Assassination and the Banality of Evil
Incompetence vs Malice. It's always hard to differentiate.
I am on a large boat resting at anchor in shallow water off the coast of Poros, Greece. It is perfect weather for swimming. And all I can think about is how to make sense of the stream of events and information that have emerged over the last three days since the attempt to take Trump’s life. What does this mean, and what consequences will flow from this brief moment?
All who routinely read this substack know that, when attempting to make sense of data, I am guided by the method of multiple working hypotheses. I aspire to avoid simple explanations (single theories or strong inferences) for that which I cannot prove. This training and bias helped me navigate the COVID crisis to a reasonable approximation of truth. These concepts are now guiding me through the massive amount of primary information (data) coming at all who participate in “X” regarding the attempted assassination of President and candidate Donald Trump.
Once again, Tucker Carlson has provided a succinct summary of the big picture.
What has happened is evil in so many different ways. Although details of the shooter and his motivations remain obscure, what cannot be denied is that this evil flows from many sources, multiple streams joining to form a river, which becomes a river of tears for our country. Tucker has made one prediction, but I see opportunity and tragedy intertwined. My fear is shared by many, who often use the term “Civil War” to express that fear.
As an aside, at least some immediate good has come out of this horrible series of events. The Biden administration was shamed into doing at least one right and proper thing.
While still remaining in deeply narcissistic denial.
“I’m not engaged in that rhetoric.” Really?
In a prior essay, I explored the banality of evil, the COVID crisis, and the limits of empire. However, the content and argument were overlooked as many readers focused on the accompanying Venn diagram, obsessing over current Vice President Kamala Harris's comments about her enthusiasm for this method of summarizing ideas. But as I try to make sense of the emerging information concerning the cascade of events immediately before the shootings, my mind returns to the same set of theories concerning Hannah Arendt’s famous observation.
Exploring the moral implications of ordinary people's involvement in malevolent actions
The concept of the “banality of evil” was introduced by Hannah Arendt in her 1963 book “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil”. Arendt, a German-American philosopher and political theorist, was tasked with reporting on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a former Nazi official responsible for the logistics of the Holocaust.
Arendt’s thesis was that Eichmann, who was considered a “normal” and “boring” individual, was not a fanatic or a sociopath, but rather an average and mundane person who relied on clichéd defenses rather than thinking for himself. He was motivated by professional promotion rather than ideology, and believed in success, which he considered the chief standard of “good society”.
Arendt argued that Eichmann’s actions were not driven by a desire for evil, but rather by a kind of complacency and thoughtlessness. He was able to commit atrocities because he was not driven by a strong sense of morality or a desire to do good or evil, but rather by a desire to fit in and be successful.
The Concept of Banality
The concept of the banality of evil is often misunderstood as suggesting that evil is ordinary or common. However, Arendt’s intention was to highlight the fact that evil is not necessarily driven by a desire for destruction or chaos, but rather by a lack of thought and consideration for the consequences of one’s actions.
In this sense, the banality of evil refers to the fact that evil can be committed by ordinary, unremarkable people who are not driven by a desire for evil, but rather by a lack of moral imagination and a failure to think critically about the consequences of their actions.
Implications of the Banality of Evil
The concept of the banality of evil has significant implications for our understanding of morality and ethics. It suggests that evil is not necessarily the result of a desire for destruction or chaos, but rather the result of a lack of thought and consideration for the consequences of one’s actions.
This concept also highlights the importance of critical thinking and moral imagination in preventing evil. It suggests that individuals must be able to think critically about the consequences of their actions and consider the potential impact on others in order to avoid committing evil.
Criticisms and Controversies
The concept of the banality of evil has been criticized for being overly simplistic and for downplaying the role of ideology and motivation in driving evil behavior. Some have argued that Arendt’s thesis is too narrow and fails to account for the complexity of human behavior.
Others have criticized the concept for being overly focused on the individual and neglecting the role of social and structural factors in driving evil behavior.
