Ides of March, directed by George Clooney, demonstrates the epitome of the struggle that occurs in political campaigns: the battle between politics and ethics. After watching this film it only strengthened the claim that ethics and politics do not go hand-in-hand, one will always reign over the over. The film confirms this claim through the story of a junior campaign manager, Stephen Meyers, and his rise to becoming one of the top campaign managers in the country. Meyers, (played by Ryan Gosling) is a die-hard believer in saying or doing anything, as long as he believes in the cause. Governor Morris of Pennsylvania seems to represent everything Stephen Myers stands for, until, ironically, politics get involved. Ides of March is an emotional rollercoaster that unveils the inter-workings of a successful campaign and what it takes to get there. A few observations to be made in order to fully grasp the messages of the film are: looking at the tensions that arise in the campaign, the management of a candidate’s persona by campaign managers, and the issue of a candidate’s personal life and the public’s access to this information. It is also important to observe the “behind the scenes” politician, and the role of truth in politics.
Stephen Meyers is in his prime, the best part, he’s only 30. Through hard work and experience, he found himself junior campaign manager of the Morris campaign. As this film takes place in Ohio, it proves the importance of aggressive campaigning in states with the needed delegates. But winning over Ohio brought about tensions within characters in the campaign. Tensions of power arise between Meyers, and his senior campaign manager Paul Zara, (Phillip Seymour Hoffman). While Zara thinks strategically and captures the bigger picture, Meyers stays true to his values and just wants to see Morris do the same. We can see this hostility when the issue of gaining Ohio’s delegates emerges, and Zara pushes the idea of putting Ohio Governor Franklin Thompson on the ticket. Fortunately, Morris and Meyers see eye to eye on this issue, and he refuses to succumb to dirty campaigning. This sets a rocky precedent for Meyers and Zara, which leads to trust problems between the two. Loyalty appears to be the central theme of Morris’s campaign office, so when Zara finds out Meyers met with Tom Duffy, (opponent’s campaign manager) tensions heighten. Towards the end of the primaries, Zara finds it easy to fire Meyers for lack of trust.
Tensions in the campaign do not necessarily end there, because when ethics of a politician enter the arena, it’s a whole new ballgame. As the film progresses, we see the transition of Morris’s resentment from Zara shift to his junior campaign manager. The entire reason for Meyer’s jumping into the campaign was because he saw Morris as the real deal, not the bullshitting politicians he has experienced in the past. But we quickly see the loss of Stephen Meyer’s loyalty to the campaign when Morris starts siding with Zara on his strategies, ultimately eliminating Meyer’s original motive. Although there is a conflict of character within the campaign, what the crowds in the film see is very skewed. Morris successfully conveys his image as being a wholesome candidate with progressive ideas. His ability to effectively communicate with the people boosts his popularity, while darkening the scandals from within.
If a candidate is going to get hurt in polls, there’s a high chance it is due to misconduct of the candidate in the past. Hence, it is not the political campaign’s job to manage a candidate’s persona, but to completely control it. No matter what candidates’ say, think, or do, it’s the campaigns job to be in sync with their candidate. In the beginning, Morris is seen as a free-spirit with a mouth lacking a filter. It is through proximity that the campaign can adjust their message to best fit Morris’s liberal image. By controlling how the candidate is portrayed, Meyers and Zara are able to emphasize Governor Morris’s strengths, (ie good with media, solid message, strong staff, etc). However, without the regulation of the campaign office, Morris would expose every negative statement or action made to the ever-so-pushy media.
While at Voices and Choices of the 2012 Election, Ellen Malcolm brought up a good point that citizens cast their vote according the values of a candidate, not by policy positions. In this day and age, this couldn’t more true. The media has altered the way candidates are viewed, making it so that people are forced to be in favor of the lesser evil. The fact that the media spends countless hours and dollars on coverage for a candidate signifies we do not need more information. The reason it is called a “personal-life” is because it is one’s own, not for others to know. Given, assumptions can be made about the values of a politician by their past decisions. The minute the public gains access to information beyond what’s on record, candidate’s decisions no longer matter. For example, when Nixon released the details of the Watergate scandal to the public, he was not praised for his eventual honesty. He suffered low approval ratings and a plan that backfired so drastically it lead to his resignation as president. Not only are politicians hurt by leaked information of their personal lives, but it also shorthand’s the public by distracting them from the real issues. If a candidate’s problem is extreme enough, the information will get out somehow, otherwise there is no need for extensive research on the personal lives of politicians.
