Mr. Potter Had Some Good Points

On Christmas Eve, our family watched It's a Wonderful Life together. This was approximately my twentieth viewing, far and away a record for me for any movie. And though the wee ones squirmed with boredom, I hope that exposure to the movie at a young age will cause nostalgia to make them revere the movie as I do.

A friend of mine said the movie is somewhat socialist in its values. A correct observation, no doubt, but only if you mean "socialist" in the purest sense and not the fully loaded term it has become. "Socialist" had become a negative brand in this country, but I don't know how long that will remain the case.

Many citizens have distaste for the idea of socialism in the abstract, but display an addiction for almost every single aspect of it when its presented to them. Conversely, "I'm a capitalist" has been said by most of us, but half of the country espouses cliched platitiudes about "corporations" that sound like something Marx would write about the capitalists. I think we are on a long, slow march towards the left, towards socialism, except for the little problem that it doesn't work and we would, if we stayed on that path, pull the world down in a spiral with us.

So yes, It's a Wonderful Life is decidedly leftish in its worldview. It was made right at the end of a long reign of FDR's New Deal (which was our country's left wing, fascist moment) and before the Cold War began to bring the ideology of collectivism into sharper contrast within the culture. Only a few years later you can detect the "Establishment" view of the "American Way" in pop culture asserting itself -- everything in contras with the Soviet way of life. You can also detect the infancy of the counter-culture and the Beat Generation.

But most people like what they like, without letting politics dictate taste. And they don't conceptualize liking a film as "support" for a film's take on how things Ought to Be. I'm a huge fan of many movies and pop culture products which purport to absolutely revile everything that I am. But I believe good art portrays truth even in spite of the limitations placed by its creators' worldview filter. If something is good, even if it is something you disagree with, it comes back around to something you can find truth in.

I have always thought that It's A Wonderful Life embodies a very American form of "liberalism" that was embodied in New Deal. It combines a true empathy for working people, with a religious, moral impulse to do good. There is no anger at the system in the movie, no real sense that Mr. Potter's ability to thrive is an injustice. Instead, the movie rejoices over individual effort to triumph in the face of it.

Despite all her supposed trappings of a juggernaut, America views herself as George Bailey. It processes foreign policy through the lens of repeated acts of superhero rescues, and it processes economic policy through the lens of repeated acts of the little guy triumphing over the "fat cats" through hard work, honesty, and a little help from his friends.

Pourqoi Vive le Che Guevera?

With the upcoming release of the movie Che (see "Benicio Del Toro leads the charge for Che") which re-teams lead actor Benicio Del Toro (as Che) with director Steven Soderbergh (Traffic), people are discussing the continuing relevance of Argentinian Marxist revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara. Che was both the thinker and machete-wielder behind Castro's rise to power (among other dubious achievements). Thoughtful scholars ask, was Che a compassionate revolutionary who went too far, or a butcher-tyrant with a will to power? (Hint: the butcher one).

Why is there a tendency to mythologize Che, and not a similar impulse to wear t-shirts with American's "revolutionary" Founders like Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin? The answer lies in the influence of left-wing politics and academia, which has been holding out for a hero for over 200 years. There is a fundamental schism embodied in the comparison between the American and French Revolutions (as first observed by Edmund Burke in his Reflections on the Revolution in France). Our American revolutionary founders fought for property rights, the right to be left alone by government, to right to not to be taxed excessively, and the right to flourish without government having much to do with it. These are not Che's values, to be sure. (For an excellent recap of Burke's work in this regard, National Review Online just reprinted A Vindication of Edmund Burke, a 1990 article by a Burke biographer by Conor Cruise O’Brien).


This is American exceptionalism. All other governmental movements or "isms" since that time have been concerned with just the opposite -- the expansion of government to bring every aspect of life into the public sphere, into the great collective. The hereditary offspring of the French Terror is Marx -- and all of the so-called "revolutionaries" since have committed great bloody atrocities and murders supposedly in the name of the trampled-upon poor. Under this line of thinking, Che Guevara was a genuine, if misguided and excessive, hero.

