The Best Man: Questions for Consideration
By On · 19 Comments
In the 1964 screen adaptation of Gore Vidal’s play, The Best Man, William RUSSELL quotes the philosopher Bertrand RUSSELL early in the film. Here is the complete quotation from Bertrand Russell:
Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man, and our politicians take advantage of this prejudice by pretending to be even more stupid than nature made them.(Bertrand Russell, New Hopes for a Changing World)
What do you think?
Is there a relationship between honesty and intelligence?
Does our political system tend to favor stupidity or intelligence?
Do voters in The Best Man distrust Bill Russell because of his intelligence?
Do they trust Joe Cantwell because he isn’t as bright?
How does the film show us that Cantwell does not have Russell’s intellect?
If Bertrand Russell was right about most voters, is he wrong about Gore Vidal?
Is Vidal taking a position on honesty and intelligence? Does his script have a readable message?
This movie was made in 1964. Would the evidence Bill Russell has against Joe Cantwell work to Russell’s advantage or disadvantage in 2012? Would the evidence Cantwell has against Russell work to Cantwell’s advantage or disadvantage?Did Russell do the right thing by not spreading the rumor about Cantwell?
Is it the voter’s right to know about a politician’s personal life?
What do we have a right to know about? His sex life? His income tax return? His bad behavior as a teenager? His religious beliefs?
How do we determine the “character” of a leader? Through his policies? His personal history? His religious beliefs?
Why is Russell so disdainful when speaking of the “Gallup Poll?” What does he have against taking polls?
Is Bill Russell a believable character? Is he too good to be true? Is the former president right? Must a politician sacrifice part of his soul in order to be effective?
Could a candidate running for president in 2012 admit to being an atheist? Why does or doesn’t religion belong in politics?
The quote from Bertrand Russel at the opening of the film raises a lot of interesting questions about honesty, specifically honesty in politics. Bertrand Russel makes a good point about people in general. I do think it is widely considered true that a stupid man will more likely be honest than a smart man. That’s not saying that smart people cannot be honest, however they are more likely to be reserved and consider reaction before speaking. However, when you consider politics, all that logic goes out the door. There is so much thinking, saying, omitting, altering, and accusing that go along with politics that it is nearly impossible to tell if a candidate is actually honest or intelligent.
In the film it is pretty apparent (or at least it was to me) that the audience is meant to sympathize with the candidate Bill Russell. However, he seems to be the more honest and seemingly intelligent of the two men. He is also the more reserved personality. Cliff Robertson, on the other hand, is much more boisterous and outgoing. Normally in a film, that type of personality is desirable and entertaining, however these are politicians. Generally speaking, people do not like, or vote, for outgoing candidates, or candidates that take a firm stance. Although both men have the politically-important way of dancing around a conversation, it is the generally the stern, reserved type that typically gets the vote.
The Best Man
I believe the public thinks an honest man does have a better chance of lying to you than a dumb man. This is due to the fact that lying actually takes skill. Lying is complex and precise, which can make it a difficult feat. A lie, above all things, has to be believable or else it loses all it’s meaning. This is not easy in most cases because, in essence, your making someone else take a piece of fiction to be their own reality. This task might be hard for someone who is unintelligent. A dumb man also might not see the affects of telling the truth. A smart man will be better able to predict the outcome of telling the truth, which will most likely lead to him telling a lie.
I believe our political system does tend to favor a man that is moderately smart. I don’t think our president needs to be the smartest man in America. The graduates from Harvard and MIT I hope are mostly working as engineers and doctors. We need those people to be curing cancer and building our future. I feel like we need a president that is not smart in the conventional sense, but smart morally and realistically. I think one of the biggest problems in politics today is that candidates try to make everything ok. Considering this is impossible they usually come off naïve. If a candidate just told it how it was and was realistic I feel like they would have a better chance of winning.
I personally don’t believe we need to know everything about a president’s personal life. I think that as long as it’s not affecting any of his decisions or the nation at a whole, then it’s acceptable. I believe it’s not a president’s job to be a good man. It’s a president job to make the country the best it can be regardless of his personal life. I especially don’t think his religion is important. I am allowed to believe anything I want, why can’t the president do the same? This country is built on the thought that we are allowed to believe anything we want to. I don’t get why people value a presidential candidates religion so heavily. In the end whatever he has done, whatever he believes, whatever he pays, it really means nothing to me.
