The Abridgement of a Presidency That “Disappointed”

W. was a critical portrayal of the Bush Jr. Presidency. The film, while not quite a polemic, took a harsh stance of the motivations behind the choices of our 43rd president. One should certainly take the message of this film with a grain of salt. Underneath the theme of this story are pillars of inaccuracy, assumptions and dramatizations. Perhaps what is most concerning about this film, is that it greatly oversimplifies the complexities of not just President Bush (43), but also those of the office he held. It is one thing to parody a presidency (as was done in Mike Nichol’s Primary Colors), and another to speculate “what might have happened” concerning a real one. The film did the Bush presidency (43) a great injustice in its portrayal of a simple-minded Texan who made choices based on his relationship with his father. The film leaves future generations to analyze a caricature of an administration that will bare great importance on our country’s history.

The information that supports the theme of the film provided in W. is extremely unreliable. Certainly we know that specific scenes in the movie were factual – they lent themselves to well known presidential gaffes and other public embarrassments, but to what extent can we infer the scenes concerning the personal lives of the Bush family? Coincidentally, these are the exact same scenes that matter most because they make essential claims about the relationship between President Bush (43) and his father Bush (41). These scenes are not reliably factual and are largely inferred by writer Stanly Weiser. Had the film not emphasized the relationship, dramatization/ creative inventions appertaining to it would not be so concerning.
One can certainly claim that George W Bush’s relationship with his father at least somewhat influenced many of his decisions. The question then remains however; to what extent? Did this relationship matter anymore than the relationships he had with his mother or siblings? The film spent a great time trying to convince its audience that Bush Jr. greatly struggled with his father through numerous scenes in which (from a viewer’s point of view) are questionable to say the very least. Without sound, sufficient evidence that Bush Jr. had the type of relationship conveyed in the film, it is hard to believe that he would make the huge life decisions he did all because of his dad.

Unlike many films that have documented presidential administrations, W. makes an ambitious and rather speculative claim. It makes the claim that many of the choices made by President George W. Bush were motivated by the troubled relationship he had with his father. This claim however is supported by scenes which do either one of two things. First, are the scenes that emphasize the relationship between Bush Jr. and Sr. Which as I stated, were largely speculative and most likely the result of artistic freedom. Another way the film emphasized President Bush’s (43) choices as father- related were the cabinet meeting scenes. In these scenes, members were largely characterized. Dick Cheney is a Machiavellian mastermind. Collin Powell is the opposing voice of experience and reason and Condoleezza Rice and Carl Rove are cartoons. These scenes generalized cabinet members in a way that greatly diminished their presence and influence on administrative decisions. In this sense, the film relies heavily on the shallow caricatures it presents as cabinet members in order to embellish the influence Bush’s personal feelings concerning his father and his father’s presidency had on public policy.

There are consequences to portraying a president and.or his cabinet in such a light. In twenty or thirty years, a classroom full of political science and/or communication students may watch W. with no first-hand recollection of the Bush Administration (43). If these students are to take the message of this film seriously, they would have to submit to the idea that Bush (43) was a simple man that made decisions based on simple motivations. They will misguidedly understand that this was a president whose cabinet was a group of cartoons with very little complexity of character. This film simplifies far too much of what was (like any administration) a complex organization.

Taking into account the vast oversimplifications made by the film, W. was very critical of President George W Bush for all the wrong reasons. The paradox of this is that those who would view the film as overtly sympathetic towards our 43rd president would likewise find that such sympathy was ill-founded – based on those same wrong reasons. Inaccuracies, dramatizations and assumptions in W. all attribute Bush’s (43) choices on the troubling relationship with his father. In doing so, it is sympathetic (barely) by humanizing the president. However, it is critical in that it portrays him as an incompetent and egotistical man incapable of acting beyond petty differences with his father and a sibling rivalry with his brother – Jeb Bush. Further, the film is criticizes the cabinet Bush (43) put into place. It is portrayed as a cabinet that could not adequately collaborate with the president in times that called for administrative action.