On top of managing his political campaign and retaining a good relationship with the media, Ides of March reveals the tensions Governor Morris has within himself. The movie depicts Morris as a man true to his word, until he enters the dirty world of politics. It slowly puts the candidate in a setting where he struggles to maintain his values. I believe one of the messages of this film is how well politicians are able to put up a front as well as adjust their persona to the setting. Unfortunately, keeping a strong image is yet another battle seen in the Morris campaign. When Meyer threatens to reveal the sexual scandal between Morris and an intern, Morris ends up agreeing to Meyer’s terms, all in the sake of maintaining his wholesome image. Ides of March successfully demonstrated the difference between a politician’s public image, and behind-the-scenes personality.
The everlasting battle between ethics and politics was revealed in almost every decision made the candidates and/or their campaign in this film. Until the last few scenes of the movie, I thought it would the ethics of Stephen Myers that prevailed. And while it is ethical to be truthful as a politician, it simply is not politics. The truth cannot please everyone, which is why we see Governor Morris repeatedly adjust to his setting and address the crowd like he were one of them. Sad fact is, truth in politics can hurt more than it can help. The American public cannot be fooled by statistics anymore; I guess we can only hope the rest of what a candidate is saying is the truth.
Struggle for the Presidency 
I completely agree with your notion suggesting the inability of ethics and politics to go hand and hand. I concur that the film’s depiction of a political campaign only strengthens this argument. Personally, I interpreted “The Ides of March” as a film of which exemplifies the existence of dirty politics embedded within the private sector of a campaign.
Politics is a very dirty game, and ethics is almost non-existent in it as based on what the movie has shown us. If everyone really knew the truth about what is going in behind closed doors, I don’t think people would be too pleased to discover what has been hidden from them. As much as we want the truth, I’m afraid to find out everything. It could very well do more harm than good.
It is pretty amazing that there was such an evolution of Meyers as a character. he once was all good and truly wanted the best for the country instead of his own selfish needs. once he learned that there were many people who did it for themselves, he was fired and that triggered a change making him see the politicians view on the world. He was now one of them and played the game how they want putting values behind for personal gain.
“Fortunately, Morris and Meyers see eye to eye on this issue, and he refuses to succumb to dirty campaigning”
Since when is striking a deal dirty campaigning? This is the word of politics, by definition. Working with others to govern assets. In this case, the asset was the presidency and there were costs associated due to the penalties received by Morris’ character and campaign events. This is what was needed to win, pure and simple.
I agree with your statement that ethics and politics play a large role in voting as well as an emphasis on ethics of the candidates. While not all the information is relevant, the media report day-to-day scandals about both candidates in an attempt to stir up drama but also to show the public who these candidates are when the cameras aren’t pointed at them. I think ethics will continue to play a large role in the public’s voting decision and will only become a greater issue.
I don’t want to believe that you are right. That politics and ethics cannot go hand in hand. That one must always reign over the other. Yet every movie we have seen prove exactly what you said. It makes me wish that we could talk to each candidate and get to know them all. Have cameras follow them around in order for us to truly learn if thats how politics are. You made great observations though. Well put
Politics and ethics share a very tense relationship. This film, as much or more so than any we’ve seen, shows that even the public perception of politics is a glossy won. I think you hit it on the head when you said you were rooting for the ethics of Meyer’s to come through at the end. But sadly, the political process was just too much for him. And honestly, I think most people would crumble under the weight of our current political process. Morals and integrity are hard to hold on to in the political arena.
I think that ethics has a place in politics. However it is a version that is only applicable to the political arena. It is impossible to think that a candidate can please everyone all the time and often compromises have to be made. It is unfortunate however that the ill natured foundation of deals in politics as the film portrayed is reality. In order to get what you want in politics you have to play by a different, shady set of rules. This goes past just for candidates getting elected mind you. In a global sense of international politics the same is true. So if the true nature of success in politics is who can manipulate the system the best, perhaps a candidate that demonstrates that capability is the best for the job.