Gore Vidal’s film “The Best Man” very accurately portrays the corrupted social game we call politics. Betrand Russell’s quote also depicts a certain truth in politics throughout history. In my opinion, politicians tend to act as if they are in the game for the common good of the nation they serve and only that. However, any smart man knows that there is more to politics than that. Politicians act as if they know nothing about how the system works and what they “stand for” is sincere, when in reality what they “stand for” may not actually be them, but instead it is them trying to get ahead in the political game by appealing to audiences. In that way, there is a definite relationship between honesty and intelligence. Intelligent people, like politicians are not always honest because of how much they know about the world and the things they are expected to do in society. I believe this is true in any sort of competition, not just a political campaign. This concept is thoroughly explained through the characters of William Russell, the intelligent candidate, and Joe Cantwell, the less intelligent. The film portrays Russell as a rich, well educated man that rose to power because of the social class he grew up in and because he had the opportunities many others did not because of how much money he has. Cantwell is depicted as a man of the common people. He had to work hard for his name in politics. In other words, nothing was given to him on a silver platter. Because Cantwell is more of a common man, some might think of him as being more trustworthy and genuine. Russell, being so intelligent, is seen as almost unapproachable by the common man. He is seen as being much more capable of deceiving the public. Vidal seems to take an apposing position to Russell’s statement. He shows the more intelligent and rich man to have more honesty and sincerity than the less intelligent poor man. In this film, Cantwell is the one that is more manipulative to the people with his actions against communism and blackmail against Russell. He is the one that is focused on pleasing the public while Russell is more focused on trying to change the game of politics and staying out of the corruption.
When voting for your next President—would you want a man who had a mental disorder? A nervous breakdown? Would you want a man who didn’t believe in God the way you do? Would you want a man who had cheated on his wife? If his running mate didn’t have any other detrimental accusations that had a leg to stand on—would you be able to choose the “flawed” one?
Moreover, would you trust an extremely intelligent man to also be honest—especially when his running mate seemed like your neighbor, your peer, your trusted equal? Although all these qualities did not in actuality ruin Bill Russell’s potential to be “The Best Man,” the average American’s kneejerk reaction to the above questions would be “no.” We want a president that can relate to us but seems to be above us. We want someone whose character cannot be called into question. We want someone not quite human, in the sense of fallibility, but can simultaneously warmly shake our hand and smile.
Although Cantwell may seem the logical, neighborly choice to the American on the outside of the scandalous inner dealings, we see the true Cantwell in all his inhumane actions. Personally, I saw the character differences bright as day when the ex-President told each candidate he was dying. Russell immediately stopped his political dealings, sat by his side, asked him about his health problems, and felt for anything he could do to help. Cantwell didn’t bat an eye before continuing with threats and blackmail. That, to me, is pure insanity.
In my opinion, anyone whose character is truly flawless enough to satisfy all Americans would have to be crazy to want to endure the hell that politics seems to be. Bill Russell was brought to the point of crazy once, Joseph Cantwell surely is crazy. All of our politicians have a little bit of crazy. Russell’s showing of weakness in that nervous breakdown should make us recognize his humanity amongst his intelligent forefront and make us all the more likely to accept him as strong for getting through it, a leader and a fighter. But that’s simply not how the world works. “The Best Man” wouldn’t win in this story, but “The Best Man” did make the best decision when he dropped out of the race.
In politics, it doesn’t really matter whether a politician is intelligent or not. What matters is what he says to appeal to his/her audience. The reason I say this is because an intelligent politician may be lying to the public and using rhetoric to appeal to them, while a politician who isn’t intelligent can be fed things to say in public deliberations, as was seen in the film. It is left up to the public to decide what is valid and what isn’t and to decide which politician is the better choice. Also, the public is affected through pathos, ethos, and logos. As long as politicians realize this, one doesn’t have to be intelligent to earn votes. Typically, politicians deem themselves appealing by playing at an audience’s ethical and moral beings and by relating to popular beliefs and commonplaces. Overall, the movie was enjoyable and allowed viewers to consider what is actually important during the upcoming election in November 2012.
