Taking Umbridge


I thought it was a funny photo, so I shared it on my Facebook wall. Apparently, or so several of my friends are anxious to tell me, it isn't funny at all and I should be very careful at this moment in our nation's election season not to make jokes about Secretary Clinton, because as everyone knows, Donald Trump is terribly, terribly dangerous. 

As one of my friends from college posted almost immediately: "Dislike! Rachel, I respect and love you, and consider you one of the most intelligent persons I know, but I believe that you are not seeing Hillary Clinton for the strong candidate that she is. I had issues at first, too, but then I realized that my prejudice was more about Bill Clinton, and I now admire Secretary Clinton without reservation."

Another friend submitted soon thereafter: "Submitting Barty Crouch Jr (lunatic with borderline multiple personalities who impersonated Mad Eye) as a better substitution for Lockhart, if we're in this universe." At which, I asked if she had seen the image of both candidates as Darth Vader, which I shared on my wall some months ago. 


"I'm cackling omg," my second friend replied. But my first friend was still greatly concerned: "At this point in the election, with the race so close, my personal opinion is that it is in the disinterest of our society as a whole to vilify the obviously qualified candidate. To compare her to Dolores Umbridge is not only wrong, but potentially damaging to our nation. Rachel, you influence a lot of minds, as you should. Your posts and your words have power."

Others jumped in over the course of the day. At present the post has four thumbs up and two hahas, but several of my friends are arguing strongly over Clinton's accomplishments, and at least two more have come on board to try to warn me off making jokes about Clinton. One pointed out that even conservatives, particularly those like David French at National Review say that Donald Trump is dangerous. In French's words: "[Trump is] most dangerous where he has the most power, and that should send a chill down everyone's spine." In my friend's words: "I agree with [French] on this, and probably on little else. I think this is a moment in which fear is fully justified given the madman almost half the country will vote for in a few weeks." Another friend explicitly tried to shame me for the joke: "Hot take: it's good to know that educated white women can be just as dismissive of a woman's accomplishments as a conniving trust fund man-child." "Please," my first friend pleaded with me. "Please, if you can't take a stand [I don't think she means that she would like me to stand for Trump, so I assume she means "in favor of Clinton"], then bow out. With what is at stake, your humor is perilous." Plus, my first friend pointed out: "You have, in humor, equated our first potential female president with an evil, sadistic witch. If you cannot see the harm, and the complete UNfunny nature of that comparison, I am at a loss."

In short, my friends wanted to tell me, be afraid, be very very afraid; this is not the time for making jokes.

Excuse me, but why ever the h*ll not?! One way or another we are about to elect one of the least trusted presidential candidates ever. Even Clinton's supporters don't seem interested in giving her that much support, to judge from the numbers reported turning up for her minimal rallies. This doesn't mean they won't still vote for her, but it does suggest they aren't all that interested in hearing her speak. Likewise, as rousing as Trump's rallies are, he is having a very hard time convincing any one else--at least to judge from the shares on my Facebook feed, not to mention the writers at National Review--to trust him. Darth Vader or Darth Vader? To coin a phrase, at this point, what difference does it make if I post a joke on my Facebook wall pointing up the dilemma our country is caught in? Particularly when, contrary to my friend's confidence in my influence, I have not seen one friend in my Facebook salon change his or her mind thanks to the many articles I have shared over the last ten or twelve months trying to make sense at the very least of why Trump has so many supporters, if not in fact defending him as such. (I saw no point in going there, there are only so many hours in the day, even if I did read Ann Coulter's book.) And when, by the by, David French finds Clinton equally scary, if for rather different reasons.

Well, here my friends are right: it makes all the difference in the world, but not, I would argue, for the reasons they were giving me. You know who else doesn't like jokes? Satan. At least, that is, Milton's magnificent and awe-inspiring Satan brooding over the kingdom that could have been his--should have been his--if only God hadn't gotten in the way of his ambition. Likewise, every earthly tyrant who has ever followed in Satan's footsteps in his (or her--are there female tyrants? There must be, women can do anything men can do) efforts to dominate others' wills. Okay, I admit it, I am channeling Tolkien here, but recall what Gandalf says explicitly about Sauron, when Frodo asks why Sauron should want hobbits as slaves: "He does not need you--he has many more useful servants--but he won't forget you again. And hobbits as miserable slaves would please him far more than hobbits happy and free." This, you will likewise recall, was the proper purpose of the One Ring. Not to make its wearer invisible (as with ordinary magic rings), but rather to bring all the free peoples of Middle-earth under the dominion of Sauron's will.

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, 
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

And for what? Not, as Gandalf pointed out, because all or indeed any of those bound would be useful as slaves; Sauron was not interested in making things. What he wanted was control over other people's thoughts.

