Deathly Hallows reread CH 1 -3

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 186226

> Alla:
> And here is our big point of disagreement. I know that you are right and that somewhere in HBP we may find Albus offering some sort of advice to Ministry. I however confess to totally not remembering this part, but I think it is interesting (and it is not sarcasm at all from me, believe me) that I remember very well Scrimgeour coming to Harry for help on more than one occassion and getting... what exactly?

Zara:
Scrimgeour wanted very specific assistance from Harry. Basically, for Harry to be a PR boost to the Ministry. In my opinion, Albus did not believe this would be either useful for the war/Wizard society, or good for Harry. And thus, I think he had no obligation to further it. 

> Alla:
>  Rufus Scrimgeour wanted to get rid of Voldemort no less than Harry did, didn't he?

Zara:
Right, I think his disagreement with Albus was on methods. 

> Alla:
> So, anyways, could you remind me where and when Albus offered advice to the ministry?

Zara:
We are not shown any scenes. Albus and Scrimgeour would not have been having this sort of discussion in front of Harry. We can deduce they DID have such conversations, from dialogue and events other characters were in.

Such as:
> HBP, "The Other Minister":
> "He'll (Scrimgeour) be here in a moment, he's just finishing a letter to Dumbledore."
> "I wish him luck," said Fudge, sounding bitter for the first time. "I've been writing to Dumbledore twice a day for the past fortnight, but he won't budge. If he'd just been prepared to persuade the boy, I might still be...Well, maybe Scrimgeour will have more success."

Zara:
I think Scrimmy, like Fudge, had his own ideas about how to do things and ignored ALbus's advice, just as we saw Fudge do in the end of GoF. ALbus must have written something otehr than "get lost" back, to inspire this flurry of letter-writing.

It is clear that Scrimmy, like Fudge, saw a PR role for Harry as the key. (Because after this letter being written in my quote is sent, Harry reads of a rift between Albus and Scrimmy. I think FUdge had it right, Scrimmy was asking for the same thing, and ALbus declined for the same reaosns). I think Albus has every right to disagree this is a necessary or prudent course of action.

ALbus by no means poisons Harry against Scrimmy. HIs evaluation of the man, when asked by Harry:

> HBP. "Horace Slughorn":
> "Is he...Do you think he's good?"
> "An interesting question," said Dumbledore. "He is able, certainly. A more decisive and forceful personality than Cornelius."
> "Yes, but I meant-"
> "I know what you meant. Rufus is a man of action, and having fought Dark Wizards for most of his working life, does not underestimate Lord Voldemort." 

Zara:
Harry notes himself that ALbus refuses to address the rift between him and Scrimmy. He does not lobby Harry on the topic.

And before you reply with "He could have said yes!", how would *you* answer the question, "Do you think Snape's good?" Albus gave a fair, adult, honest answer that recognized Scrimgeour's good qualities, and did not list any bad ones. 

Next, we have the following conversation between Harry and Arthur:

> HBP, "A Very Frosty Christmas":
> "I know Dumbledore's tried appealing directly to Scrimgeour about Stan.....I mean, anybody who has actually interviewed him agrees he's about as much a Death Eater as this satsuma...but the top levels want to look as though they're making some progress, and "three arrests" sounds better than "three mistaken arrests and releases"...but again, this is all top secret...."

Zara:
So Albus and Scrimmy are still communicating. And still disagreeing.
Harry brings Stan up to Scrimmy in the conversation they have later this evening. It is a view he already had (the Trio all are shiocked by his arrest a few chapters before), that was reinforced by Arthur - but Albus never discussed it with Harry.

In "A Sluggish Memory" ALbus confirms what Harry has already figured out, that Scrimmy just wants him for PR purposes. Again...if Albus has the right to disagree on this policy, he surely has no obligation to talk *Harry* out of *Harry's* objections to same?

In the final relevant scene, at ALbus's funeral, Harry is again approached by Scrimgeour. Who still wants the same old, same old.

> Alla:
> Eh, I am not suggesting that he should have shared the name of the spy either. But to me there were plenty other routes to cooperate with Ministry (Harry's help would have been one of the most obvious) that he choose did not go to.

Zara:
It's not Snape I'm saying he should have kept from the Ministry, it's Horcruxes. The Ministry must have known about Snape, anyway, there must still have been people who had witnessed Albus's dramatic testimony on his behalf after the first war. His position in the second war was that, until the end of HBP, both sides believed him to be working for them. After HBP, both sides were wrong about who he was working for. <bg> Snape is just Albus's excellent reason for thinking telling the Ministry anything important is like sending it to Voldemort an Owl. 

So are you saying that having Harry Potter endorse the policies of the Scrimgeour Administration would have actually produced some useful effect? So useful Harry should have overlooked his principled objections to those policies (such as the arrests and continued detention of three innocent people, as Harry believes)?

I mean, perhaps an RL example will shed light on how I think about this. Person X is a famous celebrity who agrees Al Qaeda is a Bad Thing. The Bush Administration also agrees Al Qaeda is a Bad Thing, and pursues (among other things) Guantanamo, domestic wiretaps, and waterboarding in their attempts to deal with Al Qaeda. Person X considers these human rights/civil rights violations.

Should Person X endorse the Bush Administration, or is he right to withhold his support and urge the Bush Administration to reconsider the policies to which he objects?

Because, to me it seems the point is not whether in the US/Al Qaeda conflict, X and Bush are on the same side. But whether X's support would do *real* good (help stop Al Qaeda from doing something bad) or just boost the poll numbers of a leader whose policies may be doing more harm than good, at least in the opinion of X?