ESE!Fudge

[Matt]

No: HPFGUIDX 114015

--- Pippin wrote:
> I use 'evil' when the damage is lasting and serious, 
> and the action that caused it was, in the view of the 
> books, morally reprehensible. I don't think there is 
> any question that Rowling considers Fudge's conduct 
> in OOP morally reprehensible. While it was not immoral 
> for Fudge to believe that Dumbledore was trying to 
> seize power from him, it was immoral and manipulative 
> for him to mislead the public to think that he opposed 
> Dumbledore because the old man was past it. 
> ....
> Rowling wants us to understand [that] we are all capable 
> of evil, and it is when we don't recognize it, and call it 
> by its true name, that we are  most in its power. 

I think a good part of the disagreement here is semantic rather than
substantive (and is a reprise of some themes that have played out in
prior discussions of "evil" -- see #111846 et seq. (James/Sirius in
the pensieve scene); #107010 et seq. (also about Fudge)).  We can all
agree that actions x, y and z were morally imperfect, but we disagree
about the level of moral failure that amounts to evil.

Plainly Rowling has some issues -- if you will humor my understatement
-- with bureaucracy, authoritarian tendencies, the influence of money
in politics, and the priority that politics places on retaining power
rather than doing the right thing.  Almost every interaction Harry has
with the WW government shows us another negative aspect, starting with
the very first book ("Ministry o' Magic messin' things up as usual,"
-- Hagrid, SS, ch. 5), and continuing with the mistaken warning to
Harry in CS (re: Dobby's levitation charm), the implications that the
Malfoys are outside the law (CS, ch. 4), Hagrid's imprisonment later
in CS without even being charged, the Buckbeak trial and appeal in PA,
the whole story about Sirius being sent to Azkaban without a trial,
and the increasingly more sinister events in GF and OP.

Despite all that, I don't think Rowling would call Fudge evil -- not
in so many words.  1) The power of satire means that she does not have
to articulate moral judgments -- she can write what Fudge does, and
let readers draw their own conclusions.  2) I think it would be fairly
controversial to assert that it is *evil* to mislead the public about
your reasons for taking important policy decisions (like, say, going
to war).  Lots of people seem to agree that it's wrong; others take
the view that the ends justify the means; but I haven't heard anyone
even in this era of shrill political discourse use the word "evil."  

Dumbledore says we should call things by their names, but he does not
say we should call names.

-- Matt