Fools Wanted: A Lesson from 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'

In the 1939 classic film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” the newly-appointed Senator Jefferson Smith is told by his secretary how important “fools” can be in Washington D.C. Her support and admiration for fools is not an endorsement of sending uneducated persons to our nation’s capital. Fools, she believes, include honorable people who have faith in their convictions against political opposition and harsh criticism. The movie “Mr. Smith” and its message about “fools” serve as a reminder about what public service is really about and what integrity really means.

Even though I have lived in the D.C. area for a little less than three years, I recently watched “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” for the first time. The movie revolves around an appointed Senator who brings his hopefulness and his integrity to Washington D.C. James Stewart plays Mr. Smith, the head of a boy’s organization, who is surprisingly given a chance to serve his country in the United States Senate. He is a Governor’s political appointee who some believe will cave to political pressure and make his voting decisions on the advice of a corrupt but highly-respected Senate colleague. Mr. Smith refuses to accommodate that fellow Senator and the demands of the political machine in his state that fights against him and he eventually loses confidence in the entire political system.

When Smith recognizes how blatantly corrupt some politicians are, he heads to the Lincoln Memorial planning to leave the nation’s capital after the media and his fellow Senators have disgraced his name. His secretary, Clarissa Saunders, meets him there and she notes the following about Senator Paine and Jim Taylor, two of Smith’s high-profile critics:

Your friend Mr. Lincoln had his Taylors and Paines. So did every other man who ever tried to lift his thought up off the ground. Odds against them did not stop those men. They were fools that way. All the good that ever came into this world came from fools with faith like that.

After that part of the movie, Mr. Smith is given a choice. He can return to his home state and try to repair the damage to his reputation that was caused by the accusations lobbed at him or he can return to the Senate and fight for his honor. Mr. Smith decides to return to the Senate, where he mounts a filibuster to get his message out to the people of his state.

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Smith, an icon of idealism and integrity, has become a paradigm that politicians enjoy being compared to. Several months ago, Liza Mundy from the Washington Post, wrote a piece about the film and noted the importance of the movie. “Its influence,” she wrote, “is rooted in the idea that a virtuous innocent can take on a rotten political system — and win.” Mundy later wrote that “perhaps at no time has the film been invoked as often as during the 2008 presidential election, a race in which everybody was trying to claim the outsider status that Smith embodies.” Bundy noted in her piece that depending on your political persuasion, both President Obama and former Governor Sarah Palin can and have been compared to Mr. Smith.

If you took a broader perspective today of Mr. Smith and viewed him as an advocate for the people over the forces of politics as usual, you would see how such “fools” are necessary in the nation’s capital these days and how critics often go after such “fools.” In Washington D.C., the amount of money given to a state or a district in earmarks can be seen as a major political plus while people who are fiscally conservative can be criticized for not soliciting or accepting more money from the federal government. Is it a “fool” who wants to fight for fiscal responsibility when our deficit is so high? On the matter of health care, is it foolish for our elected leaders to take their time and meticulously debate reform that will affect millions of Americans, like some elected leaders like Senator McConnell want to do. Is it a “fool” who wants health-care reform to be debated and discussed thoroughly while others want to push through the legislation quickly? On the same subject, is it “foolish” to ask our public officials to read this important piece of legislation before they push it through? Is it “foolish” to want to know what is actually in this massive health care bill before it becomes law?

With such questions about “foolishness,” some would likely ask the obvious question: do we have Mr. Smiths in Washington today? I believe that we do have such people in our capital. We have Mr. Smiths in Washington who fight for accountability and transparency and who fight for their ideals and their values over their party’s principles.

For one, I am reminded of Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. In 2000, Democratic Senator Lieberman represented his party as nominee for vice president but six years later, he lost the primary in his own state. Believing that the voters of both parties and many independents would support him, Lieberman ran and won as an independent and he has deserved that title in the Senate. Although he still supports the Democrats on a lot of issues, Lieberman supported John McCain in last year’s election much to his own detriment, and he has recently opposed parts of liberal health care reform, once again facing critics from within his own party. Some may consider Lieberman a “fool” for standing with Republicans on issues like health care or national security issues but others, like myself, consider him a leader willing to stand up for his principles.

If you have not seen “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” I highly recommend it as a classic film about maintaining integrity in the midst of harsh criticism. We do have a couple Mr. Smiths in Washington today but this country could always use more such leaders in our nation’s capital today.