. Spinning .

I knew that Tomas’ reflections on political responsibility was heading somewhere and so stopped at a point where I can switch direction along with him:

But, he said to himself, whether they knew or didn’t know is not the main issue; the main issue is whether a man is innocent because he didn’t know.  Is a fool on the throne relieved of all responsibility merely because he is a fool? (p. 177)

We can see the stirrings of political theory here, and Tomas’ beliefs on politics may be in direct conflict with his personal dealings with relationships. Let’s watch:

Let us concede that a Czech public prosecutor in the early fifties who called for the death of an innocent man was deceived by the Russian secret police and the government of his own country. But now that we all know the accusations to have been absurd and the executed to have been innocent, how can that selfsame public prosecutor defend his purity of heart by beating himself on the chest and proclaiming, My conscience is clear! I didn’t know!! I was a believer! Isn’t his "I didn’t know! I was a believer!" at the very root of his irreparable guilt?

Tough call; I would think the horror at the tragedy, at the grave mistake would be enough to cause guilt-like response. Is there guilt for not having seen through the lies that led him to his action? I would grant him the benefit of the doubt. Tomas, looking again to the example of Oedipus, does not:

It was in this connection that Tomas recalled the tale of Oedipus: Oedipus did not know he was sleeping with his own mother, yet when he realized what had happened, he did not feel innocent.  Unable to stand the sight of the misfortunes he had wrought by "not knowing," he put out his eyes and wandered blind away from Thebes.

When Tomas heard Communists shouting in defense of their inner purity, he said to himself, As a result of your "not knowing," this country has lost its freedom, lost it for centuries, perhaps, and you shout that you feel no guilt? How can you stand the sight of what you’ve done?

So Tomas has branded them as guilty; ignorance no excuse for action. Yes, I suppose I can justify the outrage, the blame-laying, and yet, there are degrees of guilt that should lessen the pain from the known and committed; the venial versus the mortal sin of the Catholic mind.

Finally back to reading and I come upon a passage that reminds me so much of the upcoming presidential election:

Anyone who thinks that the Communist regimes of Central Europe are exclusively the work of criminals is overlooking a basic truth: the criminal regimes were made not by criminals but by enthusiasts convinced they had discovered the only road to paradise.  They defended that road so valiantly that they were forced to execute many people.  Later it became clear that there was no paradise, that the enthusiasts were therefore murderers.  (p. 176)

This echos my thinking on government and administrations.  No official takes public office with the intent to do wrong by the people. All aspiring politicians go forth with the belief that they’re doing the right thing; all strive for the same goals yet differ in their priorities and methods.  And each base their solutions upon experience and perception, on their faith in what they believe to be true:

Then everyone took to shouting at the Communists: You’re the ones responsible for our country’s misfortunes (it had grown poor and desolate), for its loss of independence (it had fallen into the hands of the Russians), for its judicial murders!

Aside from the occasional wacko, i.e., Hitler, Hussein, leaders have extended their efforts not only for personal success but for the general welfare of the people.  Wars are not taken lightly; they are usually entered into aggressively or reluctantly, for gain or for defense, and sacrifice is not always found to have been estimated accurately when the results are in. To continue:

And the accused responded: We didn’t know! We were deceived! We were true believers! Deep in our hearts we are innocent!

In the end, the dispute narrowed down to a single question: Did they really not know or were they merely making believe?

So it comes down to the matter of truth, and whether ignorance is an excuse. Tomas, in contemplating this takes into consideration the matter of Oedipus (which he is reading) and even in looking back into time he is asking the unanswered question of ethics and morals that beset behavior today.

This helps me to understand the values of tolerance; that forgiveness is not necessarily a sign of being naive.