The following is presented to elicit thought and comment. Please go to the end to make comments on this essay.
We saw Les Miserables again. We saw it January in London, and then again March in College Station. What a remarkable story!
Les Miserables survives as a classic, because it has many aspects. It is a story of love. It is a story of redemption. It turns the respected mores of the day on end in showing a successful life as one not considered a success by monetary measure. It is a story of a tragic figure, Fantine, much like Goethe�s figure of Margarete in Faust.
But these are not the story I want to point to in this essay. The "subplot" of interest is the almost religious belief in the Law by Javert. It is an important point, because the US has just undergone a similar flagellation in the attempted coup by the Republican Party, also known as the Starr investigation and the impeachment process.
I will develop these comparisons further, but I will sidetrack for a minute on where this insight came from. A recent article in The Atlantic Monthly dealt with a similar idea. But it was not the Law the article was looking at - it was the Free Enterprise System (FES). The author systematically compared the religious fervor that surrounds the FES with religions. The comparison of faith and the unwavering acceptance of the FES as the supreme good. Any wavering from the principles of FES is condemned with a religious fervor. There are even attempts to apply the FES to noneconomic areas, such as cost benefits analysis of (for example) pollution controls. (Put a monetary value on a life or a disability so that we can get a straight comparison of the cost of pollution controls in dollars with the cost in human lives � in dollars).
I realized from this article that many people do indeed subscribe to the FES with a religious fervor, despite its clear failures (more on this in another essay). In fact, you can say that these people have subscribed to the FES as their God. This is not unusual. There are many other areas where people have set up "something" as their God. I.e., whatever gets in your way of finding God is your roadblock. Jesus told the rich man that he must give up all he owned � not because money or goods in themselves are bad, but because his attachment to them was keeping him from (in this case) finding the kingdom of heaven.
Everyone has some roadblock like this that keeps him from "what is important." I don�t want to turn this essay into how we find God or the kingdom of heaven � these are just useful comparisons to illustrate the point. It is "what is important" that we are seeking. And it is these false God�s that keep us from finding them.
Now back to the topic at hand � the Law. This can, and did, become a religious roadblock to the country in the impeachment process. "He (Clinton) broke the Law." This was given, over and over, as justification for reversing the 1996 election. Never mind that it was a minor infraction that would never have been prosecuted. Never mind that the false answer was entirely appropriate (no court of law has any business asking me about my sex life if it is entirely between consenting adults). Never mind that it involved illegal taping and entrapment. Never mind that it involved a single-minded pursuit and $40 million investigation that proved fruitless. Never mind that the people of the United States said in the 1996 and 1998 elections, and in numerous polls that the impeachment should not be pursued. Even with all this, there was still the religious fervor of, "I don�t care about all of that. He lied to a grand jury. He broke the Law."
The religious fervor of the few got in the way of the values of the many. The country suffered - and is still suffering.
Let�s return to Javert, and his puruit of Jean Valjean. Victor Hugo sets us up in the first place by having Jean Valjean convicted of stealing bread for his starving niece. We immediately feel sorry for him for doing the right thing. But his punishment was not unusual for the time � especially with the imprisonment of debtors being a common practice. I'm sure Victor Hugo would have railed against that practice, but let's ignore that question. The real injustice that I want to highlight is the unrelentless pursuit of Javert in the years afterwards.
There is no doubt that Jean Valjean became a good citizen. After his redemption � thanks to the good bishop � he became a leading citizen. He became a public servant (mayor). He did the right thing for Fantine � although it was too late for Fantine. But � and we can quote the Henry Hyde�s and Tom DeLay�s � he broke the law. He, a convicted criminal, was required to register his presence with the local authorities. He didn�t, so he broke the law.
The story is about how society suffers because of this single minded pursuit of the law. Enacted to protect the people, it became a negative when a good and valuable member of society is "lost." He is lost, because he must run away from his indiscretion. Jean Valjean is affected, Cossette is affected, French society is affected.
Javert could have done the right thing and let Jean Valjean go. Despite having seen him save a man�s life � and save another man from being falsely sent to prison, Javert attempts to arrest Jean Valjean and send him back to prison. Why? Because of the Law. Javert is so blinded by the Law that he cannot do what is right. Mercy, forgiveness, redemption. These are all terms that were foreign to Javert. And because of that � when finally faced with reality � he committed suicide. Not only society, but Javert himself suffered because of this religious pursuit.
Is there a lesson? Of course there is. The lesson from Les Miserables is that sometimes you have to think. Sometimes you have to compromise. The quality of mercy is not strained. A single minded pursuit of a "supreme value" may be the wrong thing to do in a particular case.
There is a larger lesson, also. It is that anything that you hold with a religious reverance may be a roadblock to what is right � even religion. Any dogmatic statement, any pure, unquestioned value, is subject to be wrong -�in a given circumstance. Just because a principle of life has guided us flawlessly in the past, it does not mean that its unquestioning application to the present situation is right.
Please send comments on this essay to the webmaster.
As comments are received, they will be filtered into this area - filtered in the sense that the comments may be edited (although the content will be true), and the names will be removed, unless the sender requests that his name and/or email be kept.