I hate Fudge!

[Richard]

No: HPFGUIDX 147618

<snip>
> Chancie:
> My vote would definitely have to go for Umbridge!  Every time she
> came into a scene in OOP I would cringe!  And I'm still having a
> hard time figuring out how she's still walking around after all she
> did.  Fudge was responsible for putting her in Hogwarts to begin
> with, but as power hungry as he is/was I have never read him as
> sadistic, which is exactly how I would describe Umbridge.
> I don't really care what happens to her as long as it's awful,
> and she's outed as the monster she is!

Richard here:

I have to agree with Chancie (though, dear elves, this is not a 
mere "I agree post"), that Umbridge deserves to be revealed for what 
she is, but I think Chancie understates how evil Umbridge is.  
Here's how I see it ...

I don't think Umbridge quite reaches the Adolf Eichmann plane of 
cold, bureaucratic evil, but believe she is not far from it.  She 
orchestrates a murder attempt against Harry at the start of OotP, 
not for any ideal, or for personal benefit, but because Harry is a 
threat to her conception of the proper order of things.  Voldemort 
is unquestionably evil, but it is a clearly understandable evil that 
is direct in its actions and its effects.  It does not value the 
lives of any who stand it its way, but it is at least passionate in 
its actions, and (oddly) capable of a certain warped mercy, while 
Umbridge is willing to kill an innocent in cold blood for simply 
being inconvenient.

Umbridge is in some senses worse (more "Eichmann-esque") than 
Voldemort, because at least Voldemort really only demands submission 
to and service for himself while, I suspect, being perfectly willing 
to let those who properly submit to be who and what they otherwise 
are.  Umbridge's form of evil doesn't see individuality as 
tolerable, let alone desirable.  All students are to simply read 
their texts, are denied the right to ask pertinent questions, are 
refused any instruction in how to protect themselves, and generally 
must not deviate from her vision of order.  Voldemort would 
certainly punish any he suspected of the least treachery, yet allows 
his thralls to associate freely enough.  (Being a Legilimens 
certainly affects this, but still there is a measure of freedom of 
association here.)  For Umbridge, even the suspicion of potential 
conspiracy is enough for her to regulate association rigidly.

Punishment in Umbridge's mind is not "proportional" in the sense 
that Voldemort's punishment is.  If you betray Voldemort, or fail 
too badly to execute his orders, he will kill you.  Lesser crimes 
get less punishments, one being simply "no longer favored," and thus 
excluded from confidences.  For Umbridge, innocence is no obstacle 
to punishment, as it is all "for the greater good," however purely 
expedient and unjust ... for justice isn't even a consideration.

There are a number of other things I despise about Umbridge, but I'm 
a little too tired to state the above as clearly as I would like, 
and won't venture further into why Umbridge is to me a more 
dangerous form of evil than Voldemort.  I don't know that she will 
get entirely what she deserves, but there would be an elemenet of 
justice if she were to be killed personally by the man-creature she 
insisted could not be back, particularly if this could occur after 
her being outed for the sadistic bureaucratic monster she is.


Richard, who thinks institutional evil can be far more dangerous 
than simple personal evil, and that we worst features of both would 
be seen if Umbridge were, somehow, to become Minister.