American Idols & American Idiots

It seems as though those involved in politics often get swept up in all the rhetoric and imagery of the process. What these supporters often forget is that the people they are advocating and come to idolize are just that – people. Candidates are often complex. They have virtuous characteristics but are likewise flawed. The film Primary Colors teaches future candidates and campaign consultants to be more cynical of what others will do to advance themselves in the political game and to reconsider the idea of the perfect candidate altogether. The film suggests that, the bright faced hero proudly posing in front of the American flag is a person who will not meet our deceptively growing expectations of them. It is a politician.
Political campaigns are beguiling in that they aim to convince us that candidates are either idols or idiots. In Primary Colors, Henry Burton (played by Adrian Lester) is idealistic when recruited by the Jack Stanton for president campaign. He joins the group of political advisors that closely work with Stanton. He does so because after closely analyzing Jack and his wife Susan Stanton, he believes that they are honest people working towards what is right. There exists a parallel between Burton and “political dust-buster” Libby Holden (Played by Kathy Bates). They are both campaign advisors that have believed too much in their preferred candidate. They learn soon after joining the campaigns they commit to that the man for which it is all established is not the maverick or idol they once thought, but just a run of the mill candidate playing politics as usual. For idealists hoping to bring about change in the political status quo, this is very disheartening – as it was for both Burton and Holden.
Although candidates are not the American idols they are often advertised as, they typically aren’t complete degenerates either. Candidates are often complex in that they realistically carry both positive and negative characteristics. In the film, Jack Stanton is presented as a personable and likeable but eating compulsive, adulterous, womanizing southern governor who is relatively unknown on a national scale. Burton is impressed by Stanton’s ability to identify with many different kinds of people. Concurrently, Stanton’s lack of control with women (and less to Burton’s attention – food) creates personal conflict for Burton about the type of politician he is aiding in election. Nevertheless, Burton swallows the bad with the good and continues to work for Stanton. He, like many others involved in political campaigning, accepted the baggage held by the candidate once seen as flawless.
Specific skills can overshadow potential flaws in a candidate. Stanton is a likable and very personable politician with effective speaking skills to boot. These characteristics’ are what save Stanton’s campaign in a couple of different ways. His likability and speaking skills allow him to advance in his party’s primaries despite his original lack of general popularity. Also, his likability gets him friends who truly believe that he is the right man for the job even if they are well aware of the fact that he has made some questionable decisions in the past.
There exist stark certainties concerning dirty politics that are often employed by desperate candidates. Primary Colors shines light on the political realities of campaigning including the over-sensationalized feelings towards candidates, backroom deals and political blackmail. It is mentioned in the film that Libby Holden lost her mental facilities for some time when she had supported the presidential campaign of Fred Picker (now the party’s opponent candidate) who lost. Her lack of mental stability comes in full circle when she commits suicide because of the great disappointment she gets from the Stanton’s intent to use the dubious information gathered on Picker to advance Jack Stanton’s career. The use of dirty practice damages a candidate’s image in a way that makes them seem desperate and petty. That is, they can feel the recoil not just from the public, but from those who work for them. Despite these risks politicians typically are willing to resort to these measures.
The American Idol image (one a lot like the initial image established by Picker – wholesome and principled) sold to the American people is likely to be an embellishment of their best qualities. In this way, it is deceptive in that it does not show to the American people all aspects of a candidate which can show them what to expect should that candidate win. Likewise, Candidates can be slammed by attack ads that portray them as an American idiot. This image however, is an embellishment of all thing negative about the candidate and is not a fair representation of their character. In the film, what Libby Holden despises most about the release of information concerning Picker’s drug use and past homosexual relations history, is the damage it would do to his image. She knew that that Picker was fundamentally “a good man” and that the Stantons’ knew it as well. Release of the information they possessed would completely destroy Picker’s name. Supporters can sometimes view their candidates as the American hero. What they should consider however is that no one candidate is flawless and that candidate will most likely not meet all their expectations. Ultimately, they will have to understand the good and the bad and take their candidate for whatever he or she is worth.