But there's nothing compassionate Che's brand of revolution. It's the will to power in naked form. Here's why you don't see Franklin on t-shirts. We spent the whole 20th Century under a crushing wave of leftist propaganda being churned out from almost every university. Academics are enthralled with the notion that the very existence of American exceptionalism is a "Wrong Turn" because it is not collectivist at its heart, and because it is founded upon the idea of the right to accumulate property (and yes, that means money) to do with it what you want.

This idea shares a tenuous link with some recent studies on charitable giving by conservatives and liberals, for it appears their respective worldviews translate into a individualist versus collectivist view of compassion. In this past Saturday's New York Times, Nicholas Kristof chides his left-leaning friends -- deemed "Bleeding Heart Tightwads" in the title -- for substantially lagging conservatives in all types of charitable giving. Kristof writes:

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Actions speak louder than words. We can learn more about what those on the left side of the politic spectrum are really about from the charitable giving data. At a deeply psychological level, it is not about "helping the poor," but rather bringing all of our collective destinies under the umbrella of government. What drives liberals to distraction is not an unmet need, or an unfulfilled want; instead, it is the lack of something to believe in, something bigger to function as a repository for our designs on society.

And we can't mention the French without out at least a passing jab from the Times article. Kristof expands the examination of conservative versus liberal giving to compare America to Europe :

Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.

Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.

The next time the subject of "compassion" comes up in a political discussion, ask yourself why no one uses the word "tyranny" anymore. We have arrived at an era where it is assumed at the outset that government will ultimately hold sway over every aspect of life, not necessarily to dominate it or stamp it out, but to control it. Issues like health care reform are specifically framed as not for "the poor," but for an ever-widening ocean of people in "need."

Che is the perfect maverick for our times -- the rebel who wants to rule all.

Update on 12/31/2008: Hollywood Celebrates Che Guevara, by Mary Anastasia O'Grady in the Wall Street Journal ("This is the wonder of the revolution: Fifty years of state terror hasn't silenced the resistance. Maybe one day Hollywood will make a film about it.")(Thanks to my friend Joey for a heads up on the WSJ article)

A Purpose-Driven Move by Barracko?

Obama has asked Pastor Rick Warren (among others given more prominent roles) to "invocate" at his inauguration. (Story on Politico here).

Warren is the Baptist preacher of the Saddleback Church, one of the "stealth" Southern Baptist churches around the country which is connecting with a wide community of Christians and Christian-seekers.

This is a brilliant move. Obama seems to have clear designs on bringing evangelical Christians into the Democrat fold (or at least balancing it up a bit).

As a Baptist, I live, walk and talk in the evangelical culture in our country. Obama's design is achievable. Evangelicals aren't all that different from many other demographic segments, and with a balanced approach many of them could follow their populist, big government leanings.

It doesn't sit well with gay activists. This will be a test for whether Democrats can put together a lasting wide governing coalition. One of the things holding Democrats back is their habitual identity politics -- the different "groups" that are lined up as Democrats which require an Oath of Fealty on their particular issue. I trace this to Marx, for throughout the 20th Century the ideological Left recycled the concept of class struggle, and that class equals destiny. ("Class" in this sense refers to any victimized category under discussion).

Ironically, it could be Obama (a member of an "identity group" himself) who breaks the back of such thinking in the Democratic Party. He's clearly trying to put together a FDR-esque governing coalition. Time will tell if the Republicans have counter-collectivist vision based on individual liberty and accountability, free market economics, and efficient, organic government.

Update on 12/19/2008: Reuters story here: Obama's next pastor controversy - at inauguration
Update on 12/21/2008: AP story: Pastor Rick Warren defends invite to inauguration

They Hang Elephants, Don't They?

I was travelling to Kingsport, Tennessee with my good friend Josh this week, and he told me that they hung an elephant using "a crane or something" in Jonesboro, Tennessee. "Or was it Elizabethton?" he added. Josh said he thought the elephant had stomped a baby, or something.

I did a little internet "research, " and apparently nearby Erwin, Tennessee was actually the site of an elephant execution by hanging in 1916. The elephant's name was Mary, and Mary killed her handler and was thought to be a dangerous. (One lady's account at this link)

I wondered what it was like to be the town known for hanging an elephant. Or to be the town that didn't hang an elephant, but people nevertheless confuse your town with the elephant-hanger.