There’s too much “evil” in the world.

It seems politicians and reporters have no qualms throwing around the E word since President Bush used it to describe enemy nations earlier this year. Bush, our national commander of “evil”-labeling, threw the term around early in the War on Terrorism, and the country continues to hear about “evildoers” and the dreaded “Axis of Evil.” That kind of branding may work in cattle country, but international politics calls for a little more tact.

An international panel gathered Monday at the Carnegie Moscow Center to discuss the ramifications of the use of the word “evil” in political discourse. The group considered religious and historical uses of the term, particularly among the communist regime in Russia.

Though the word seems simple enough, “evil” has explosive connotations. When “evil” is thrown around in politics, the country making accusations is doing more than rejecting another country or way of life; it is proclaiming its own culture superior above the rest of the world. In actuality, however, political issues are rarely that clear cut.

Whether we like it or not, “good” and “evil” are subjective. And sometimes, good must do some less than noble things if it wishes to overcome evil.

If a politician wants to curry support for an initiative, maybe a war, it is easy to toss out black-and-white concepts like “good” and “evil.” However, these words are an insult to the intelligence of a country’s citizenry. People will follow a politician who has something legitimate to say. Ideas, however, cannot be legitimized by buzzwords.

“Evil” is not a term to be used lightly in any situation, especially in politics. It has the power to subject innocent groups of people to stereotypes and detracts from freedom of thought. Harsh words are often necessary when describing an enemy, but “evil” must be mitigated. Otherwise, a little “good” might be lost.