Spurious Pseudonyms

One can effortlessly see that today, for both parties; image is a huge part of a political campaign. The type of image conveyed however can vary and often times it is even susceptible to attack.The film “Bob Roberts” was a satire of the role image plays in politics. Further however, this movie critiques the backwards conservative image that is deceptive in nature.In the film Bob Roberts portrays a senate candidate playing what could be cited as a classic conservative portrayal of traditional American values and unwavering patriotism. Throughout the film, it is mainly that portrayal that is largely mocked and satirized.
Political image and public perception are extremely important in politics. It seems as though that every election one of the candidates in the race is deemed the man that looks and acts most “presidential.” The limiting use of the word “man” is not used accidentally to describe the winner of this endorsement. The man that who just seems more presidential tends to have certain facial characteristics. He is outgoing, energetic and charismatic. The media often clings to these external traits of candidate image. Sometimes it is the case that the media neglects the labels candidates often subtly place upon themselves and one another. One can judge candidates in ways of the labels that have been attached to their image. A voter may think “Certainly candidate A has all the right qualifications and even the facial features of a man I envision in a president, but we can’t forget that he’s a socialist.” Alternatively, they may think “I don’t like what Candidate B says a lot of the time, but at the end of the day I like that he respects family values.”
Bob Roberts capitalized on his fame to help his campaign. This is something reminiscent of Ronald Reagan. As a result of his pre-nomination fame, Roberts was able to not only enjoy general name recognition, but unlike Reagan, he was also able to use his musical career to perpetuate his ideology and image. In the film Roberts sings songs entitled “Taking back America” and “Drugs Stink” to identify his righteous all-American values. He does this to ensure that at this point, he is labeled with all the right attributes.
Beyond the generic benefit of portraying the “All-American” candidate, candidates like Roberts often try to make voters believe that those who oppose them are in turn “Un-American.” Much like the American traditional values issue, what is deemed as American and Un-American here is determined by the will of whatever conservative is wielding it as part of their ideology. The difference between the American and values definitions differ in that what is American can sometime be non-subjective. Here is where such an image becomes a paradox. At certain point (whenever convenient) even a guaranteed freedom such as the freedom of speech can be labeled “Un-American.” Are welfare programs Un-American? In the film, Bob Roberts sings “Bleeding heart” and “Complain.” He uses these songs as a straw man to demonize the opposition to a cheering mass audience. Roberts makes it clear that America’s greatest enemies are hippies and the poor/unemployed citizens of the country. During the film, a critique of the Robert’s image is given by one of the protestors at one of his music events. The protestor said “He talks about traditional American values as if he defines what they are.” This is an interesting point. Conservatives often claim to esteem “American values” but often manipulate what exactly those values are to mirror their own. Is it possible that rather than standing for traditional American values that conservatives praise their own and deem them the definite American values?
Concerning the aim of the satire of “Bob Roberts,” EW’S Owen Gleiberman states “Robbins, having parodied the phony surface of politics, now reveals the ‘truth’ below. In doing so, he fails to grasp the deftness of his own satirical instincts. He doesn’t seem to realize that though the right wing (via Reagan) may have perfected the politics of image, by now it’s everyone’s game.” While political image may be “everyone’s game, who is to say that the images portrayed are equal in truthfulness and nature? Roberts had utilized an image often incompatible with his agendas. While the classic conservative image is one that values “traditional American values,” Roberts is proven to be a man who will lie and engage in criminal acts to make himself a quick buck as though a materialistic obsession is in itself a “traditional American value.” Greed and materialism, while all too common as a part of the American experience, are not components of what the public at large would define as “traditional American values.” In this sense, image is everyone’s game but the message of this film is that it is the conservative image that is most deceptive, sensationalist and contradictory.

