Locke, Hayek, J.K. Rowling?

In a March 5, Daily Caller article, Alex Beehler argued that instead of teaching Harry Potter and other “children’s literature” to Princeton undergraduates, students “might be better educated in the responsibilities and opportunities based on a society founded on individual liberty.”

I applaud any effort to reinstate classical liberalism on college campuses, but by removing Harry Potter classes, we would actually be depriving ourselves of one of the best agents for promoting classical liberalism.

Despite author J.K. Rowling’s professed preference for the British Labor Party, the Harry Potter series reads as a distinctly Liberal (and here I use Liberal in the European sense) tract—it firmly rejects the notion that government or an otherwise superior force should be given the power to interfere with the autonomy of the individual, even if its intentions are good. Instead, the series puts its faith in the genius of the unfettered individual.

Consider the letter written by the young Dumbledore to Gindelwald in “Deathly Hallows:”

“Your point about wizard dominance being FOR THE MUGGLE’S OWN GOOD – this, I think, is the crucial point. Yes, we have been given power and, yes, that power gives us the right to rule, but it also gives us responsibilities over the ruled. We must stress this point, it will be the foundation stone upon which we build. Where we are opposed, as we surely will be, this must be basis for our counter-arguments. We seize control FOR THE GREATER GOOD. And from this it follows that where we meet resistance, we must only use the force that is necessary and no more.”

This is the basic big-government mantra—government should use its power to do good for the people. The government, in all of its wisdom, knows what’s best for society, and itshould have the power to move forward, even if it means stomping on some resistance.

The book makes it painfully clear how we are supposed to feel about this type of thinking. Harry—who represents every adjective that is admirable—vehemently rejects the letter, and it even causes him to question his faith in Dumbledore. The older Dumbledore—the wisest character in the book—is ashamed of his youthful correspondence, calling it both naïve and dangerous. But more damning than either of these two points is the fact that Grindelwald enacts the “Greater Good” theory only to be branded as the second most evil man behind He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. Grindelwald’s attempt at governmental subjection of the individual even elicits Nazism parallels from Rowling. The evil wizard’s prison camp bares a sign reading “For the Greater Good,” an eerie reminder of Hitler’s “Work Will Set You Free” sign over the Auschwitz death camp.