The citizen-politician -- Gone the way of the Oldsmobile?
One of the most popular American films of all-time and a perennial holiday favorite, "It's a Wonderful Life," was not a huge hit with either critics or audiences when it debuted in December 1946. But it was nominated for five Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Actor (Jimmy Stewart), and Best Director (Frank Capra). After slipping quickly into obscurity, it began appearing on television occasionally in the late 1950s. But when the film's copyright lapsed in 1973, "It's a Wonderful Life" quickly became a staple of American TV programming between Thanksgiving and Christmas and belatedly earned its rightful place in the lexicon of American popular culture.
And a staple it has been at our family and probably yours over the holidays for years. I know you know of other movies starring Jimmy Stewart, but what about ones directed by Frank Capra. And even better than that, starring Stewart and directed by Capra.
I knew you knew. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." This classic argues that the average man, decent of heart and pure in his intentions, was the best sort of public servant. It is a logical myth for a democracy to cling to: The Republic's salvation can be found in the people's wisdom.
Tales of ordinary men bravely venturing into the public arena are always tales of naiveté. And they always involve an encounter with corruption. Stewart faced off with a dastardly senator in "Mr. Smith." As with the encounter with the banker in "a Wonderful Life," decency triumphs.
And what of the great democratic myth that high office should be accessible? By the time "Mr. Smith" premiered in 1939, it was already an exercise in nostalgia. More than 10 years earlier Walter Lippmann had observed that mass media and increasingly complex social relations had made any expression of the people's "common will" impossible. By necessity, he argued, government should be a partnership of scientific experts and professional politicians. Only such elites could grasp the issues and make informed decisions, checked by voters who rallied behind one party or another.
Yes, elites can get things wrong, sometimes badly wrong. But most of the time they couldn't possibly do worse than the citizen-innocent. We love to hate "professional politicians," but like it or not, politics is a profession. Even the attributes of the political class that we claim to despise are, more often than not, virtues. We sometimes recoil at Bill Clinton's cool and LBJ's cunning, but how else are competing interests brought to consensus?
Most of the above concerning "Mr. Smith" is from the 8-13-04 wsj by a Noah, "a television producer in Los Angeles." I threw in the "Wonderful Life" stuff. (The article is about the "American Candidate," "an election-season reality show [that] revises the unreal idea that average citizens should rescue politics.")
I still like the idea of the citizen-politician, the idea that the average man or woman, decent of heart and pure in his or her intentions, was the best sort of public servant. I know, I know -- I'm old-fashioned.
And a staple it has been at our family and probably yours over the holidays for years. I know you know of other movies starring Jimmy Stewart, but what about ones directed by Frank Capra. And even better than that, starring Stewart and directed by Capra.
I knew you knew. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." This classic argues that the average man, decent of heart and pure in his intentions, was the best sort of public servant. It is a logical myth for a democracy to cling to: The Republic's salvation can be found in the people's wisdom.
Tales of ordinary men bravely venturing into the public arena are always tales of naiveté. And they always involve an encounter with corruption. Stewart faced off with a dastardly senator in "Mr. Smith." As with the encounter with the banker in "a Wonderful Life," decency triumphs.
And what of the great democratic myth that high office should be accessible? By the time "Mr. Smith" premiered in 1939, it was already an exercise in nostalgia. More than 10 years earlier Walter Lippmann had observed that mass media and increasingly complex social relations had made any expression of the people's "common will" impossible. By necessity, he argued, government should be a partnership of scientific experts and professional politicians. Only such elites could grasp the issues and make informed decisions, checked by voters who rallied behind one party or another.
Yes, elites can get things wrong, sometimes badly wrong. But most of the time they couldn't possibly do worse than the citizen-innocent. We love to hate "professional politicians," but like it or not, politics is a profession. Even the attributes of the political class that we claim to despise are, more often than not, virtues. We sometimes recoil at Bill Clinton's cool and LBJ's cunning, but how else are competing interests brought to consensus?
Most of the above concerning "Mr. Smith" is from the 8-13-04 wsj by a Noah, "a television producer in Los Angeles." I threw in the "Wonderful Life" stuff. (The article is about the "American Candidate," "an election-season reality show [that] revises the unreal idea that average citizens should rescue politics.")
I still like the idea of the citizen-politician, the idea that the average man or woman, decent of heart and pure in his or her intentions, was the best sort of public servant. I know, I know -- I'm old-fashioned.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 8:50 PM
4 Comments:
its the ultimate american paradox - they say they a candidate of the people, but if you act too human or don't put yourself above the voters, then they snub you.
Mae, as you must know, you are wise beyond your years.
Its the money that is killing the citizen/ politician. You, Mary, Leigh and Jim F. were all genuine grassroots people- all good candidates- from really unique perspectives, but look at what happened- Oxford's money really came through at the end. It bothered me to see that- I thought we had a really, really talented field. None of you placed. (sigh).
Steve, I agree in part and disagree in part. The Beatles had it right when they sang Money Can't Buy You Love. I think this past race proved that money can't buy you an election. Money bought Oxford exposure, and when those exposed to such exposure looked around, I think they intelligently concluded, hey, there's no one else that we have even heard of (leaving out Majette, and I think history will show that she was resented big time by the electorate for deserting her constituency).
The folks you named are good people, but no way were they electable on a statewide basis. I was, and blew it big time. As you know, I was not going to run if Oxford ran, and only got in after he said he was out. But with him in, I executed poorly, very poorly. And even if he had not been in, I would have executed poorly, very poorly. The difference would have been I would not have been perceived as the hatchet candidate, and my platform perhaps would have gotten some attention. And regardless, not being perceived as the hatchet man (which is so foreign to my essence), I think I could have made the runoff and then collected money having gained name recognition.
The poor execution though was not building on my natural base in So. and Middle Ga. I spent way to much time in the metro. Had I built a momentum in the other Ga., the press would have gotten the word.
We do have a bit different situation in Ga. In some states you can shake a lot of hands. Ga. is huge. For this reason in the old days it was the bar-b-que in every county. Now TV. But still a candidate must get the word out to the electorate. This is the candidate's job, regardless of the medium.
Post a Comment
<< Home