In response to James Hollister, I find myself agreeing with the nonsense of how political campaigns, interest groups, and the media take the personal lives of candidates running for office and make them the center issue. Personally, I do not think that anything other than a candidate’s past actions should speak for their character or ability to make decisions, when in a position of leadership. Unfortunately, we also have to realize that we as academics, analyze these situations with a much more trained eye than the majority of American citizens and must face the reality that society is much more prejudice than it ought to be.
I study political science at Penn State and one of the first lessons we are all taught, is that to some degree, politics in the U.S. is picking the lesser of two evils. The United States uses a plural electoral system that rewards only the candidate (and their party) who receives the highest number of votes, with no reward for those who come in second or third place. This makes it highly improbable for more than two parties to exist because there is no point to running for office if you do not represent a party in first or second place. As a result, the Republican and Democratic parties may appear to have drastically different political platforms, but that is only because candidates emphasize the specific issues that set them apart. The Republican Party may represent those who are “far-right” conservatives, say from 10-5 on a scale of 0-10. While the Democrats represent the “left” liberals, those from 0-5; however, there is still a point where these parties meet. Parties in a plural system would need to appeal to such a wide variety of voter preferences in order to try and attain more votes than their rival, hence converging on some issues. However rather than focus on why candidates are different in terms of their political platform, it seems that elections have become a game of making your opponent look worse than you. To the American electorate, stability is based on how one can maintain a marriage, forcing Alice and William Russell to stay together until after Russell has secured a Presidential nomination. This mentality is morally much more sickly than the stigma surrounding divorce in American culture. Instead of supporting the honesty that comes with recognizing when a marriage has failed, the public would rather endorse two people presenting a lie. The mental accusations from Cantwell are even more disturbing because Russell had already been voted into office despite his previous psychological illness. We have all been sick at one point in our lives, but is that to say our bodies will never be healthy again because of a fever that happened a year ago? It is clear that since being sick, Russell has been able to cope with the stresses and responsibilities of being in office, so why should the past matter? Cantwell also broke the law to obtain such records, explicitly demonstrating his flagrant disregard for the law, yet he is running for a position that represents law and order for an entire nation.
Which brings me back to my point of choosing the lesser of two evils. The Best Man is not a movie demonstrating a fight between good versus evil, but a fight between honesty versus corruption. Schaffner does an excellent job of conveying that no one person is perfect, but that everyone has problems they must face. Through the personalities that describe Russell and Cantwell, Schaffner illustrates the line separating those who are dishonest as a way to avoid prejudice, from those who are intentionally deceitful and malicious. So while I mentioned before that the personal lives of a candidate should not be the focal point of elections, we would have never known how bad Cantwell was if he had not tried to make Russell look worse than him. And while Russell’s shortcomings as an adulterer are nothing in comparison to Cantwell’s openly maniacal behavior, we see that the even the slightest level of participation in such dirty politics results in a loss for everyone involved.
As always, generalizations can be dangerous territory. An honest man can be a clever man terrified of lying and a dishonest man can be a stupid can utilizing his idiocy. I think besides that, Bertrand Russell’s quote is a very accurate one. Clever men have the upper hand in a lot of ways, but often times it’s their cleverness that has the capacity to get themselves in trouble. I think that ignorance is bless and the less sense a person has, the better off they are. Often times stupid men are not as good at telling a lie because not only do they not know the right time to tell one, but they also don’t always understand the benefits or consequences. Honest and intelligence could has nothing in common, but at the same time everything to do with one another depending on the circumstances. Man without intelligence have no filter and most likely will say whatever first comes to mind which tends to be the truth. Our political system seems to favor both stupidity and intelligence, but in a strange sort of way. We need a man who is learned but also has a wide range of common sense and street smarts. However, we tend to usually favor the opposite; a man with no sense whatsoever. In this movie, The Best Man, voters distrust Bill Russell not because of his intelligence directly, but because of his lack of confidence, while on the other hand, Joe Cantwell has plenty of confidence nearly pouring out of his ears. Politics has nothing to do with either, though I believe. It’s more of a strategic con show of who can convince the public that they are “the best man” even when they may not be. I feel as though Betrand Russell was half wrong about Gore Vidal as well because he portrayed the stupid man as the one who was successful, but he also portrayed the smart man as sticking to acting smart instead of changing who he was to please the public. Vidal’s message seems to be that the right thing has to be a selfless one in order for another right to be put ahead of it and defeat the wrong. The message is hidden due to the rollercoaster of events, but it’s there. As as advantage and disadvantage goes to describing who had the upper hand in this film, I believe that these are the wrong words to use. Moreso which would have the more effective blackmail. Neither information, the military incident and the insanity accusation, in todays world would force a candidate to step down from the running. However, I think that Cantwell’s story would be the one to shock the public more and he would be more likely to lose votes over that. I feel as though we don’t necessarily deserve the right to know everything about the entirety of our candidate’s personal life. Obviously a background check is needed in order to be certain of no criminal record. However, any extraneous information about them always helps with a more accurate voting process. People can understand the policies and opinions of the candidates on a personal level. The one still substantially controversial belief that crosses paths with politics quite often is religion. Atheism is a heavy subject. Perhaps in five to ten years, not as many people would overreact about this topic, but our country is still a predominantly christian society and the idea for our president to be completely void of religion is hard to wrap our brains around. It’s becoming less of an issue, but who knows exactly when church and state will finally divide.