Best in Show

There are very interesting differences between the three types of journalism as defined by political scientist Larry Sabato. These three types include lapdog, watchdog and attack dog journalism. Each function differently, and each serves a different role in the political process. Further, they are perceived in a variety of ways by the American public – asking citizens to question what it means to get the story “right.” It may very well be the case that while the public favors a lapdog type of media, the type most needed to report truth is that of the watchdog variety. In any event, the type of media coverage today perceived as the attack dog media is neither favorable nor does it play a positive role in the political process.
Of the three, it seems as though Lapdog journalism is the most favorable and noncontroversial mode. It involves journalists to accept shallow explanations to pass on from government to the public. To a great extent it lacks in depth investigative journalism. Although this form of journalism can easily be perceived a political loudspeaker for those with interest of suppressing truth, it is also understood to be the form that interrupts government officials the least and allows them to do their jobs. In this sense, lapdog can be favored by the public in circumstances in which the public trusts government. In the film “All the President’s Men,” lapdog journalism is mocked. This says something about the period of time in which the film was created. Government was no longer trusted and the media needed to me more than just an echo of what was officially released by officials.
Another mode that “All the President’s men” largely focused on was watchdog journalism. Of the three, this form of journalism has attached to it risks and benefits attached to it. The work of Woodward and Bernstein included uncovering truths government officials tried to hide. It also included the reliance on sources were less than reputable. In the film, Robert Redford’s character Bob Woodward heavily relies on a source that he cannot disclose known publicly only as “deep throat” (later discovered to be former FBI associate director Mark Felt). Likewise, his partner Carl Bernstein (played by Dustin Hoffman) similarly relies on the testimony of reelection committee members who are not very credible and prefer to remain anonymous. We are presented here a problem faced by watchdog journalists – credibility. Trust is easy to break, hard to build, and even harder to restore. One fictitious or highly questionable article based on fictitious or questionable sources can land a news agency in hot water with the public.
Drastically different from the public encountered by Woodward, Bernstein and journalist before them is the public that the media engages with today. The extent to which the public holds media accountable is deplorable and brings us to the last of the three types of journalism presented by Sebato. It is attack dog journalism. There lay many problems with this medium, but largely, a concern exists regarding the growing ambiguity of the line between factual reporting and political commentary. Sensationalism seems to be the oxygen of today’s media in that journalists feed on sound bites and partisan issues all in the pursuit of acquiring the most viewers, readers or advertisers. Further, it seems form many of these news outlets; a partisan agenda has been created. That is, rather than putting on trial all political officials, agencies are motivated to focus attention and investigation (if any investigation is employed to begin with) on officials of particular political parties or ideologies. Partisan reporting itself would not be such as big an issue if it were not for the lack of investigation and credibility associated with it. Surely, with the diverse and numerous media agencies in our country, attacks would be balanced out in number. But attack dog journalism has lent itself to questionable tactics. In comparison to the sources used by attack dog journalists, those used by watchdog journalists who were once thought of as “unreliable” would be very reliable and credible sources. Likewise, reporters are nothing more than commentators using their own beliefs as a “credible source” in the “news and views” styled attacks which ultimately leaves a great burden on the political process.
Over time the American public has experienced forms of journalism that have ranged from under to overtly engaged styles. A new style of journalism has recently been introduced. In a lecture to the Pew Center for Civic Journalism, executive director Jan Schaffer describes guide dog as “a journalism that… doesn’t just deliver the civic freak show of the day, but it actually challenges people to get involved, get engaged, take ownership of problems. It doesn’t position them as spectators, but as participants.” A major concern with this form of journalism is it’s potentially over demanding call for public participation. If the public is expected to take ownership of issues and ultimately do their own research for developing an opinion, they may very well simply change the channel or switch newspapers to an outlet that will cater to their desire for attack dog journalism – that is if they don’t lose interest all together. In this way, guide dog journalism is not only problematic, it is impractical.
It would seem that what the American public wants and needs in journalism are two very different things. What the American public wants, in itself, is a paradox. While many call for a less aggressive and partisan form of journalism, they still support attack dog style journalism as entertainment wanting consumers. What the public needs is something very much like watchdog journalism. Something in between a passive and aggressive form that will foster journalists intended on “getting the story right.” By that one can assume journalists will keep government accountable by reporting beyond simply what they are told by public officials. Further, they will do this in a way does not jeopardize journalistic integrity – using credible sources and deep investigation to confirm what they are reporting to the American people is not in any way propaganda or biased lecture.

Jan Schaffer. “Attack Dog, Watch Dog or Guide Dog…The Role of the Media in Building Community.” Pew Center for Civic Journalism. Marcia Kaplan Kantrow. October 21, 1999.

The Neccessity for Mass Appeal

We live in a country that esteems free speech like no other – our constitution is a testament to this. Its first mandate prohibits congress from making any law abridging the freedom of speech. That being said, it is easy to see how one would think it unfortunate and even un-American that candidates often cannot speak their minds. Unfortunate that they typically must water down their positions to better fit mainstream America.  This seemed to be the theme of the film “The candidate” However, it is extremely necessary and beneficial to the people. In having to appeal to broad audiences, candidates are allowing for more effective participation and strengthening our democracy. Further, the ways in which candidates change their positions surprisingly caters for more effective government down the road.

