Fudge and Umbridge (Was: Dementors in Little Whinging)

[Vivamus]

No: HPFGUIDX 117257


Juli: 
> >I remember that during OoP when Sirius was
> >talking to the Trio in the chimney, Ron suggested she
> >could be a Death Eater, but he replied that just
> >because she's mean she's not necessarily a DE.

Feng Zengkun 
> I think it would weaken the series as a whole if Umbridge did 
> turn out to be a DE. I think that one of JKR's points is that 
> not all bad people are DEs, because even people working on 
> the 'good' side (in their opinion) can sanction dubious 
> actions that they believe is for the common good. Crouch, for 
> instance, in the first VW, allowing Aurors to kill suspected 
> DEs (there's a quote somewhere, I just can't remember it), 
> and sending people to prison without trials. As for the 
> ministry keeping records, I can totally see Fudge closing an 
> eye to Umbridge's actions if/when he found out.   

Vivamus:

I happen to agree with Feng Z. that Umbridge was not a DE in OOP, for
exactly that reason.  It raises a more interesting question though:  How is
Fudge going to save his own career after such a monumental series of
mistakes?  
 
I must disagree that Fudge might turn a blind eye to what Umbridge
did.  

Umbridge committed several crimes, and talked openly about defying the
Minister of Magic.  She did not quite execute the Cruciatus Curse on a
student, but was clearly intending to do so, and made the comment that what
Fudge doesn't know won't hurt him (I know, she didn't actually do it, but in
terms of embarrassing a politician, it doesn't matter.)   She DID admit in
front of a number of witnesses that she ordered Dementors to attack (and, I
assume, deliver the Kiss to) Harry over the previous summer.   That isn't
just an abuse of power, it is a significant crime.

While bureaucrats and politicians may find justifications for all sorts of
abuses of power, I suspect they only support each other in the same when the
abuses do not hurt themselves.  Umbridge's actions were at best a serious
embarrassment to Fudge, and he seems the consummate politician, does he not?
The disaster that resulted from her leadership at Hogwarts cannot be
rectified by the "success" of her DADA class.    Fudge has created a PR
disaster for himself in his trying to frame DD, and I would be astonished if
he does not immediately cut his losses by dumping all association with
Umbridge as quickly as possible.

Let's see, what would provide the least damage for Fudge?  Not sending her
to Azkaban, that would result in too much attention.  She *could* be sent to
Azkaban for sure, but that also might make things worse for Fudge's position
in the polls, rather than better.

He certainly won't leave her in power.   The most common way today to deal
with embarrassments like her is to force them to retire immediately.  They
still keep their pension, which keeps them from making further trouble, and
they are no longer a problem.  If Fudge weren't in hot water himself, I'd
say that is what he would do -- but it doesn't help *him*.

I suspect she is going to be sacked, publicly humiliated, and lose her
pension.  That way, she becomes the scapegoat for Fudge's idiocy as well as
her own.   Fudge shows mercy by NOT sending her to Azkaban, but shows
fortitude by otherwise being as nasty as possible.  He rescues his own
career by blaming all his own mistakes on her.

The real question for me, though, is "what will she do then?"  Personally, I
think she will be recruited by V.  She will have nothing to lose, and as
former second in command of the MOM, she will know *all* the ins and outs of
the MOM, so she will be an invaluable asset to V.  She certainly has the
right mind-set to become a DE.   We don't actually know what is involved in
becoming a DE, so IF she is recruited, we don't know if she will become a DE
or something lower in V's hierarchy.



Following up on Feng's argument, JKR could quite well do this, because the
books are not just about showing us that not all bad people are DEs; they
are about choices and consequences.  Good people can do bad things by
judgmental mistake or in the heat of the moment.  The question is not
whether they make mistakes, but what they do afterwards.  By not turning
back from mistakes, by taking pleasure in the harm one causes to others,
there is a slippery slope that quickly leads to evil character.  

Are babies born evil?  I don't think so.  Did Tom Riddle just wake up one
morning and decide, "I'm going to be the most evil wizard of all time"?   It
doesn't make sense that way, does it?  We have so far only seen good
characters and bad characters. Although we've seen a lot of ambiguous
behavior (e.g., Snape), we haven't seen anyone truly crossing sides (with
the possible exception of Percy, who hasn't crossed sides yet, but is
certainly moving in that direction.)   Evil people start out as good people
who lack the moral courage to face their own bad choices.   

I think Umbridge COULD make the perfect counterpoint for Fudge, Percy and
Snape.  All four have done some pretty bad things, ostensibly (for all four)
from good motives.  I think we'll eventually see Percy repent all the way
back to the good side (and possibly die for it,) and Snape and Fudge seem to
be still in the balance.  If Harry will be the instrument of Snape's
eventual redemption, then Umbridge provides the example on the other side of
the slippery slope.  Her going all the way to evil provides the example of
what Percy and Snape eventually will become, if they do not repent.   

Fudge could go either way, depending on the needs of the plot.  What am I
saying?  ANY of them could go either way, depending on the needs of the
plot.

Vivamus