Wall Street and the US Government: Where's Jimmy Stewart When We Need Him?

How fitting that the scandalous relationship between Goldman Sachs and the Obama administration (thank you Glenn Greenwald) and Goldman Sachs' "no value added to the American people's way of life" methods of earning the bulk of its profits (thanks Dylan Ratigan) and a brilliant analysis of the overall control Wall Street has over Washington (thank you Frank Rich) have all come out on or about the 17th or October.

"What's so special about the 17th of October?" you ask?

Here's what's so special (thanks to Wikipedia)...

When it was first released -- the film premiered in Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C., on October 17, 1939, sponsored by the National Press Club, an event to which 4000 guests were invited, including 45 senators -- Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was attacked by the Washington press, and politicians in the U.S. Congress, as anti-American and pro-Communist for its portrayal of corruption in the American government. While Capra claims in his autobiography that some senators walked out of the premiere, contemporary press accounts are unclear about whether this occurred or not, or whether senators yelled back at the screen during the film.

That's right. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington -- perhaps the most perfect portrayal of systemic corruption in politics ever put on film -- had its world premiere 70 years ago yesterday.

I've seen this film many times. If you haven't seen it lately, I urge you to do so quickly. Because there's something in that film that America desperately needs.

If you know the film and think I'm talking about American needing a straight-talking senator or congressperson, I'm not.

As much as I love the classic filibuster by "Jeff Smith" that leads to the downfall of the film's Taylor machine, I believe the world -- and the Congress -- of 2009 is significantly different from that portrayed in the film. I believe that "we, the people" can no longer expect one man or woman of conscience to change the system from within Washington, DC.

While I hope the work of Glen Greenwald, Dylan Ratigan, and Frank Rich has gotten you plenty steamed, I'm going to ask you to watch this interview with Ralph Nader (conducted by TruthOut.org), so that we can begin a dialogue about what to do, not just about how angry we are.

In this interview, Mr. Nader discusses his new book "Only The Super-Rich Can Save Us." This novel -- Mr. Nader's first -- falls into the category known in the literary world as a practical uptopia. "I call it a fictional vision that could become a new reality. Some known and not-well-known people
appear in fictional roles. I invite your imaginative engagement," he says.

Personally, I think this is a brilliant move by Mr. Nader, because as Proverbs 29:18 says "Where there is no vision, the people perish."

Mr. Nader is providing us with a vision. A vision of a particular kind of action -- by a group of progressive-thinking, very wealthy individuals -- that results in the creation of a well-thought-out effort that succeeds in giving power back to "we, the people." (Note: In this interview, Mr. Nader also does an interesting job of analyzing President Obama's psychology -- his need to compromise. Coincidentally, Maureen Down does the same thing in today's NY Times.

Whether you agree with Mr. Nader's scenario or not, at least he's presenting a roadmap we can discuss. He's not just complaining. He's suggesting what to do.

(And, if Mr. Nader and Ms. Dowd's takes on Pres. Obama's psychology turns out to be correct, the need for us to start a discussion about what to do has, in my opinion, just doubled. Because we may have elected a man who is willing to put the most critical issues of the day on the table -- (finally, thank God) -- but who doesn't have the leadership skills to resolve those issues in a way that produces the kind of progress the times demand. But that's okay. That's what we're here to do, I guess.)

So, Mr. Nader's scenario is a starting point for discussion. The very wealthiest of the progressive side of our society decide to help us regain control of our lives and our country from those who have that power right now.

Here's the first thing I'm going to add to the discussion Mr. Nader has started:

The Corporate Social Responsibility movement. Especially, Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) and The UN Global Compact (UNGC).

You see, there's a movement within the business community to stop this "Thanks for bailing us out, but we're in this just for ourselves" Wall Street attitude. It's a movement to build the values of environmental stewardship, human rights, fair labor relations, and fighting corruption into the DNA of businesses around the world.

Never heard of it? I'm not surprised.

BSR just held its annual conference. But you wouldn't know it from reading the news. According to Google, the only news coverage of this conference -- one in which approximately 1000 business leaders and managers met to discuss making the world work better rather than worse - was a pre-conference interview with BSR's president, Aron Cramer, conducted by GreenBiz.com and posted on the Reuters web site...

That's it. Pretty amazing... and sad.

You'd think that with all the interest in how much damage Wall Street has done that this activity that's completely the opposite would draw some media attention.

But apparently mainstream coverage of the corporate social responsibility movement is not yet an idea whose time has come in the minds of our media's editors and producers.

Of course, that's if the mainstream media even knows about this movement. And I have evidence they do. I personally talked to Katie Couric about all this at the Paley Center for Media a couple of years ago. (Sorry to call you out on this, Katie. And I know how busy you are with other world events. But you did seem interested in the subject at the time. And I've been hoping you'd follow up with me. Well, maybe "timing is everything," and now is the time!)

These editors and producers apparently don't know about -- or are choosing not to cover -- The UNGC's Principles of Responsible Investing either.

Well, perhaps the media will cover the UNGC's Leadership Summit, which is held every three years and next June will be held at UN HQ in NYC. The list of USA-based corporations that belong to The Global Compact include the Campbell Soup Co., Cicso Systems, Coca-Cola Company, DuPont, Ford, Intel, JCPenny, and Nike.

Come on CBS, NBC, and ABC ... Fox, CNN, and MSNBC ... there's a story worth reporting here!!!

So, the first point I've added to Mr. Nader's discussion is that the corporate world is not universally evil. It's just that the "non-evil" side of that world is practically invisible to the public at large. (And how can the public support something it doesn't know exists?)

