Flip on a news channel and you’re likely to see characters with perfectly coiffed hair making fantastical claims directly at the camera. But how far does this connection between political figures and entertainment go? Each week, A&E Columnist Kevin Truong will look at a movie through the lens of modern politics, analyzing whether the political climate has changed or remained the same.
A funny thing happens when I watch “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” It’s a pattern that repeats itself regardless of the venue, whether it’s on my couch, surfing through basic cable on a lazy Sunday or in the classroom of a U.S. history teacher who is too hungover to actually teach.
I get this strange feeling that wells up in the pit of my stomach that says “By God yes, maybe this grand 250-year experiment in representative democracy can actually work, all we need is someone to come in and show those career politicians what for!”
Viewed through the lens of contemporary politics, this kind of unrealistic belief about a single person’s role in our government seems quaint, blindingly naive even, in much the same vein as the film’s titular character.
But this “outsider appeal,” the yearning for a person uncorrupted by the machinations of Washington to change the city’s culture, is still present as a major force in our modern political system. The concept is driving a lot of the jockeying in this year’s raucous political horse race for the presidency.
“Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” revolves around a man named Jefferson Smith, played by the “aw shucks,” Middle American icon James Stewart. When a U.S. senator dies in an unnamed state, it’s up to bumbling Gov. Hubert “Happy” Hopper to choose who will replace him.
Caught between special interest groups, Hopper ends up choosing Smith, the leader of the Boy Rangers – a wholesome and humble idealist who initially seems easy to control.
When he arrives in the nation’s capitol, he gets a rude awakening. The gullible Smith is lampooned in the press and has his limited ambition to start a national scouting camp stymied by the governor, whose hand is in the pocket of a corrupt political machine boss.
The very idea of a Jefferson Smith, with the revolutionary era name and all-American good looks, seems more than a bit outdated and overflowing with schmaltzy sentimentality.
But it is true that a significant portion of Americans want someone as a leader who, by flying into Washington like a hurricane and smashing heads together, can change what they see as a corrupt system.
The character we have this political season who fills that role seems almost more theatrical than in the film and flies in the face of Jefferson Smith’s wide-eyed earnestness.
Donald Trump, the real estate mogul and reality TV star who never gets tired of boasting about the fact that yes, he’s very rich, has emerged as the favorite outsider candidate, with poll numbers seemingly immune to the rules of normal politics.
And while it’s easy to dismiss The Donald as a quack, a charlatan or any of the other names you can find in online video comments, it’s important to understand what his candidacy represents.
A large percentage of Americans – about 23 percent of likely Republican voters at last clip – want to propel a man into the Oval Office as a signaling middle finger to Washington. They are basically saying that anything is better than what is currently roaming the halls of the Capitol.
For Smith, too, it’s a similar inexperience outside of government that leads to his ascension into Congress, a kind of insulation from the normal political process.
A key difference to examine between the two, besides the personality and the hair, is the messages they use to connect with the American people.
The oft-quoted coda of the film features Jefferson in a heroic 24-hour filibuster in front of a scornful senate and a crooked press. The fundamental message of his speech is an appeal to “love thy neighbor.”
He speaks to the goodness of the American people, the ability to stand up and fight for what you believe in and the optimism that democracy will lead to a country that is better tomorrow.
Trump, on the other hand, plays to pessimism about America’s current station in the world and its people’s self-perception.
His slogan, “Make America great again,” has the subtext that the country has fallen from its plum position and Americans are in the dumps, wrestling with unemployment and assaults on family values, and he plays on fear to get that message across.
He suggests that an amorphous and terrifying “they” are coming to take Americans’ jobs, property and way of life. However, the heart of the message is consistent with – and taps into – the desire to return to a life that was better and simpler, perhaps.
But the truth may well be that the “good ‘ol days” never really existed. That every era has its own issues, strife and struggles. Perhaps those days were only ever present in the black-and-white cinema of the past.
– Kevin Truong