“The Best Man” highlights some interesting insights on voting. The movie shows that often the perception of the character of a candidate matters more than their intelligence or political aptitude. Politicians succeed when they are politically savvy enough to portray themselves likably – as seen in the character of Joe Cantwell. Cantwell wants to be likable and be the candidate that people want to see.
In our discussion the issue of religion was brought up. Russell appears more likeable in the eyes of the audience because he tells the President that he does not believe in God, while Cantwell states he firmly believes in God and is “a very religious man” –something that voters want to hear. The audiences’ affection for Russell’s discussion of his religious beliefs has nothing to do with his disbelief in God. Rather, the audience feels that Russell is speaking the truth – he truly does not believe in God – and the audience respects his honesty. Conversely, the audience dislikes Cantwell because Cantwell’s admission does not seem genuine, but rather a line for the sake of votes. The audience embraces Russell as the candidate they wish to see win because they believe in his ability to be honest.
Morals and beliefs matter in elections because voters often want a politician with the same belief system and moral code that they have. The, often unconscious, thought process is that a politician with the same belief system is more likely to act in a way that the voter would agree with. It seems to me that in elections, voters are starting to look for the more honest politicians rather than the politicians with the “right” sound bite. It seems that over godliness and religion, voters care most for honesty. They want to trust the people that are leading them. Thus, the audience wishes for Russell to win the primary because they value his honesty over his lack of religious beliefs.
Politicians, whether stupid or incredibly intelligent, they all have the common sense to appeal to their audience; that is Politics 101. It is our job to cut through the political jargon to determine for ourselves what we believe, who we want to support, et cetera. Perhaps It may sound pessimistic of me to say this, but I don’t think you can believe anything a politician when they are caught up in the heat of campaign season. In The Best Man, we see that the general public does not necessarily find honesty or intelligence important; they are blind subjects, following the masses, believing in the corrupt rhetoric of politicians. I would make the argument that Joe Cantwell, while he is not the brightest of the candidates, that he may have the best political tactics. In his first speech of the film, the audience can tell that he is full of hot air, but the spectators he is speaking too eat it up. Why? Because he was such a passionate speaker. Connecting with the audience and speaking to them at a level that they understand is key to gaining their support.
In one of the final scenes of The Best Man, the electorate becomes outraged when they find that their beloved candidate Bill Russell has decided to drop out of the race. Within a matter of seconds, after being told to do so, Russell’s followers decide to support another candidate, John Merwin. Is it that simple? At the drop of a hat, a group of people can change their allegiance and completely support another candidate simply because a politician says so? It’s frightening to think about. That being said, I think The Best Man should be a lesson to us all this November when we go to cast our ballots.
I agree with Bertrand Russell: most people in our current democratic system fear a stupid candidate far less than a smart one. I disagree, however, with the reasoning behind the line of thought expressed in Russell’s quote. Intelligence corresponds with an individual’s propensity to lie and to effectively deceive, but it doesn’t correlate with honesty in itself. An intelligent man has the brain power to weave an elaborate, believable lie much better than his less intelligent counterpart, but the motivation to engage in such behaviors is not able to be judged by this mere potentiality.
