fuse to lace the reality blame the victimsn(afraid of an austere lifestyle), China (encouragingnethnic conflict), or the UnitednStates (the cause of all Southeast Asianntragedies).nWhen Marxist-Leninist revolutionariesnsecure power, eliminate the nonorthodoxnmembers of the revolutionaryncoalition, and turn their societies intongulags, inevitably foreign observersnemerge who, after reluctantly admittingnthe reality, attribute it to the opponentsnof the Marxist-Leninists. The brutalitiesnof the Russian, Chinese, Cuban, andnVietnamese Communist regimes arenblamed on their anticommunist adversaries,nwhich provoked the regimes intontaking such actions.nOne of the most pathetic cases ofndomestic causation-conjuring related tonthe Kennedy assassination. Virtuallyneveryone had a vested interest in avoidingnhysteria and, indeed, Johnson handlednthe succession with grace and prudence.nStill, the facts were that the President hadnbeen murdered by a military deserternwho had absconded to the Soviet Union,nhad married a Russian, and later involvednhimself in pro-Cuban lobbying. The factsnnotwithstanding, some blamed the conservativencity where the crime occurrednand the conservative voters who soughtngreater domestic vigilance. Conservativesnhad somehow created the environmentnthat provoked the gunman.nWhen evil is recognized and exposednand the causation problem surmounted,na problems of response remains. Therenexists a spectrum of opportunities andntemptations. One can ignore the evil andnhope optimistically that it will eventuallyndisappear. One can conveniently place itnoutside of one’s arena of concern contendingnthat it is someone else’s responsibility.nThus, generations of Americansnrecognized the evil involved in racialnsegregation but assigned responsibilitynto the “proper” agency and the “proper”ntime. Was it any surprise that the courtsnand bureaucracy eventually filled thenvacuum?nMany Western Europeans who per­n16inChronicles of Culturenceived nazism as evil incarnate hopednthat it would moderate with time or thatnHitler would turn east to satisfy his territorialnlust. Similarly, many contemporariesnawait—despite the overwhelmingnevidence—a communism with a humannface and hence acquiesce in communistnexpansionism. Others fear that too aggressivena response could lead to a nuclearnholocaust. A prominent medianlawyer has publicly stated his commitmentnnever to acknowledge humanrightsnviolations in the socialist states.nThis attimde maintains that one can bencognizant of evil but opt to tolerate andnsoft-pedal it because of the perceivednramifications associated with its eiiposure.nOne can learn to coexist with it notnonly out of lethargy, but also because ofnfear of greater evil stemming from its exposure.nSuch nonaction is not to be totallyndespised. Indeed, the Burkean precept—betternthe known than the unknownnevil—is not totally lacking innmerit. Much depends upon the availablenalternatives, perceived ramifications,nand existing resources. Unfortunately, itnis not within the power of any generationnto obliterate evil.nAnother approach to evil involvesnaccepting the reality but urging that it benanalyzed objectively, i.e., explained. Thenevil must be placed in a historical andncomparative perspective. It is to benmade intelligible and thus to some degreenforgivable. Thus nazism—^probablynthe most unambiguous 20th-century eviln—^is linked to World War I, the draconiannpeace, the depression and inflation, thencollapse of a state and society. The resultnis that, evil as nazism was, the people whonvoted for it emerge less guilty. This samen”examining the roots” process is utilizednfor the more contemporary revolutionarynregimes. It involves emphasis on the conditionsnbefore the revolution: colonialism,npoverty, socialization in inferioritynand cultural contempt. The resultingnrevolutionary and postrevolutionarynbarbarities thus appear as reaction tonprovocation.nIn addition to movements, individualsnnnguilty of committing horrendous crimesnmust be explained. Hence the minutenconcern with every phase of their activity:ntoilet training, sexual preference,ndietary habits, kinship ties, frustrations,netc. The villain’s movements are pinpointednwith excruciating meticulousness;nhis biography is researched withnthe diligence reserved for the truly significant.nWe probably now know asnmuch about Charles Manson and CaptainnMacDonald as about many AmericannPresidents.nIn contrast to those who ignore evilnand those who focus primarily on explanationnare those who romanticize. Evilnpossesses an attraction and fascinationnfor such people since it involves a contemptnfor the taboos binding lesser men,na willingness to gamble, and a sense ofngrandeur. Faust, the Marquis de Sade, andnLucifer himself have never lacked disciplesnand imitators. The great historicalntyrants have their apologists and revisionists.nNo doubt someday Hider will havenhis admirers who will cite his contemptnfor bourgeois morality, his skill, his daring,nand the scale of his ambition. Lenin,nMao, and Ho Chi Minh have already beennenshrined in certain pantheons.nThere is a venerable American traditionnof romanticizing evil notables. ManynPuritan colonials espoused the doctrinenof the Formnate Fall. Hollywood popularizednthe legends of the Western gunslingers,nthe Eastern gangsters, and the greatnrobber barons; all of these flawed heroesn”questioned authority” and seized w^hatnthey wanted without regard for conventionalnmorality or procedural niceties.nWhile their end was usually tragic, theirnromanticized careers were not withoutnredeeming virtues.nThe romanticization of evil often assumesnthe form of the cult of violence.nThe cult usually espouses the belief thatnsociety is so corrupt that only violencenwill redeem. Violence will purify and enablenthe evolution of the “new man”:n’Tou must break the eggs to make thenomelet”; “The New Order, like childbirth,nmust come with blood and pain”; “Everyntime I hear the word culture, I reach forn