Skip to main content

I'm Mr. Smith



One of the most evoked images in politics is that of Jimmy Stewart mounting his filibuster in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  The filibuster was once regarded as "democracy's finest show."  There were many quotes that were "good for headlines" in that movie, written by Sidney Buchman and Lewis Foster.  Mr. Smith was railing against corporate lobbying, which is still seen as a scourge in Washington.

Frank Capra was careful not to take an overt political stance.  Rather, "the contest is between guileless virtue and the intrinsic corruption of business as usual," as Tom Carson notes in this article for The American Prospect.  Carson contrasts this with the overtly political filibuster Ted Cruz staged last year that garnered so much press attention and made Cruz the darling of the Tea Party.

No doubt Cruz studied the film, as did Rand Paul who mounted a filibuster a few months before, when he tried to stop the nomination of John Brennan as head of the CIA.  This was actually closer to the movie as Paul was drawing attention to the corrupting influences on Washington politics in the continued use of drones in the war on terror, even if he became hyperbolic in his concerns that the Obama administration would use drones on American non-combatants, which the administration had no intent of doing.  .

However, neither are hayseeds like Mr. Jefferson Smith.  Cruz has an Ivy League education, and Paul has an M.D. from Duke University School of Medicine.  But, both are junior senators who attempt to appeal to the common man in the same vein as Mr. Smith, or Lonesome Rhodes, as the case may be.

On the Democratic side, we saw Wendy Davis mount a filibuster on the Texas State Capitol floor, immediately making her the darling of the political "left."  She has since parlayed this showdown over a harsh abortion bill into a run for Texas governor.  She too appeared to be channeling Mr. Smith in her pink Mizuno running shoes.

However, the Tea Party believes it has the voice of the people on its side, and the background of its representatives does seem to be more in keeping with the country roots of Mr. Smith, who came from an unnamed Western state.  Like the Tea Party, the film starts out as a comedy, but all too quickly turns into a melodrama on the meaning of democracy and one man's effort to keep this "the land of the free."

The Teapartiers have been pushing this mantra since 2010 when they raised their Gadsden Flag and essentially declared war on federal government.  They gone after stodgy old Senators like Mr. Paine, although their success rate has diminished greatly since the midterms four years ago.  They still hope to dislodge Thad Cochran in Mississippi, but it seems they will lose this battle too.  Ultimately, Teapartiers will present themselves as "beautiful losers," as its influence on the GOP wanes.

However, Rand Paul seems to have risen above his Tea Party roots and expressed a more populous message on Ferguson in what seems an attempt to reach out to a broader audience.  We might just have our Mr. Smith?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Team of Rivals Reading Group

''Team of Rivals" is also an America ''coming-of-age" saga. Lincoln, Seward, Chase et al. are sketched as being part of a ''restless generation," born when Founding Fathers occupied the White House and the Louisiana Purchase netted nearly 530 million new acres to be explored. The Western Expansion motto of this burgeoning generation, in fact, was cleverly captured in two lines of Stephen Vincent Benet's verse: ''The stream uncrossed, the promise still untried / The metal sleeping in the mountainside." None of the protagonists in ''Team of Rivals" hailed from the Deep South or Great Plains. _______________________________ From a review by Douglas Brinkley, 2005

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

  Welcome to this month's reading group selection.  David Von Drehle mentions The Melting Pot , a play by Israel Zangwill, that premiered on Broadway in 1908.  At that time theater was accessible to a broad section of the public, not the exclusive domain it has become over the decades.  Zangwill carried a hopeful message that America was a place where old hatreds and prejudices were pointless, and that in this new country immigrants would find a more open society.  I suppose the reference was more an ironic one for Von Drehle, as he notes the racial and ethnic hatreds were on display everywhere, and at best Zangwill's play helped persons forget for a moment how deep these divides ran.  Nevertheless, "the melting pot" made its way into the American lexicon, even if New York could best be describing as a boiling cauldron in the early twentieth century. Triangle: The Fire That Changed America takes a broad view of events that led up the notorious fire, not...

The People Debate the Constitution

As Pauline Maier describes in Ratification , there was no easy road in getting the Constitution ratified.  After 10 years of living together as a loosely knit confederation, a few forward thinking men decided that the Articles of Confederation no longer worked and it was time to forge a Constitution.  Washington would not go until he could be assured something would come of the convention and that there would be an august body of gentlemen to carry the changes through.  But, ultimately Maier describes it was the people who would determine the fate of the new Constitution. This is a reading group for Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution 1787-1788 .  The book has been well received by fellow historians like Jack Rakove , among others.  Maier has drawn from a wealth of research piecing together a story that tells the arduous battle in getting the Constitution ratified.  A battle no less significant than that Americans fought for independence.