By no means should the entrance into electoral races be dictated by a “likely winner/likely loser” evaluation. If that were the standard for one’s entrance into an electoral race, we would most likely have a very limited set of candidates engaged in campaigns. Although it is arguable how many dark horses will eventually win their races, many (like Shirley Chisholm) enter races to make a political statement so there is no true intent on winning to begin with. This was the situation presented to Robert Redford’s character (Bill McKay) in the film. The entire purpose of his running was initially not to win, but rather to amplify his voice in the political process – something he felt was being denied to him prior to running for office.

As times and constituents change, it can be good for politicians to change their positions to better suit new societal standards. This means that there will be career politicians that change their positions as years pass. That isn’t to say however, that candidates are given a free pass to flip-flop as they please. The very constituents that placed said politicians in office can just as easily remove them based on a sudden change in heart on the issues. Candidates change their positions for a number of reasons. But they typically don’t do so to create problems with voters. If anything, they only change their positions when they absolutely must because it often does jeopardize votes. Further, having to change position can often negatively impact their ability to effectively represent their constituents.

In the film, Bill McKay finds that in order to save himself from the humiliation of losing to Don Porter’s character Crocker Jarmon in a landslide election he will have to change his campaign strategy. He is then confronted with the stark reality that this change will need to be less vocalization of his personal stances and more emphasis on a generic platform. It was that platform however, that more of his constituents identified with. Despite its lack of detail and implications, people were moved by it and motivated to go out and vote. If we are to regard effective participation as an essential appeal of democracy, then we must submit to the idea that McKay’s new platform was better for democracy.

Alternatively, if candidates like McKay were free to speak their minds and both party candidates were radicals, people might be turned off from voting. This would leave only strong partisans the deciding force of elections that would only elect strong/radical partisans. In this sense, it is better for candidates to “aim for the middle” when considering how to present their ideas to the public. When trying to gain mass appeal, candidates are making for a much less controversial government especially in the cases of federal house and senate elections in which candidates will have to work with a great number of politicians who all made promises back home as well. If all candidates spoke their mind as an alternative to a mass appeal platform, they would find themselves trying to work with competing politicians. All of whom would have drastically different agenda’s to complete for a constituency holding them accountable for very detail-oriented plans.

Script writer Jeremy Larner knew the dilemma constituents raised for candidates. As a speech writer for Senator Gene McCarthy he understood the necessity for mass appeal. Further, he recognized that speaking one’s detailed personal opinion (no matter how admirable) was not good politics. In writing “The Candidate” he most likely wrote from personal experience. Detailed plans and observations cater to a small portion of your constituency – one that is partisan and will vote for your guy either way. They will get you empty auditoriums. Speeches of empty rhetoric invoking the American dream and freedom get you scores of crowds into stadiums- crowds that will get your guy elected.

An Incomparable Endorsement

On the night of September 5^th 2012, the democratic senate candidate from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren spoke at the Democratic National Convention to formally express her support and endorsement for President Barack Obama.  Largely, the convention’s mission was clear: rally the base.  But hers was an endorsement that paled in comparison to that of the one that followed. Although Warren made many points similar to that of the key note speaker that evening, they did not hold quite the same gravitas when spoken by her. It became obvious, that Democrats that night were depending on something Republicans don’t have. They relied on something that would set Obama and the DNC apart from the competition – a presidential endorsement worth advertising.

An enthusiastic Bill Clinton walked onto the stage to a roar of applause accompanied by Fleetwood Mac’s song “Don’t Stop” – the song he championed when running against incumbent George H. W. Bush.  Immediately after, he stated his purpose: “We are here to nominate a president – and I got one in mind.”  His speech was one that democrats needed. It fired up the party, defended it from opposition and even targeted independents who may be contemplating voting republican. All of this was not only by his speech (a masterful rhetorician though he has become), but rather the name behind the speech. This was a man who had accomplished much of what he mentioned during his own presidency.

Firstly, Clinton addressed bipartisanship. He stated “We need more of it (bipartisanship) in Washington DC… Democracy does not have to be a blood sport. It can be an enterprise that advances the public’s interests.”  He then went on the offensive against the opposing party stating “Unfortunately the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn’t see it that way. They think government is always the enemy, they’re always right and compromise is weakness.” This argument was pivotal. As president, Clinton was renowned for engaging in civil politics and reaching across the aisle to work with republicans including House Speaker Newt Gingrich. It was clear – Clinton knows bipartisanship. He endorses the man who will promote bipartisanship; and lastly, suggests that independents should vote Obama because he is not the voice of stubbornness in Washington D.C.

