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

Chivalry Our Lord's-Style, ca. A.D. 33

Image
I saw a video on one of my friend's Facebook feeds the other night, one of those videos taken with a mobile phone that can now be uploaded to the world from anywhere in the world. It was one of a number of videos taken at the same time--you could see all the other people in the scene holding up their phones, too--so I don't know how many of them there are of this particular incident. The scene is a street and there are about a dozen or so men standing round, most of them with their faces covered by black ski masks. In the middle of the group, there is an older woman, dressed in a black gown with her hair covered also in black. She is carrying a red backpack. The men, according to the description of the video that my friend gave, are talking with her about how offensive they find it that she will not cover her face, too. All of the men are carrying guns. I cannot watch this video, it is too awful. Because my friend told me what happens. After talking with the woman for a few m
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

“Hail, Mary, full of grace, punch the devil in the face!”

Image
Once upon a time, there was a man named Theophilus who made a bargain with the devil. Thank God that Our Lady was able to help him! Do you want to know the full story? Listen here ! * The Prayer of Theophilus O miserable wretch that I am, what have I done and what have I wrought?...  Where shall I, unhappy sinner, go, who have denied my Christ and his holy mother ( Christum meum et sanctam eius genitricem ) and have made myself a servant of the devil ( seruum diaboli ) through a chirograph of wicked warrant ( per nefande cautionis chirographum )?  Who, do you think, will be able to pull it away from the hand of the devil, the destroyer, and help me?  Why was it necessary for me to become acquainted with that wicked Hebrew who should be burned?  (For this same Hebrew had been condemned a little while before by law and judge.) Why indeed? For thus are they honored, who forsaking God and the Lord, run to the devil....  Woe to me, wretch, how have I lost the light and gone into
Keep reading

God's Fools

Image
Like Jesus , Francis of Assisi did some pretty outrageous things. Everybody knows how he went and preached to the birds, but not everybody knows why he did it. It wasn't, as certain 1970s movies would have it, because he was a nature-loving hippie (although I do love Donavan's soundtrack, especially the theme song). It was because the human beings he was preaching to wouldn't listen. He had wanted to preach the word of God in Rome, but when he arrived there, the people scorned him because he was dressed poorly, so they thought him an idiot. He tried for several days to gain their attention, but could not overcome their hardness of heart. "I grieve deeply over your misfortune," he told them, "because you are not only spurning me as a servant of Christ, but you are also really despising Him in me, since I have been preaching to you the Gospel of the Redeemer of the world. And so I am now leaving Rome. And I call as witness of your desolation Him who is t
Keep reading

Angels, Demons, Heaven, and Hell: On Christian “Mythology” and the Spiritual Life

Image
My comments for a conversation with Fr. Peter Funk, OSB, Prior of the Monastery of the Holy Cross, sponsored by the  Lumen Christi Institute Abstract : Many traditional Christian beliefs and teachings about spiritual realities have become unpalatable to modern sensibilities. Accounts of angelic visitations, demonic possessions, the stain of original sin, and the threat of eternal torment are today considered untrue or irrelevant by non-believers and even many Christians. Why were such “myths” so central to Christian belief and practice for so many centuries? Is there any value in understanding why ancient, medieval, and contemporary Christians believe in such things? Or does Christianity need to be demythologized in order to survive in a post-enlightenment age? In this conversation, Rachel Fulton Brown and Fr. Peter Funk, OSB, will consider the history of these “myths” and their relevance for contemporary spiritual practices. ***** How many of you believe in angels or
Keep reading