Richard Dawkins’ response to the execution of Saddam Hussein is textbook liberalism. Dawkins is a British ethologist and evolutionary biologist, an outspoken atheist and humanist. As such, he sounds the normal leftist trump:
Political scientists of the future, studying the processes by which unscrupulous leaders arise and take over national institutions, have now lost key evidence forever. But perhaps the most important research in which a living Saddam Hussein could have helped is psychological. Most people can’t even come close to understanding how any man could be so cruel as Hitler or Saddam Hussein, or how such transparently evil monsters could secure sufficient support to take over an entire country. What were the formative influences on these men? Was it something in their childhood that turned them bad? In their genes? In their testosterone levels? Could the danger have been nipped in the bud by an alert psychiatrist before it was too late? How would Hitler, or Saddam Hussein have responded to a different style of education? We don’t have a clear answer to these questions. We need to do the research.
One of the glaring deficiencies of modern liberalism is its inability to realistically address the problem of evil. Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein are not seen as bad men worthy of punishment, but evolutionary anomalies, byproducts of faulty environments, poor education, and abnormally high testosterone levels. So instead of the hangman, Dawkins and his ilk recommend “an alert psychiatrist.”
I have one question: Why do liberals always want to study men like this, instead of men like this? I think we can glean a lot more from the good, than the twisted. Why? Because the good are far more rare than the twisted.