Many people avoid discussing violence and evil. I am used to discussing them. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area of the 1970s. Not only was the region home to more political assassins and would-be assassins than any in the nation, but also it had been or was the home to psychopathic murderers like the Zodiac Killer, Charles Manson, and Jim Jones.

Their criminal exploits were in the air. You could hardly duck hearing about them on the news and talking about them with friends and family, and those three were not the only ones discussed. My home county of Contra Costa had at least six serial killers commit crimes there in the 1970s.

I don’t mean to suggest our outlook was provincial. We name checked bloodthirsty dictators like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Francis “Papa Doc” Duvalier, and Saddam Hussein. We were catholic with a small “c.”

On one unspoken point, we agreed. The men had committed radical evil. They had done more than knock off a neighbor or girlfriend behind closed doors. They had tortured and murdered innocent people, then publicized their atrocities. That struck us as evil as it gets.

While eye-opening, I think our discussions were incomplete. We omitted a darker possibility: a psychopathic murderer would get his hands on The Bomb. Can you imagine Jim Jones circa 1978 in possession of thermonuclear weapons?

The Discussion America is Avoiding

With Russian President Vladimir Putin, the question is real rather than theoretical. While you may have heard about his crimes ad nauseam, it is worth recalling them. His military invaded another country and bombed a maternity clinic and nuclear plant. On top of that, he threatened to use his nuclear arsenal. That’s a new, tripartite pact with the Devil.

No other world leader can make that claim.

Take Joseph Stalin. He invaded countries unprovoked and killed millions of people. Yet he did not threaten his enemies with nuclear warfare. Even if he had, he would have been unable to deliver on his threat.

North Korea’s Kim Family can’t match Mr. Putin, either. They starved millions and could strike South Korea with a nuclear weapon. Yet the Kim’s have not ordered the invasion of another country. Nor have they have shown they can hit the United States.

To be sure, Mr. Putin’s depravity can be overstated. He sends mixed signals over his nuclear aims. His spokesman ruled out a nuclear strike over the Ukraine conflict. (The country’s nuclear posture has not changed either, reportedly). Yet only a week ago, his spokesman did not rule out the possibility.

At present, Mr. Putin’s deeds recall those of the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. He invaded a neighboring country unprovoked, in his case Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990, and had his forces commit atrocities. The difference is Mr. Putin possesses nuclear weapons, while Mr. Hussein did not.

We Americans may resist such comparisons and contrasts between and among evildoers. While understandable, resistance is a dodge, a form of irresponsibility. “The problem of evil is a fundamental question of human existence,” the Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner said.

When Ideology Misleads

If we in the Bay Area had an incomplete discussion of evil, commentators on the left and right are having a misguided one.

Some liberals argue Mr. Putin poses an unhinged existential threat. After all, the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill of Moscow blessed his invasion, and Mr. Putin endorsed fascist writer Ivan Ilyin. I think this argument is misleading. It overlooks the grim outlook Mr. Putin acquired from an early age. Plus, in the first decade of his rule when he wanted to kick start Russia’s economy, he mentioned religion hardly at all.

Some nationalist-minded conservatives apologize for Mr. Putin’s invasion. Did not the United States build a hazardous biolab in Ukraine? If the Russian leader was motivated by a nuclear threat, he has had a funny way of showing it. He did not mention in his pre-invasion speech on February 24, for example.

Both liberals and conservatives misjudge Mr. Putin. He worships power. He seeks it and will acquire it by any means necessary. With that outlook, the danger any man poses to the world is not ideological, but mortal. 

What does everybody think?

– 30 –