Despite these criticisms, the concept of the banality of evil remains an important and influential idea in the study of morality and ethics. It highlights the importance of critical thinking and moral imagination in preventing evil and suggests that evil is not necessarily the result of a desire for destruction or chaos, but rather the result of a lack of thought and consideration for the consequences of one’s actions.
<in quotations recognizing that this text was AI-generated in response to the query “what is the banality of evil”>
In my personal synthesis, the “banality of evil” lies at the intersection of Incompetence, Nefarious Scheming, and Complex System dynamics, as illustrated by the above Venn diagram. As I consider the emerging information concerning the events preceding this most recent attempt to kill the President and candidate, once again, I see evidence to support a role for all three of these factors.
Writing on “X”, Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker Independent journalist. Previous: Writer/Assoc. Producer for #1 Fox News primetime show. Director of Viral Media & Sr. Mg. Ed. for Top 5 News & Politics website) has summarized the deeply troubling essence of the matter:
Thomas Matthew Crooks, the 20-year-old gunman who attempted to assassinate former President Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, was spotted on the roof 26 minutes before the shooting occurred.
The FBI has confirmed that Crooks was seen by law enforcement members from the Allegheny County Police Department on the roof of a building with a clear sightline to the former president.
Despite being alerted to his presence, authorities failed to confront him, allowing him to remain hidden for nearly 30 minutes before he opened fire on Trump and the crowd.
The shocking new allegations have raised questions about how Crooks was able to evade detection and carry out the attack, which left Trump wounded and a member of the crowd dead. A sniper even took a picture of the suspect with a rangefinder and radioed to the command post before the Trump assassination attempt, CBS reports. Crooks was on local police and Secret Service's radar for nearly a half hour before the shooting attempt, but he kept "disappearing" before he climbed on the roof. "Crooks disappeared again and then came back a THIRD time with a backpack," CBS reported. "The snipers called in with information that he had a backpack and said he was walking towards the back of the building."
It gets crazier. The New York Post reports local police were INSIDE the building that Thomas Crooks climbed on top of. The building was carved out of the Secret Service security perimeter and delegated to local police despite it being a "well-known high-priority vulnerability.”
Before the shooting, a police officer actually confronted Crooks, who had a rifle. The police officer scrambled back down the ladder, allowing the shooter to fire at least five rounds at the former president.
No one had warned Trump.
Obviously, we are left with a dilemma. Incompetence (of the Secret Service), Nefarious Intent, or too many bureaucratic cooks in the kitchen (complex system dynamics). Was this a lone wolf or another example of a conspiracy akin to the 1964 coup by the deep state involving the assassination of President John F Kennedy? In case you did not notice, I passed through the Overton Window of allowable discourse when asking that question.
Once again, all three have probably interacted to achieve this eventual result. This theory is not in any way an excuse for what has occurred or an attempt to deflect blame from those at fault. And, as with the successful assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the consequences are likely to reverberate through time.
Kyle Becker nicely summarized the case for incompetence, which is now undeniable. As with the COVID crisis, there seems unlikely to be any accountability or consequences beyond the usual Washington, D.C. Kabuki theater displays.
Where to begin with the evidence supporting nefarious intent? Let me count the ways.
Second shooter/water tower hypothesis. Multiple independent reports on this coming out now.
Then there is the coordinated actions and messaging of the mockingbird media
It’s Trump’s fault, per “The Guardian”
And then there is this, which the Secret Service denies was related to staffing at the Trump rally.
In conclusion… I can’t wait for the next news cycle on “X”. Multiple working hypotheses hunger for data.
Yet another shameless promotion. You can pre-order our new book here.
I think it is clear that it isn't incompetence. Although the DEI policies are glaring in his detail. The heads of the secret service, FBI and perhaps some other three letter agencies had to have orchestrated it. I'm not sure Kennedy should want secret service, I'm thinking he is better off with private contractors and Trump should get some private contractors.
"not driven by a desire for evil, but rather by a lack of moral imagination and a failure to think critically about the consequences of their actions."
If there were 2 shooters and if civilians saw them climbing with rifles then I cannot accept that it was just incompetence.