Moody -- "Types"--Where Are the Bleeding Hearts?

[ssk7882]

No: HPFGUIDX 33990

A bit of clarification, and some hopes of a cool-down.

I worry that we're veering dangerously close to the border
of off-topic-land here, but if possible, I would like to try 
to keep this discussion within the bounds of this board.  I
think that there are some interesting and important on-topic
issues lurking somewhere just beneath the surface here, and
it might be nice if we could try to raise them up a bit, 
while turning the heat 'way, *'way* down.

First, though, some apologies.

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "btk6y" <btk6y at v...> wrote:
> 
> I could not disagree more with your post... not necessarily the 
> content, but the underlying tone inherent in it.  

Yes.  It's obvious that my tone really rankled, and I apologize
for causing offense.  I didn't mean to come across as sneering
or contemptuous towards law enforcement, but I'm getting the
distinct impression that I did, and that this was what angered
you.  Again, apologies.

You wrote:

 > What annoys me is that people who champion civil liberties 
 > seem to without fail give the benefit of the doubt to those 
 > that least deserve it, may that be Death Eaters, terrorists, 
 > what have you.  

Okay.  You are here making quite a few assumptions about my
political biases and inclinations.  In short, you've just
presented an encapsulated summary of the negative stereotype
of the "Bleeding-Heart Liberal."  There is a certain justice 
to this, admittedly, as I myself pretty well did exsctly the 
same thing to Moody when I wrote:

 > He strikes me as the sort of person who would happily
 > strip away all of my civil liberties, given half the
 > chance, and I consider such men a serious threat to
 > civilized society.

That was an equally harsh encapsulated summary of the negative 
stereotype of the "Law-and-Order Fascist," wasn't it.

Yes.  I suppose that it was.

So, okay.  Tit-for-tat, and turnabout is fair play, and all of
that.  I would like to point out, however, that while Moody is 
a fictional construct, whose tendencies and political inclinations 
are within the fair scope of discussion here, you and I are real 
people whose respective philosophies, while they cannot help but
inform our views, really aren't.

But there's an interesting issue here that might bear some
examining.  On another thread, one about Hagrid, Mahoney
made a few comments about her feelings for characters based
not so much on whether they're Good or Bad people, but rather
on whether they're "Types" that she happens to like in real life.

This is germaine because -- given that you admit that you pretty
much agree with the *content* of my post, even down to its
political elements -- what I suspect you must have read that 
angered you so much was: "Moody's a law-and-order type, and I just
don't *like* people like that, so I don't like Moody."  

And so (being perhaps a law-and-order type yourself?), you quite
reasonably took personal offense at this and retaliated with: 
"Oh yeah?  Well, I don't like you bleeding-heart jerk-offs either.  
So there!"

Am I off-base here?  (Suddenly, I feel that I can finally 
understand why those SHIPping types can get so heated in *their* 
debates.  I never really understood that before!)

Anyway, again, sorry about that.  I didn't mean to attack anyone
personally, not even through analogy-by-stereotype.  And for
what it's worth, I don't dislike you.

But getting back to the Potterverse, where *are* the bleeding
heart liberals in canon?  Have we actually seen any at all?  

Fudge is certainly a head-in-the-sand appeaser -- but he also
allows his dementors to perform summary executions on accused
criminals, which absolutely disqualifies him for the Bleeding 
Heart Club.

Then we have the Pensieve mob who let off Ludo Bagman -- but their 
behavior is motivated more by a starry-eyed worship of sports
heroes than by any bleeding-heart tendencies; we later see
that they are more than capable of turning hard-line, even
when faced with a screaming pleading teenager in the dock.

Now, Lupin would initially seem to fit the profile well enough 
(he's so *sensitive,* don't you know, so...well, so pale and 
interesting) -- but when push comes to shove in the Shrieking 
Shack, he is revealed to be no bleeding-heart.  And the same 
goes for Hermione, who otherwise would seem to be the primary
candidate.