So is it fair to judge a politician based on his intelligence? Absolutely, but not in the ways in which most people do. To judge a politician’s character based only on his intellect is an ethical wrongdoing, as far as I’m concerned. You wouldn’t judge a person on the street based solely on mental capacity, so what makes politicians different? The biggest reason most people find for the increased standard is the high level of responsibility held by politicians. For example, if a man holds the power to throw the entire civilized world into a nuclear winter, we are more likely to be overcautious of his propensity for lying. This is a reasonable expectation, but the factor of intelligence in making such a judgment should be weighed with care. Telling the truth and telling lies are morally-rooted behaviors, and intelligence is far from the only factor in moral decision making.
When someone judges character by intelligence, they are committing a greater sin than the lying politicians they hope to protect themselves from. Willful ignorance of an issue’s complexity is inexcusable, and what issue could be more complex than the morality of a human being? By deluding ourselves into thinking that character can be defined by a singular or even a small number of parameters, we’re unnecessarily reducing the issue. It’s a form of lying to oneself, which then begs the question: in whose character does the real danger lie?
The Best Man brings to light many of the inner workings of the American political system and has great implications for American politics today. I do not believe that honesty and intelligence are necessarily connected. Honesty is a tricky thing to define. On the one hand, I think that honesty is personally defined; honesty comes from what you personally believe. If you believe that the sky is neon green, then you can “honestly” say that it is neon green because that is what you believe to be honest. Yet, honesty seems to have an aspect that is socially and interpersonally defined as well. It seems that a person is not honest if he or she does not follow the normal conventions that society has in place. With the neon green sky example, that individual would quickly be told that the sky is actually blue (well based on our perception of it) and also would not be considered honest. To an extent, this has to do with a person’s intelligence because if the person has learned something incorrectly, then they are societally dishonest, but personally honest. That is what makes the idea of honesty tricky.
Unfortunately, the evidence against both candidates in the movie would have repercussions in American politics today. Sadly, much of a candidate’s personal life affects the votes that the American public gives him. Honestly, though, it shouldn’t. I could care less who a candidate has slept with or what their sexual preferences are. None of that has anything to do with how well a person can run a country. I feel like a lot of times, the American people allow ourselves to buy into the idea that if a person does not fit a certain mold, then that person also does not fit in the position of president. And I believe that mentality is dangerous because at what point does that exclude everyone from the position? At the heart of this issue, we discriminate against those that do not fit our idea of perfection. And that seems a little counterintuitive for a country that proclaims personal freedom and to be the best in the world.
Finally, I do not think that a candidate, even in 2012 (rather, especially in 2012), could get away with saying that he or she was an atheist. For some reason, I think that people believe that religion (namely Christianity) gives individuals some heightened sense of morality. And that is just not true. We sort of see this with campaigns against President Obama today. Too many times have I seen slanderous ads saying that Obama is a Muslim. And why is that a bad thing? I would like to think that we could one day have a Muslim/non-Christian president in the White House. Isn’t that what this country espouses? Equal opportunity and personal growth? Religion does not make a man moral. A man’s actions make a man moral. And that is why religion should not be a factor in American politics at all. And if people from diverse, non-Christian backgrounds cannot become president, well then maybe that is a country that I don’t want to be a part of.
The Best Man brings out many interesting points about how voters view candidates and what swings us to vote for them, regardless of their views on actually policies. In the beginning of the film, we see a television special on Joe Cantwell. It shows him as a young boy from a poor family, and his elderly mother speaks to a reporter. Later, we find that Cantwell served in the military. In another scene, his opponent, Bill Russell, speaks with his wife about the likelihood of his winning if she were to leave him. All of these moments speak to the other factors that can help or hinder a candidate and the public’s view of him or her. Cantwell’s humble background caused a maid from the hotel to excitedly declare her support for him. She does not say that she was swayed by his policies, possibly a vow to help the poor or his commitment to social services. The fact that she, a working class woman, could relate to his background prompted this decision. For those who have served in the military, the same mindset may extend to a candidate like Cantwell. This sense of shared experiences makes a candidate seem more approachable and more likable. Most important, perhaps, this causes voters to believe that the candidate more likely to act the way they would when making any type of decision.