How can you tell when you have control over other people's thoughts? They no longer laugh. When people are free, as another friend of mine likes to put it, they laugh; they make jokes about everything. But those under the control of tyrants do not laugh; they are too afraid to laugh, because under tyrants, laughter means death. I am sure you can think of a few examples here without my having to tell you. And before you ask, no, I do not think either Clinton or Trump is interested in being a tyrant. But my friends still keep telling me that it is dangerous to laugh. Which is far more frightening than anything I have heard either candidate say.

Popular posts from this blog

Draco Layer Four: The Anagogic or Mystical Sense

Image
Here be dragons. And doves. Human beings long for transcendence. Such longing is, for the world, always out of fashion because, of course, it is not a longing for the world, and the world knows it. We know what the world wants. The world—by which we mean Satan, the Lord of the World—wants above all our obedience, a jewel so precious that he will do anything to get it: lie, steal, murder, bear false witness, pretend to social standing, pretend to insider knowledge to get us to consent to his influence.  “God lied to you. You will not die.” And suddenly we are anxious about having other people dislike us, about losing prestige in our social circles, about other people being more popular or influential or successful, about other people having secret knowledge, about our own influence and fame. “You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” And with that temptation, our first parents fell. The irony is cosmic. There they were in the Garden, privy to conversation with God face-to-face, ...
Keep reading

Talking Points: Three Cheers for White Men

Image
1. When white women (see Marie de France and Eleanor of Aquitaine) invented chivalry and courtly love , white men agreed that it was better for knights to spend their time protecting women rather than raping them, and even agreed to write songs for them rather than expecting them to want to have sex with them without being forced. 2. When white men who were celibate (see the canon lawyers and theologians of the twelfth century and thereafter) argued that marriage was a sacrament valid only if both the man and the woman consented , white men exerted themselves to become good husbands rather than expecting women to live as their slaves. 3. When white women (see Christine de Pizan, Mary Wollstonecraft, and the suffragettes) invented feminism , white men supported them (see John Stuart Mill) and even went so far as to vote (because only men could vote at the time) to let them vote, not to mention hiring them as workers and supporting their education. And before you start telling me a...
Keep reading

How to Signal You Are Not a White Supremacist

Image
Professor Kim READ FIRST:  Why Dorothy Kim Hates Me , The Color of the House of the Lord It’s back to class for those of us who teach in medieval studies, and my medievalist colleague Dorothy Kim , Assistant Professor of English at Vassar College ( pictured in 2014 ), wants to make sure you understand the stakes . The medieval western European Christian past is being weaponized by white supremacist/white nationalist/KKK/nazi extremist groups who also frequently happen to be college students.  That does sound bad. But, wait, it gets worse! Don’t think western European medieval studies is exceptional.... ISIS/ISIL also weaponizes the idea of the pure medieval Islamic past in their recruiting rhetoric for young male Muslims. If the medieval past (globally) is being weaponized for the aims of extreme, violent supremacist groups, what are you doing, medievalists, in your classrooms? Because you are the authorities teaching medieval subjects in the classroom, you are, in ...
Keep reading

Draco Layer Three: The Moral or Tropological Sense

Image
Learn to discern. We all know what sin is, right? Right?!  Once upon a time in the desert , the hermit Evagrius Ponticus (d. 399) set out to make a list of the most deadly ones, albeit he called them “deadly thoughts,” not “sins.” You probably know the list, even if you don’t think you do: gluttony, impurity (a.k.a. lust), avarice (a.k.a. greed), sadness (a.k.a. feeling sorry for oneself), anger or wrath, acedia  or sloth, vainglory, and pride (two different things).  Not quite the list you were expecting? That is because some centuries later—we’re talking ancient times here, when centuries passed like decades do now (or vice versa)—Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604) revised the list, somewhat accidentally, in his commentary on Job.  Gregory had been expounding Job according to its multiple layers—yes, that’s right! Job, like Shrek, has layers! —and he happened somewhere in book XXXI to mention the “seven principle vices” to which Pride,  the “Queen of S...
Keep reading

What's in a name?

I knew it was a mistake involving myself in political commentary*, but having taken the plunge, I guess I have to keep swimming, at least until the election. One of the things that has mystified me for years is how the label "liberal" came to be associated with support for government regulation of business, e.g. environmental and worker protection measures, or even (heaven forbid) financial transactions. I know that my colleagues in political science would have an answer to this, and I suspect it goes back to sometime in the 1980s, when Berke Breathed did all those comics about the General [my bad: the Major; it's been a long time] and Milo hunting liberals in the meadows of Bloom County. But knowing the little that I do about the history of the concept of liberalism as it developed in the 19th century, I must confess myself rather confused. This is the way John Stuart Mill (as Wikipedia puts it, "one of the first champions of modern 'liberalism'") s...
Keep reading