Really, so far in the series, Dumbledore seems to me to be the
closest thing we've got to the stereotypical bleeding-heart 
liberal -- and he's still not all that close.  Dumbledore may
not like the dementors, and he may approve of giving people
second chances, but he's hardly a _softie_.

So where *are* the Bleeding Hearts of the wizarding world?  If
they exist (and surely they do), then Rowling has not yet chosen
to depict them within the books.

But back to your objections to my feelings about Aurors...

 > The people that are out there, fighting FOR YOUR SAFETY 
 > while you lie comfortably in your bed, however, are subject 
 > to incredible scrutiny and mistrust.  

I do not think it unreasonable to subject people who have been
granted special license to interrogate (even under torture, if 
they so choose)and to kill to a higher-than-ordinary degree of 
scrutiny.  Do you?  As you yourself say:

 > People who champion civil liberties DO serve a purpose because
 > if a watchful eye were not kept on law enforcement, a "1984"-
 > like world would soon develop, which is something that obviously
 > no one wants.

And indeed, if Sirius is to be believed, wizarding society was very
much in danger of becoming that sort of world in the last years of 
the war.  Sirius goes so far as to say that some of the Aurors 
descended to the level of the Death Eaters, which I think we can
both agree is pretty dire.   

And that's where the "mistrust" comes in.  If I seem to mistrust 
Aurors, that is because there has been significant indication 
that, at least at one point in history, they behaved in a highly
untrustworthy fashion.  

You then go on to say:

 > What bugs me to no end is that while you are watching law
 > enforcement, you refuse to give them the same benefit of
 > the doubt that you do those who readily and willingly
 > break the law to harm the public.

I am going to continue to assume that we're talking about
Aurors and the Potterverse here, although I kind of get the
impression that we aren't.  ;)

I think that if you look back over my posts on this topic,
you will find that I have, in fact, been more than willing
to give the Aurors the benefit of the doubt.  When Eric 
suggested that Frank Longbottom might have been "Judge Dredd 
on acid," for example, I disagreed with him, insisting that I 
refused to believe that Longbottom was a bad Auror.  On the
contrary, I defended the notion that he was a responsible
Auror who did not abuse his power.  Nor have I ever expressed 
any doubts that Moody really *did* try to avoid killing whenever 
he could, even though the only evidence we have for this is
Sirius' claim.  I don't think that I've at all withheld the
benefit of the doubt from the Aurors.

Nor can I think of anywhere where I have granted extraordinary
benefit of the doubt to the Death Eaters.  I've never tried to
argue, for example, that Lucius Malfoy really *was* under the
Imperiatus Curse (of course he wasn't!), or that maybe the
Lestranges were framed, or that perhaps Voldemort is just this
nice guy who had a bad childhood and has simply been terribly 
misunderstood.  I've not made _any_ of those arguments, nor 
would I want to.  So where do you see me granting more benefit 
of the doubt to the law-breakers than to the law-enforcers?


 > Thank God the magical world had someone like Moody to catch 
 > Death Eaters, because if the Aurors ascribed to your philosophy, 
 > Voldemort would have taken over even faster than he did.  

Which of my philosophies do you mean, precisely?  The political
philosophy, which holds that Aurors who descend to the level of
Death Eaters are Seriously Bad News?  Or the personal philosophy,
which states: "I neither like nor trust the sort of men who 
torture students, refer to their enemies as 'scum' and 'filth,' 
show no signs of remorse over killing, approve of the use of 
dementors as prison guards, and advocate breaking faith with 
captives?"

Because honestly, I can't see how either of those philosophies
would prevent an Auror from the competent commission of his 
duties.

                   -- Elkins

[Mod note -- Elkins has done a great job relating this rather political discussion to the Wizarding World. Please remember that this list is for *canon* discussion (i.e. the books), and reference your posts appropriately, using canon as evidence. If you find yourself doing otherswise, please contact the Mods for advice at hpforgrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com. If this thread starts getting any more flamey than it is, the Mods will have to think about taking action. Thanks, --John, for the HPFGU Moderator Team.]