"Half of official Washington is here to see democracy's finest show: the filibuster. The right to talk your head off. The American privilege of free speech in its most dramatic form. The least man in that chamber, once he gets and holds that floor, by the rules, can hold it and talk as long as he can stand on his feet. Providing always; first, that he does not sit down, second, that he does not leave the chamber or stop talking. The galleries are packed! In the diplomatic gallery, are the envoys of two dictator powers. They have come here to see what they can't see at home: democracy in action."
-- H.V. Kaltenborn, American radio commentator, in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"
The actor's role in the black-and-white Frank Capra classic "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is 83 years old, but like Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life," the film has had staying power with its story of the underdog common American standing against political corruption of the establishment.
In the film, Stewart's character represents everything wholesome -- truth, justice and the American Way -- so much so the governor appoints Mr. Smith to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate. The governor believes Smith's naiveté will make him easy to manipulate. By the movie's climax, Smith's reputation and the fate of a national boys' camp is at stake, threatened by a backroom deal to fund construction of a dam. Aided by a secretary well versed in the rough-and-tumble world of Washington politics, Mr. Smith takes to the Senate floor to defend himself by way of the filibuster.
The intricacies of U.S. Senate rules are an unlikely device for cinematic drama. But since fictional Mr. Smith stood on theater screens speaking for 25 hours, blocking the Hollywood version of the U.S. Senate from voting to fund the dam project born of corruption, Americans have viewed the political device known as the filibuster with some affection.
If the filibuster is "democracy in action," as H.V. Kaltenborn described it in a bit part playing himself, and saved Jimmy Stewart himself from the greedy forces of national politics, how in the world can it be a bad thing, right?
Lately, it's Democrats suggesting the filibuster -- that is, the power of a minority to stop a slim majority from adopting sweeping legislative changes -- should be jettisoned. Both parties have done it in limited instances before involving appointments, but using it for large-scale legislation is characterized as "the nuclear option."
The debate over the filibuster is a symptom of the overemphasis on the fact that the Senate has 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans rather than 100 U.S. senators, elected to serve their individual states, not political party priorities. Parties ought to help people get elected, but their role in governing should be far more limited than it is.
I'm not so much like Mr. Smith as to believe the interests of political parties -- i.e, the deep pocket fund-raising machinery -- won't be a factor, but shouldn't senators serve nation and state ahead of political parties? It doesn't seem to be the case these days. If it was, we'd see more collaboration among the 100 senators, regardless of party.
Come on, are you really convinced that Democrats and Republicans are so different -- that the states they represent are as different as Earth is to Saturn (dust off those science books, folks) -- that there's no common American ground to be found between Arkansas' John Boozman and Tom Cotton and New York's Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand?
No common ground at all? If that's true, we are a nation divisible, not indivisible.
If that's true, not even Mr. Smith can save us.