Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 159042

> > a_svirn:
> < HUGE SNIP>
> > Now, Dumbledore, he had a much nicer deal. He was the law onto 
> > himself and loved it. <snip>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Blink. Aren't you describing the dictator like Stalin here? I 
mean, 
> this is not exactly disagreement with substance since as I 
mentioned 
> some time ago, you forced me to see DD's mistakes in much harsher 
> way than I did before, but more like disagreement with the degree 
of 
> the DD dictatorial style.
> 
> Could you point me to canon where DD **loves** what he does, 
namely 
> making all those terrible decisions?
> 
> Where he enjoys ruling people, etc. 

a_svirn:
Blink-blink. What terrible decisions? Why Stalin? I said Dumbledore 
loved being a law onto himself – that is, being above and beyond the 
law. There are plenty examples in canon of him showing a fine 
disregard to the matters legal. 

> Alla:
> 
> But did he lose his Headmastership for something truly wrong that 
he 
> did? I mean, first time Lucius' bribery and second time, well, we 
> know - Dolores dear.  Or are you thinking of other occasions?
> 
> And what did he fail year after year, if you don't mind? I mean, 
> don't get me wrong, I do think that he failed Harry, and I think 
he 
> should have felt guilty about it, but are you saying that he 
> deserves to not be Headmaster because of that?

a_svirn:
Well, fist of all, I mentioned those occasions just to illustrate 
that his *official* positions were more vulnerable than the 
unofficial one. I didn't mean that he was rightly fired from 
Wizengamot or should have been replaced as a leader of the Order. 
But I do think that it is very dangerous for anyone, even 
essentially a good guy, to wield as much power – total and 
unconditional power –   as Dumbledore did in his "unofficial" 
capacity. At least, his above-board political activity, so to speak, 
could be (and was) checked – there are established mechanisms of 
doing so. 

As for him failing year after year – yes, I do mean that he failed 
Harry. This probably does not concern his headmastership as much as 
his leadership of the order. Whether or not he deserved to be 
replaced I am not sure. I do think, however, that his style of 
leadership was dictatorial at best, and his mistakes were numerous. 
Maybe phoenixes on the whole deserved such a leader, since they were 
content to leave all the responsibility of decision-making to 
Dumbledore. But Harry deserved better. 

Second, as for him being wronged by the Ministry. Lucius may have 
bribed and threatened the board of governors but don't you think 
they had a point when they suspended him? I mean, there were several 
attacks on Muggle-borns and not only the culprit wasn't found, the 
great headmaster didn't have a fist idea where to look for him. What 
they were supposed to? Share a firewhisky with Dumbledore and 
commiserate? And two years later there was that Tournament and the 
whole bunch of scandals, including embarrassing international ones. 
And in the end a student was killed, and three others attacked. 
Imagine such situation in real life, how long do you think any 
headmaster would retain their office after a disaster of such 
monumental proportions?  

> Alla: 
> On the other hand, I just realised that you may have a point ( 
> unfortunately) due to DD refusing MOM position. I used to think 
that 
> this is because he prefers to be a teacher and teach young people 
> noble things, etc,etc, but maybe this is indeed because that as 
MoM 
> he would be accountable for what he does and as a Leader of OOP , 
he 
> really does not.
> 

a_svirn:
Yep, that's exactly what I think.