—all of us—sell out our mother, our tribe,
our deepest sense of right and wrong for a higher purpose—or in Eichmann’s
case, per someone’s order.
It’s how Trump got elected.
The very people who need a
tax break, healthcare, housing, recovery treatment, safe food and drinking
water, who care about family, the unborn voted against their interests. Against
the published news reports, even against the candidate’s own words—they decided
to believe in an alternative.
So we are at a crossroads. Of
fake news, fake facts, conspiracies. The Russia Thing, if you will. People have
decided to believe whatever they want because either there are no facts or they
chose to believe in alternative facts.
Hannah Arendt got into
trouble by blurring the edges of what the Western world fought and died for, by
diluting their mottos and deconstructing their manifestos. We all have the
ability to be evil. It is an individual choice and one frankly not all of us
are able to acknowledge, myself included. I’ve held my nose and voted for
someone I didn’t like just because they’d make the trains run on time.
Thus, some good Christian
people are going to vote for Judge Roy Moore.
I think what Hannah Arendt
was saying is that we are all capable of killing, of supporting killers, that
we will find a way to justify genocide, and rationalize mass murder. Just don’t
make us think about it too deeply or have to explain why.
Comments