Posted on 01/02/2002 6:12:26 PM PST by Marianne
While the Lord of the Rings is certainly not a political treatise, the moral of the tale is clear: All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The original inspiration for Tolkien's tale is the ancient Greek myth of the Ring of Gyges. In the myth, Gyges is a simple shepherd who finds a ring that makes him invisible, so he uses the power to kill the king and replace him as tyrant. Plato discusses the myth in book 2 of The Republic, where he says that such power is too much for any man to possess, and if any person could possess such a ring the temptation to misuse it would be too great; even a man who began as good would end a criminal and a tyrant just as Gyges did.
This Platonic mistrust of power becomes central in Tolkien's tale. In the very beginning of the work the Wizard Gandalf describes the ring as "so powerful that in the end it would utterly overcome anyone of mortal race who possessed it. It would possess him." The problem is not so much that the ring is cursed, as a problem with the nature of power itself.
Why is it "easier for a camel to pass through the needle's eye" than for a rich or powerful man to enter Heaven? It is not that money and riches are inherently evil, but rather because a man becomes dominated by them: He becomes a slave to his possessions, and dominated by his power.
In book 2 of The Fellowship of the Ring, the Elven princess Galadriel is offered the ring because Frodo, the ring bearer, believes she is good and wise enough to keep it. She responds:
"In the place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night. . . . All shall love me and despair! . . . I pass the test, I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel."
One who was less wise was the human warrior Boromir, who thought he could use the ring's power without being corrupted by it:
"True-hearted Men, they will not be corrupted. . . . We do not desire the power of wizard-lords, only strength to defend ourselves, strength in a just cause. . . . The fearless, the ruthless, these alone will achieve victory."
All power starts out this way. Usually a leader seeks power for some legitimate purpose: to right some wrong, or to protect his country from some threat. Yet, invariably the wielder becomes ruthless in his exercise and pursuit of power. Power is seductive, the person or group exercising it becomes intoxicated, and refuses to relinquish power even when the danger is passed or the wrong has been corrected. The leader or group looks for new enemies and new wrongs to be righted, often as an excuse to keep or expand his power.
How many great Catholic leaders of the 20th Century fell prey to the seduction of power? Franco in Spain; Pinochet in Chile; Marcos in the Philippines, all saved their countries from Communism and did a great service to their people and mankind, but in the end, all of them abused their power.
They were hardly the first. Even Constantine the Great - who took power with divine sanction, and who did more for God's Church than most other rulers in history - meddled in the affairs of the Church, banished St. Athanasius as a trouble-maker, and executed his own wife. In the Old Testament King David abused his power as when he had Uriah the Hittite killed because he lusted after Uriah's wife.
The Western mistrust of centralized power is thus based on long historical observation, and not simply on the abstract reasoning of philosophers like Plato. It was o the basis of thousands of years of human history that the great Catholic historian Lord Action came to the conclusion t hat power tends to corrupt, but absolute power always corrupts. Not just individuals but institutions are also corrupted when they wield too much power.
In fact, Action viewed democracy as the form of government most likely to result in tyranny, unless there were barriers to prevent the majority from uniting to exercise absolute power. Action, like all other great Catholic thinkers of his era (such as Montesquieu and de Tocqueville) and classical thinkers like Aristotle and Aguustine, believed that freedom and good government depended on keeping government small and local.
To the extent that a mayor lacks the power of a President or an emperor, he is so much less likely to become a tyrant. A small town mayor can be trusted with power, because he doesn't have enough of it to do much damage. In the Lord of the Rings, Frodo the hobbit is entrusted with the ring specifically because he is too weak to use it to dominate others or try to rule the world.
So while Lord of the Rings is not a political or moral work, its message is one that is sorely needed today, when government seems to grow more powerful by the month. Beware of concentrating power in any human institution, even when (perhaps, especially when) we think that the leaders are "good people."
If Constantine and David could not be trusted with absolute power, how much less should we trust George W. Bush and John Ashcroft with it?
I enjoyed the film and recommend it to all. (Not very young children, however.)
And even if you do trust Bush and Ashcroft, will you trust their successors?
And beware of giving people or institutions too many limitations on their power lest they be incapable of decisive action when it it really needed. Checks and balances are ok, but don't tie the hands of your leaders to the point where they cannot lead.
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
He and Tolkein were both devout Catholics - as well as highly regarded intellectuals at a time when intellectuals were largely "classical liberals", which means they were largely traditional and Christian. Not the left wing nutty "liberals" of this century.
As to whether or not we can trust GW with the power he requires to defeat the evil that threatens us, we'll just have to see what happens AFTER we've defeated it.
However, since presidents are elected to 4 year terms with an 8 year maximum, and since we have both a judicial and a congressional branch to offer checks and balances, I don't really think we have very much to worry about.
We have more to worry about if we hamstring our leaders and refuse to allow them to weild a weapon when they are trying to defend us.
I had a woman manager like that once, that back stabbing, shoe buying.... well nevermind.
The first time I heard the speech, I though Galadriel had said the b-word, but I guess it was just me.
Interesting article, has nothing to do with LOTR. Rousting some alien, sleeper agents does not a tyrant make. Sorry!
Cyber Liberty's message: Well, DUH!
Interesting to note that, in the very last line of the article, the author compares Bush and Ashcroft to Sauron. Breathtaking.
Freeper thoughts?
I think we need to be wary of a new ring--the ring of absolute stupidity. It rules over other rings, like the ring of relativism and the ring of passivity, to name only two.
Thanks for the post Marianne.
The use of power is a game and if you choose not to use it, then others who do acquire power will use it against you. I am reminded of Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince ...
"Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires."
Politicians have too much power in our Republic. And whose fault is that? When we chose not to particpate in the system, we get what we deserve.
Absolutely. That's why the government's gotten smaller and there are less laws on the books every year.
I tend to agree with the latter statement, that power from an unholy source can never be trusted, and since all men (and women) are sinners, can they ever be completely trusted with power? Although, some people are closer to God in thought and deed and perhaps can use power wisely.
It's been a long time since I read Lord of the Rings (long, long long time, I feel really old!) and my husband and I are going to see the movie this weekend, babysitter permitting. I'm thinking of opening boxes and finding my old books for a re-read ... what do you and others think? Should I cram a book in during the next three days or will the movie suffice?
One way in which it makes this point is that Frodo is only able to get the Ring because he does not want to use it, but wants this instrument of power to keep others from misusing it, a very conservative principle.
Oddly, the same theme shows up in Harry Potter. He is able to find and secure the Sorceror's Stone precisely because he has no intention of using it, but intends to keep others from doing so, because using it corrupts you, just as using the ring does.
Amazing that such a conservative theme is common to the books that are the sources of the two blockbuster movies our now. How did this get past the Hollywood establishment?
One way in which it makes this point is that Frodo is only able to get the Ring because he does not want to use it, but wants this instrument of power to keep others from misusing it, a very conservative principle.
Oddly, the same theme shows up in Harry Potter. He is able to find and secure the Sorceror's Stone precisely because he has no intention of using it, but intends to keep others from doing so, because using it corrupts you, just as using the ring does.
Amazing that such a conservative theme is common to the books that are the sources of the two blockbuster movies our now. How did this get past the Hollywood establishment?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.