Five years later....Oh, well. I guess I have something to say about this, having screened the film today. Under our system of government, it is virtually impossible for anyone to run a campaign for U.S. Senator with less than 50 to 100 million dollars. This is primarily due to the invention of television and public relations. TV commercials for candidates cost a fortune: to produce them, to broadcast them repeatedly. Every time a commercial is broadcast, it increases the candidate's chances of victory. Now where does this money come from? Either the candidate himself is extraordinarily wealthy (the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of NYC, etc.), OR the candidate must accept huge contributions from "special interests." More money does not guarantee victory, but it makes it more likely: i.e.; out of one hundred elections, the candidates who win a majority of them are likely to have had more money.
Mr. Hundert in this film is a pathetic figure: Not only are his views of the world extremely unrealistic, but whenever faced with a moral challenge, he weakly succumbs to "the easy way out." So he himself, even in his little arena of St Benedict's, is unethical, when the temptations are not even so great. Imagine what havoc he would have caused if he had been successful.
The most poignant scene in the film, to me, is when Hundert changes Bell's grade from A- to A+. In the visual, you see the table of contestants, and it is clear that Hundert must realize that he is depriving Blythe of a chance to repeat his father's achievement. How low can one sink?
Among idealistic individuals, it is common to hear "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how one plays the game." Well, if Hundert had been a man, as some of the people he blindly discusses in class, he would have given the students their proper grades, and Bell would have learned that even when one tries hard and is intellectually gifted, he does not necessarily win. Blythe would justly have had his chance in the contest, and most important, Mr Hundert would have done THE RIGHT THING.
Well, to be very brief, I think that the world is full of all types of individuals, from the noble and saintly like Mother Theresa, to the unbearably evil, like Hitler or Stalin. But the vast, vast majority of human beings are neither great nor ignoble; they are good some of the time, and bad some of the time. POLITICS in general does not attract men and women with noble values, because the essence of politics is constant compromise. Even if a young candidate starts out really believing that he can do something good for his country, it is almost inevitable that, through the experiences he must undergo to gain vistory after victory, his morals must become corrupted.
As I say to many friends, when they bemoan--as you seem to be doing--the most recent scandal in Washington involving lobbyists and their influence, the discovery of a member of Congress involved with an underage girl or boy, etc., "Do you think it was any different in Ancient Greece and Rome? Rich landowners bribed Senators repeatedly, in order to get what they wanted. Even if the plebeians had the right to vote, what could that mean in a corrupt political and judicial system?"
Truly, if someone has a moral system in which he believes, one would think that one of the last places he would seek a career is in politics. As Gore Vidal repeatedly writes, "There is only one party in America: The Property Party...The members of elected officials are nothing more than energetic mediocrities."
There may be exceptions, but how often have we seen respected, even idolized figures discovered violating the laws of our land all-the-time we worshipped them. More to come tomorrow.
Allen Roth
"I look up, I look down..."
reply
share