Clinton then alludes to the cabinet Obama has appointed.  He mentions how grateful he is to Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton- two of the key players in the Obama administration. This was a fantastic move to support party cohesiveness. Along with demonstrating Obama’s willingness to work with politicians he had once competed with, this acknowledgement reminds people of the experience and name recognition behind the administration. It reminds people that the Democratic Party is unified and successfully working for a successful America. Suggesting that all democrats whether they are liberal, moderate or even conservative have a representative/stake in this election and that is why they need to vote no matter who is at the top of that party ticket.

Lastly and most importantly, Clinton addresses the economy. Summing up the republican argument as he perceived it Clinton worded it “We left him a total mess; he hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.”  This was meant to remind voters that it was republican legislation that lead to the economic crisis that they are now attacking Obama for. This was pivotal because I’m sure it laid serious doubt in the minds of those considering the conservative plan. If it didn’t, what he then later stated certainly did. In an effort to remind voters why he is a credible speaker given the subject at hand and boost his own effectiveness as a special speaker he presented a brief history to the American people. He recollected “We moved millions of people off welfare. It was one of the reasons that in the eight years I was president we had a hundred times as many people move out of poverty into the middle class than happened in the previous twelve years.”  This statement illustrated Clinton’s selection to speak at the convention in a special way. He was the economy president. Further, he is a president still popular with the American public.

The Republican Party hadn’t an endorsement even remotely comparable to Clinton’s at the Republican National Convention. This is largely because they haven’t a popular past president to give an endorsement. While the DNC could boast such a highly esteemed advocacy from President Clinton, Republicans had to make do with the likes of Speaker John Boehner, Secretary Condoleezza Rice and actor Clint Eastwood.  This was something I’m sure the DNC banked on. I believe they saw it as something that would give them a very special jump start into the election that republicans just couldn’t compete with. Clinton’s formal endorsement for president Obama embodied all that democrats could have possibly asked for.

Dirty is as Clean as it Gets

When it comes to the personal lives of politicians, full disclosure seems to be the name of the game. But does the public truly have a “right” to know? As I have made clear in earlier posts – I believe that personality and policy intertwine to an extent that makes them dependent on one another. The movie “The Best Man” emphasized this point somewhat. The film emphasized character in a way that expressed a country’s need for a man who is decisive – both willing and capable of making difficult decisions in the event of a hyperbolic disaster. I would argue that such a characteristic is but one of many defining traits that makes policy dependent on personality later down the road for a president.  With that being said, I believe that no information about candidates should be off the record. In this sense, the public has a right to know pretty much every part of a candidate’s life.

Full disclosure would be the mantra of the media. But competing candidates often whistle blow on one another in a way that incomparably uncovers or emphasizes a candidate’s background. It is often the case that campaigns fear one another as opposed to the general media when it comes to disclosure of incriminating information.  If we are to accept that a candidate’s personality and background are hugely important in an election, we must at very least tolerate mudslinging. It is mudslinging that brings a candidate’s true character to light – may it be positive or negative; of their opponents or even their own.

The film is particularly deceiving. William Russell is portrayed as the protagonist, principled man whom the audience is supposed to support. Alternatively, we are supposed to oppose the overtly ambitious antagonist Joseph Cantwell. Its protocol for the audience to want to emphasize with the main character, but this was not something that I could find myself capable of doing. The fact of the matter was that Russell had a history of mental problems that could make him unfit for the office as well. Why should such information be excluded from the public’s knowledge? I certainly would like to know if the man I was electing to the most powerful position in the world had such a history that may compromise his performance on the job. While Cantwell may not be taking the highroad on presenting this information as clearly and unbiased as possible, he is still willing to release the information (even if it is for his own benefit).

In the movie, the more aggressive candidate –Cantwell, was alleged to be a homosexual. Despite my personal beliefs concerning how the general public perceives homosexuality, I feel that even that information should be disclosed. In the case of Joe Cantwell, I would argue that if he were homosexual there would be issue with his honesty. In this sense, William Russell is not all as principled as he would appear to be. He is not willing to expose the evidence he has against Russell which would prove him unfit for the presidential office. He is willing to conceal Russell’s questionable honesty and is thus doing the public a great disservice.

