Lord Voldemort, the nature of evil, and politics

[sistermagpie]

> Tonks:
> I posted a question about evil in general. I didn't really want to 
get
> into specifics about the election and who did what to whom or to 
> disect
> the process of the 'making of a President". I am sick of all of it 
at
> this point. What I am referring to is the dirty nature of 'politics 
as
> usual'. And I will admit that Obama's campaign was the best 
organized
> ever. They did not miss a beat. Ever trick in the book and then 
some.
> Every trick in the political book and the community org. book and
> Psychology too. I could write a book on what they did and how. In 
fact
> Saul Alinksy wrote at least one of their play books, in "Rules for
> Radicals". These tactics is what I have objected too.
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> No, you did not just post a question about evil in general. You 
keep 
> using Obama's campaign as an example for it without really 
specifying 
> what dirty tricks they committed. Which maybe they did, but how 
> do I know that?
> 
> The debate does not seem very fair to me. You appear to know 
> information I do not. 
> 
> Obama campaign brought Mccain's corruption scandal is that 
the "dirty 
> trick" you are referring to? I was not happy that they brought it 
up, 
> but boy I think they stopped really fast and continued to talk 
about 
> the issues while Mccain and Palin kept milking Obama "terrorist 
> connections" for what it was worth IMO.

Magpie:
Yes, that was my impression too. Of the campaigns I watched his was 
the one I had the least problem with. Humiliation did not seem at all 
the driving force of it as a campaign. Not that I'm putting it in a 
special bubble as if it was anything other than a political campaign, 
but "If only you knew what I knew you'd know you were being duped and 
would agree with me" is going to beg the question: what don't I know? 

Regarding relating this to the nature of evil...I don't know if I'd 
consider hard choices to always be about evil. A leader might, for 
instance, have to be the one to decide to go to war, which means 
taking responsibility for people being killed. But I wouldn't always 
read that as the person who's willing to be evil. Since I myself can 
see the problem of having a pacifist as the leader of a country I 
can't say it's evil to be anything but a pacifist. (For an Avatar 
example: the nation of pacifists was wiped out and the marauding Fire 
Nation did have to be fought back. The final victory required knowing 
when to fight and knowing when to refrain from fighting.)

In terms of politicians I guess there's always the question people 
have where they think you have to have a certain kind of ambition to 
rise to the top in politics, therefore if you succeed you've got to 
have some sort of moral problem. I don't know if that's always so 
true as to make the whole thing hopeless. Seeing things in the world 
that need improving and wanting to help people are fairly common 
human qualities so they can certainly be part of what drives someone 
to go into politics. 

-m