• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

Think about why there are things that you should do for your friends that you don’t have to do for other people. Friends help each other out. Friends have a shared past. Friendship is a bond where each person is willing to say, “It really matters to me how well my friends are doing.” Proponents of the relational approach think of our duties to our fellow citizens like this. Our duties toward one another depend on our shared history, culture, and the special bond that makes you want to see the USA win at the Olympics. Similar to Michael’s “Family First” motto (and also very different from breakfast being the most important thing), our relationship to other Americans is kind of like our relationship to family. We didn’t choose it, but we went to the same kind of schools, grew up in the same kind of neighborhoods, and these kinds of things create the bond of civil society. What’s wrong with treason on this account has less to do with my relationship to the state and more to do with committing acts that hurt my political community. Aggressive treason is like stabbing your friend in the back (perhaps literally) and passive-aggressive treason is like breaking a promise to your friend by hanging out with someone who doesn’t want you to be friends.

The relational approach better captures part of what’s wrong with treason. Again, what distinguishes treason from other crimes is its reflexive nature: It harms the traitor’s homeland. If the basis of our duties to our fellow citizens depends on our common bonds, we should blame those actions that threaten or go against that bond. Part of what’s wrong with treason is the message expressed by the action. Think about when Michael ran the father/son triathlon at the Church and State Fair with his (possible) nephew Steve Holt (!). Michael’s actions betrayed his son and brother, damaging the bonds that tie family together. He denied his son the chance to run the course with him, which made George Michael feel like less of a man. It also undermined Gob’s chances to bond with his (possible) son. That’s what made his actions wrong, even if everything worked out in the end.

As fellow citizens, we’re in this thing together; supporting an enemy, even if the country ends up okay, expressly rejects the spirit of communal endeavor. George Sr., by trading with Iraq in the first place and subsequently trying to cover it up, performed actions that undermined the spirit of community that makes legitimate government possible. This is what makes George Sr.’s doing business with Saddam’s rogue regime a huge mistake and blameworthy in the eyes of not only the law, but also the community.

“I’ve Made a Huge Mistake”

So, George Sr. committed light passive-aggressive treason. He violated laws by trading with Saddam and giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States. What should we make of it? On one hand, if our allegiance to a government depends on how well it helps us secure public goods or discharge moral obligations, then George’s passive-aggressive treason doesn’t seem so bad. Many of his other illegal activities do more to undermine the efficient running of the government. On the other hand, if our duties are based on the bonds of fellowship shared by citizens of a state, the intent and deception involved in building the mini-palaces serve as a much bigger insult. He broke the laws of his country siding with someone hostile to his nation. Even if his action did not lead to a direct threat against the United States, we should blame George Sr. for willfully flouting the community of which he’s a part. If you’re going to break somebody’s heart, at least be honest about it.

NOTE

1. Sorry, we meant illusions.

Chapter 16

“I’VE MADE A HUGE MISTAKE”

George Oscar Bluth Jr. and the Role of Error in Character Development

Christopher C. Kirby, Jonathan Hillard, and Matthew Holmes

And since it is rare for a man to be divine . . . in the same way a brutish person is also rare among human beings . . . but some cases [of the latter] occur that are due to