On the other hand, Russell’s conversation highlights the things that cause voters to mistrust a candidate. Aside from simply being different than they are, other things like getting a divorce or having a child out of wedlock, may bring voters to feel that there is something “wrong” with the candidate. This is strange to think about when considering how little these actions have to do with a candidate’s policy on foreign policy or raising taxes. However, the same idea of relating applies: if the candidate is not trustworthy or has had personal issues in the past, these things might affect his decision making.
These ideas reminded me of a video that I saw showcasing Michelle Obama. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkUqYhvJyVw&feature=youtu.be) Aside from mention of her work to combat childhood obesity, the video focuses on her personal life. This, I think, is a prime example of what we saw in The Best Man: people want a relatable candidate that they can trust. The rest – policy, decision-making – will fall into place.
Won’t it? It concerns me that American voters neglect the policy-based facts in favor of looking to a candidate’s personality; this makes me wonder how easily they can be misled. Nonetheless, it is a voter’s right to vote on whatever qualities matter to them, and for a large percentage of the country, a man’s family values (as displayed in the above video) are more important than how he views problems in the Middle East.
I do not think that there is a connection between intelligence and honesty at all. There are thousands of people who are incredibly bright and truthful, just as there are thousands of geniuses who are dishonest. I think the issue is more that so many politicians have resorted to less than honorable tactics to get elected that the public sees dishonesty in them all to some degree. However, people are more willing to vote for a stupid dishonest man because a smarter dishonest man is harder to pin down.
Perhaps another reason so many stupid and dishonest men are elected is because the honest ones refuse to dishonorable tactics, such as Bill Russell in the film. It really seemed like Russell was a once in a lifetime kind of politician: smart, but still unwilling to sling mud and compromise his morals. If only the public knew about his behind-the-scenes actions, they might be more willing to elect him.
Though the movie “The Best Man” was intended to reflect the Democratic Party of the 1960s, it is uncannily relevant to the Republican Party of today. Unfortunately, it seems that the party has completely shifted away from the Bill Russells of the party completely, focusing more on candidates trying to “out-Cantwell” each other, striving to place the blame on someone else for all the problems of the nation, regardless of how true the allegations may be. And yet, it is hard to believe that these politicians, who one would assume has at least a rudimentary knowledge of the country that they one day hope to help run or even lead, could actually believe half of these allegations that they bring up.
This train of thought led me to what I believe is one of the more important aspects of each of the main characters in this movie, their disguises. Cantwell, for instance, was the all-American boy. Hard working, from nothing, and confident in the face of adversity, he was the candidate that every average Joe could identify with. But, when we dug a little deeper, we saw him as a ruthless adversary, someone who jumped the gun when it wasn’t prudent and would use almost any means necessary to achieve his desired ends. Russell, too, despite being the hero of the film, had his own faults of character. While on the outside he appeared the intellectual, prudent, experienced politician, it was proven time and time again that he hesitated when action may have been necessary. Furthermore, at the climax of the movie, he shifts responsibility onto someone else instead of taking it on himself.
A further aspect of the main characters’ personas is the information regarding their personal lives. The disparity between their on-paper traits and the real-life actions they take is striking, and further illustrates how personas are created rather than a true representation of the person in question. Religion, for example, is brought up as a separating factor between the two main characters. Russell, someone who doesn’t believe in a hereafter, is the much more benevolent and, frankly, nicer of the two. Cantwell, on the other hand, constantly describes himself as highly religious, but his actions would indicate otherwise. Though a Christian, he acts in an extremely unchristian manner, ignoring the good of those around him for his own benefit alone. Another example of this is the marriage situation each man is in. Russell, who apparently slept with other women, ends up getting back together with his wife at the end of the movie and is nothing but kind to her. Cantwell, on the other hand, largely ignores his wife and flies off the handle with her, despite him never cheating on her. Is one really a better husband than the other in the film? This just goes to further show that appearances can definitely be deceiving.
