The diference between Reagan's language and that of Truman and Roosevelt is also misleading. Like them, he links evil to technological complexity, diminished human potential, and that which is to be fought through the moral strength of democratic governance. Yet what is most striking is what happens to governance in the face of Reagan's ontologization of evil: a radical fusion of previously separate fields and practices. Recal, Reagan finds evil in dim economic prospects, deaths of American soldiers in El Salvador, terrorism, drug traficking, "excessive" government intervention, intolerance, segregation, discrimination, racism, and anti-Semitism. In the Oxford Union speech, moreover, he urges that all such forces must be recognized and .countered wherever they arise. He envisions a UN --backed "army of conscience:' Ontological evil thus overflows already unstable distinctions between war and policing, religion and poli-. tics, justice and administration. In the face of the Real of evil, these divisions fall apart.
Vacuous Resolve
Just as Reagan prays for the salvation of those living in totalitarian darkness, so does George W. Bush find in religion the best response to political troubles. As Howard Fineman observes, "The Bush administration is dedicated to the idea that there is an answer to societal problems here and to terrorism abroad: give everyone, everywhere, the freedom to find God, too:'49 Moreover, like the vision in Reagan's Oxford Union address, so is the world depicted in Bush's speeches the site of a cosmic battle between good and evil (typically formatted through a racial logic of civilized versus barbarian) . Yet Bush expands and intensifies ontological evil as he speaks within the discourse of the pervert.50 The pervert has no doubts; he "brings to light, stages, practices the secret fantasies that sustain the dominant public discourse:'51 The pervert knows what is required and makes himself into that instrument that does what is required. So not only does "evil" inhabit Bush's speeches as an ontological given and thus highlight his resolve in naming it but it works further to designate the subject confronting evil as an instrument of God. Because conviction co.mes from God, the one who names evil serves as an extension or embodiment of divine will. More strongly put, the only way Bush can guarantee that he is chosen by God is by demonstrating the power God gives him to name and confront evil without wavering, with complete and utter conviction (in the face of criticism, facts, and alternatives) . For the responsible will of falible and uncertain political subjects, then, ontological evil substitutes confrontations between objects in accordance with the inevitabilities of the will of God.
114
FOUR