I feel as though this film applies to today’s politics in an interesting and unintended way. It makes viewers today ask themselves if they would vote for a homosexual candidate for president. Surely, in Cantwell’s case the above does not apply for a couple of different reasons. Firstly, he is a married man. Such a truth would make his marriage fraudulent and an unforgivable sham in the eyes of the American people. Second, this movie takes place in the 60s – a time when a homosexual candidate was not feasible due to the culture of the time. But hypothetically speaking, would an openly homosexual candidate stand a chance for presidential office? I believe that despite the change in tolerance and acceptance in the US, such a candidate would not have a chance. One might then wonder if such is the case, that a candidate may be written off due to such a controversial yet non-influential candidate characteristic, should that be kept off the record? I would again argue no it should not.

Full disclosure is what we as a nation should aim for with our political figures. It may seem limiting and at times, even discriminatory, such negative attributes however are not at the fault of disclosure, but rather cultural perception. Before asking ourselves if whether or not something like sexual orientation should stay off the record, we should ask ourselves why it is a candidate would prefer such information remain confidential.

Beware of Dog

The movie Wag the Dog explores the ways in which politicians and their campaign teams (mainly the latter) both cope and manipulate popular news media in an effort to control public opinion. The movie raises questions as to whether or not such scandalous events could be orchestrated by public officials based on what we know about the media. Further, it puts to question the legitimacy of a public official who is nothing more than a puppet for non-elected professionals working behind the scenes.  I think that spinning stories to some extent is very possible, but that isn’t to say that campaign advisors would be permitted to spin them in the way depicted in this particular film.

As though the tail of a manipulative team of spin-doctors working the media for a presidential election wasn’t dark enough, a particularly disturbing trait of the movie is its character’s passive attitude towards public officials. The president (played by Michael Belson) gets less than two minutes face time in the movie. The movie begins with an interesting quote that asserts: “If the tail were smarter than the dog, the tail would wag the dog.” Although their entire work is based on electing this man president, they are calling the shots in his campaign. This includes everything from forced speeches to fronting a counterfeit war against Albania.

Upon hearing the news of the president’s scandal, Conrad Brean (played by De Niro) character asks “What difference if it’s true?” when asked whether he wanted to know whether the accusations made towards the president were factual or not. At this point during the film it is hard to establish whether De Niro’s character is underestimating the media or not.  We come to find that all that was predicted eventually does occur. De Niro’s character uses that predictability to then manipulate the media into reporting on the stories he wants them to report on and consequently neglect the news he wants to avoid. So then, can we trust what we see on the news? In many ways, the movie depicts the media (depressingly) realistically.  They cling to the issue that people want to hear about. For the team’s plan to work, it was not enough to simply stage a war. They needed to fabricate a sense of danger and urgency. They also needed to sensationalize particular aspects of the war to make it one that would not be more or equally damaging to the president as the sex scandal. While it is true that the media will most likely cling to the story that has the most interest invested in it, it is not the case that other stories such as a presidential scandal would be as easily erased as the sex scandal was in this film. Hollywood did well with this film. I do not say that because of its plausibility or realistic conviction. By this I am referring to the war waged on Albania by De Niro’s character.

While it is quite out of reach for a campaign team to fabricate a war to protect a politician from a sex scandal, they are capable of other strategies employed in the film. The Lieutenant Shoeman ploy was reminiscent of something the American public saw in the 2008 presidential election – Joe the Plumber. Joe the Plumber became a household name in 2008. He was a spokesman – borderline token for the McCain/Palin campaign. He was for McCain what Shoeman was for the president in Wag the Dog (different in that Shoeman could not later come back to the media to renounce positions made by the president). Shoeman was the Albanian-American war (the biggest issue in the film’s campaign) embodied – a decorated hero that people could rally behind. Likewise, Joe the Plumber was the American economy embodied. He had lost his job and was struggling to make ends meet. He was relatable and a man who’s endorsement was worth publicizing – And BOY did they publicize it.

In summary, yes, campaign advisors do attempt to manipulate and spin media in an effort to control public opinion. But ultimately this film was overdramatized in a way that makes our political leaders seem powerless and completely illegitimate. Campaign advisors have resources that can be employed usually at the candidate’s call. Any step beyond that boundary can ultimately be a bad career move on their part. In this sense, the tail can wag the dog – but only to the extent to which it will not get bitten