An
Anthem to Tyranny
by
Myles Kantor
Three
positive qualities of Rod Lurie’s The Contender are that
it includes digs at Ted "Left Mary Jo Kopechne for Dead"
Kennedy, features fantastic performances, and highlights Sam Elliott’s
under-appreciated dramatic gifts. (My favorite role is the earthy
sage Wade Garrett in Road House, a modern classic.) Things go downhill
from here.
The
Contender is about a senator (Joan Allen) nominated to a vacant
Vice-Presidency. Democrat Laine Hanson (a former Republican) encounters
opposition in the House Judiciary Committee led by Republican Shelly
Runyon (Gary Oldman). Much of the plot focuses on an alleged collegiate
romp of Hanson’s and the resulting sexual politics.
Runyon
and his colleagues are depicted as latter-day Torquemadas who deploy
prurient stratagems to torpedo Hanson. Runyon’s wife describes the
process as "an ideological rape." This run-of-the-mill
Hollywood bias is foreshadowed on the film’s poster: "Sometimes
you can assassinate a leader without firing a shot."
After
asking President Jackson Evans (Jeff Bridges) to withdraw her nomination,
Hanson is vindicated when he demands her confirmation in a joint
address to Congress, informing the body that "You have brought
blood and shame under this great dome" and "There are
traitors among us." In a line reminiscent of Joseph Welch’s
riposte to Joseph McCarthy, he points at Runyon and asks, "Have
you no decency, sir?" (The phrase "sexual McCarthyism"
is used earlier in the film.) Evans goes on to ascribe a historical
imperative to Hanson’s ascent: "There is no weapon as powerful
as that of an idea whose time has come." His histrionics earn
him a standing ovation, complete with triumphal music composed by
Larry Groupé.
While
it’s certainly valid for conservatives to object to their caricature
in The Contender, the most disturbing aspects of the film
are what it champions. Next to the presidential reprimand of Congress,
the film’s high point is Hanson’s closing statement to the Judiciary
Committee. A gravitas-filled score attends her political credo:
"I
stand for a woman’s right to choose. I stand for the elimination
of the death penalty. I stand for a strong and growing armed forces
because we must stomp out genocide on this planet, and I believe
that that is a cause worth dying for. I stand for seeing every gun
taken out of every home, period. I stand for making the selling
of cigarettes to our youth a federal offense. I stand for term limits
and campaign reform. And, Mr. Chairman, I stand for the separation
of church and state, and the reason that I stand for that is the
same reason that I believe our forefathers did: It is not there
to protect religion from the grasp of government, but to protect
our government from the grasp of religious fanaticism. I may be
an atheist, but that does not mean I do not go to church. I do go
to church. The church I go to is the one that emancipated the slaves,
that gave women the right to vote, that gave us every freedom that
we hold dear. My church is this very chapel of democracy that we
sit in together, and I do not need God to tell me what are my moral
absolutes. I need my heart and my brain and this church."
There
is so much repellent content in this monologue, I don’t know where
to begin. (I won’t even get into the "chapel of democracy"
metaphor that has all sorts of Hegelian unwholesomeness.) For starters,
the screenwriter (Lurie) misrepresents American religious tradition.
Yes, it’s fashionable to pretend America has been historically godless,
but this attempt at secular purification collapses on the most cursory
examination. (I’m waiting for a thief to appeal a conviction on
the grounds that a law against stealing has roots in the Decalogue
and is therefore unconstitutional.) With regard to the church-state
issue raised by the imaginary senator, Lurie’s protagonist could
not be more erroneous. Disestablishment in America arose not from
secular groundswell but concern for religious protection from political
persecution. "Simply put," observes Stephen Carter in
The
Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious
Devotion, "the metaphorical separation of church and
state originated in an effort to protect religion from the state,
not the state from religion." A subsequent reflection of Carter’s
is pertinent in light of Hanson’s view:
"Maybe
it [litigation against religious activity] is just another effort
to ensure that intermediate institutions, such as the religions,
do not get in the way of the government’s will. Perhaps, in short,
it is a way of ensuring that only one vision of the meaning of
reality that of the powerful group of individuals called
the state is allowed a political role. Back in Tocqueville’s
day, this was called tyranny. Nowadays, all too often, but quite
mistakenly, it is called the separation of church and state."
In
addition to her inversive constitutional philosophy, Hanson espouses
a grisly combination of gun confiscation and interventionism that
makes for a garrison state compounded by a strong authoritarian
streak. What ultimate recourse would a populace have against this
tyranny, indignant e-mails to Congressmen? As for her death penalty
abolitionism, I doubt the Senator would go through the trouble of
seeking a constitutional amendment; a favorable judicial decision
would do just fine. Behold Senator Hanson’s America: a crusader
regime where articles of self-defense are verboten, the devout are
further stigmatized, and the murderous find their worse fate in
tax-subsidized incarceration. (To top it off, Hanson cites Thomas
Jefferson as a role model in an interview with Larry King. If she’s
a Jeffersonian, Cornel West’s a libertarian.)
Runyon
and his colleagues were correct to oppose Hanson’s nomination, but
not because of fornication as a college freshman (a charge that
turns out to be spurious). She did not belong in the Vice-Presidency
or any other office because of her contempt for liberty. The valorization
of that contempt is terrible and typical.
I predict Oscar nominations.
December
11, 2000
Myles
Kantor lives in Boynton Beach, Florida.
|