All this ties into the presidential election this year, and many elections in the past, because politicians nowadays, especially on the national scale, are very often just cleverly disguising themselves to make them seem more appealing. There are many examples of this, many of which made themselves apparent in the Republican primaries. Newt Gingrich, for example, a man who it seems has absolutely no regard for the sanctity of marriage in his religion, regularly lectured on what the proper family would be. Mitt Romney, a businessman who not only inherited his vast fortune but then exploited American workers, is now running on a platform of sympathy for them. And the Republican notion that Democrats are the cause of the recession in the nation when their last president, one who is now ostracized from them for the time being, was responsible for two wars and extreme tax cuts setting all the groundwork, is perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of the season. This is not to say the Democrats aren’t guilty of their own hypocrisy, but the primaries being the most recent spectacle it seemed more prudent to mention them now. Regardless, it just goes to show that honesty is not always readily available in politics, something that was true with this movie and is still true today.
The Best Man
10 September 2012
Gore Vidal beautiful portrays the dirty, grimy, and discrete world of politics. By presenting the clashing frontrunners of William Russell, a wealthy and seasoned politician, and Joe Cantwell, an average man with undying gumption, this 1964 film embodies the fluctuating and vulnerable game of campaigning for public approval. Specifically in the running for presidency, one must appeal to a nation of diverse thoughts, backgrounds, and interests. Voter constituencies are the only hope for an accumulation of winning numbers, but it makes it nearly impossible for the candidate to be specific and decisive on issues that could neglect or defer voters. Platforms are rarely spoken about directly but instead abstractly, to give the voter a chance to feel welcome and involved, that this candidate cares about my personal experience in this country of America. The trigger words: freedom, American, liberty, justice, peace, God Bless America. They emanate an unidentified and undefined sense of nationalism for the confused citizen just trying to cast a vote for their next president. All important and complicated issues become oversimplified and understated in an attempt to look like the savior themselves, to look like the shining beacon of hope for all of this nation’s problems. This oversimplification transforms debates and speeches into circuitous statements about hope and change with no legitimate plan. Thus, the emphasis of simplicity degrades intelligence, dismissing critical thought and logistics as a nuisance for America’s progression. Everything is a race, a timed event in which the fastest man will win, one who can provide a hasty Band-Aid for the immediate crises until their four years are up, and it’s the next guy’s turn. I think Cantwell’s humble and meager upbringing appeals to the common man by relating to their level of understanding, that Russell’s wealth and philosophical mindset is too intimidating and time-consuming. The average working citizen works hard at their job, supports their family, and in the end, wants a president who will appreciate their contributions to the national economy and comforts their subconscious concerns for the future of their country. Everything will be okay. Cantwell will fix it. He knows what it takes. These reassuring concepts are so commonplace and so expected, since no one wants to turn on their televisions and be confronted time after time with the uncomfortable truths of politics; nobody wants to know the truth. As a national mindset, honesty exists only as the simple truth, or rather the simple lie. Honesty is not respected or desired if it is difficult, unfavorable, or intimidating and is just replaced by empty promises and misconceptions to carry through to the next day. The Best Man depicts this unfortunate absence of long term thinking in America, even through today, and, especially at the convention, shows the impulsive passion of the now, the short term.
With this, Gore Vidal incorporates an interpretation of the human mind throughout this film. With the mudslinging of Russell and Cantwell, both uncover some sort of mental breakdown and disorder in the other. Russell was diagnosed with the term of neurosis, a medical disease in which he was deemed unstable by standards and regulations. Cantwell was never actually officially classified as insane or unstable, as he manipulated his way through the system to keep his record clean and maintain his “sanity.” This dichotomy articulates, once again, the mindset to oversimplify and categorize all difficult problems. It is no secret that the human mind is complex, more complex than our modern society can comprehend. Yet, we firmly believe we have established the authority to classify those within the “right” and “wrong” states of mind. Psychiatrists and medical doctors claim the know-how to stand above the norm and judge the functionality of the brain. We are terrified of insanity because it has no clear cure, no quick fix. It is a strenuous and continuous process to look within and understand one’s own mind, thus a concept not readily accepted by the majority of citizens. Therefore, Russell depicts a classified case of insanity in which he does not seem so crazy, and Cantwell depicts a man with a crystal clean record who embodies all the qualifications of craziness. The voters do not care, though. They, just as Cantwell, fail to judge character for themselves, but let the vague terms and stereotypes do it for them. Thus, they can stand back from the messy process of human interaction and decide where they want to stand on the spectrum of human stereotypes. It is just easier that way.