And here's the second point: We don't need progressive billionaires to start getting organized.

We can do this ourselves. Back in 2000, the sociologist Paul Ray (in his 2000 book "The Cultural Creatives") estimated there were 65 million Americans who were thinking creatively about society's problems. And in the 2008 election, millions of us contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to the Obama for President campaign.

People Power. It's an option. And with today's social networking tools, self-organizing would be a simple task. I'm not saying the help of people like Ted Turner wouldn't help. But what I am suggesting is that it's not essential that this start with people like Mr. Turner.

It can start with people like you and me.

My first experience in political activism as an adult came in 1979. It was after President Carter gave his famous "malaise speech".

Pres. Carter was criticized at the time for saying there was something wrong with America. (Boy, do we hate being told to look in the mirror as a country!) But I didn't see it that way at all.

I saw President Carter telling us we needed to take responsibility for our country. And in 1979 -- at 24 years of age -- I wrote an OpEd about how we could do just that by becoming much more involved as citizens, by becoming, essentially, the largest interest group that our elected representatives had to deal with. I ultimately presented my essay on WQXR radio -- "the radio station of the New York Times" -- here in NYC.

I didn't know what to do with this personal breakthrough at the time. But now -- 30 years later -- I find myself coming full circle and wanting, once again, to urge us all to rise up (as we did in last year's election) and not just "take back our country" (as if what's going on out there is "all bad all the time") but also support those existing, healthy trends that have the potential to contribute to the transformation that we so desperately need: in their case, contributing from inside the system.

There are good trends out there -- a healthy, "alternative DNA" to the social Darwinism of Wall Street -- even if we're not currently hearing about them in the mainstream media. The corporate social responsibility movement is one such trend.

President Obama is a very good man, when you look at his intentions. He may not have the leadership skills to do more than put the most important issues of the day on the table, but that's not an insignificant thing!

And from that starting point, we can carry the ball forward, working with him in spirit even if we don't get to see him personally at the White House. (I think he'll meet with us eventually, once he sees that we're here, all 65 million of us, if Paul Ray's calculations were correct.)

Am I calling for another variation on the Tea Party movement? Well, I'm not sure how this should be structured. But I am reminded of one very special public display of strength and intention that I participated in over 20 years ago. How many of you remember "Hands Across America"?

It took place on May 25, 1986. and it's aim was to raise money to fight hunger and homelessness in America.

I'm not sure how many billionaires were involved, but a great many celebrities were. It was organized by the USA for Africa group, which was founded when the song We Are The World was first recorded. There was corporate funding for this event, apparently principally from The Coca-Cola Company.

But it was the power of the people physically standing together holding hands all across our great country that demonstrated who owns this place. And in many ways, it was a more powerful statement than the one "Jeff Smith" makes from the floor of the Senate in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. You could physically see it. And -- with its celebrity participation and theme song -- the news media couldn't help but cover it.

Perhaps a similar national "demonstration of whose country this is" could be organized in time for next year's mid-term elections. That sounds like the right timing to me!

What do you think?

I titled this essay, in part, "Where's Jimmy Stewart when we need him?" And I'd like to end by suggesting this answer: He's here, inside all of us, if we'll just take a look.

That's the power of the entertainment industry. It can show us our better angels and encourage us to do the right thing based on what we see portrayed on the screen in front of us.

Once again, I urge you all to watch "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" sometime soon. I hope President Obama does this as well.

And if you can, go visit The Jimmy Stewart Museum in his home town of Indiana, PA (about 60 miles East of Pittsburgh). I've been there, and it's a lot like the town in another classic Jimmy Stewart motion picture: It's a Wonderful Life.

And then let's figure out how we can take back our country and do so with the help of those who -- while they may not be in the news (yet!) -- want to do so too!
---------------------------------
UPDATE Tuesday 2:25am

To give those of you questioning how entertainment can be used for good today, I offer this example: the first 15 minutes of a special educational event held at the UN earlier this year in which the UN's work was presented in conjunction with film clips and actors and creators of the SyFy Channel's landmark series "Battlestar Galactica".

 

 

Follow Steven G. Brant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SteveBrant

Comments

[Carl Caroli]

Yes, Obama has good intentions, and yes many little people contributed to his campaign, but it's a known fact he also took a lot of money from Wall St. and is now, not surprisingly, acquiescing to the will of Geithner, Summers and Bernanke on banking reform. Coincidence? I don't think so. He's also out numbered by those in congress and senate taking big campaign dollars from every other major industry, is getting beat up from all sides and can't fight alone. There are few humble, wealthy folks with in politics working to make a difference - Mike Bloomberg is one, and I'd wished he'd run for president because he's shown that Jimmy Stewart type integrity in the face of special interests. Jay Rockefeller is another. But they are out numbered and even they know it. Yes, they need the support of you and I but that alone wont do it - there needs to be more of them and they need to band together in a new party that refuses to take corporate and PAC campaign dollars or deal with lobbyists. Sadly, I don't believe there are enough of them in this country to pull it off. Most wealthy folks are only interested in maintaining their wealth.

[RM1SS1006]

Mr. President,

The media and the republicans think you are weak. Why don't you use the patriot act to arrest the wall street ter0rists. Do rational people really think the cave dwellers in Afgan are more dangerous than the wall street raiders?

[Richjf]

Regarding the 2nd stimulus, I've seen the proposed tax breaks, quicker refunds and even a check to Social Security recipients in lieu of a COLA increase.

I have proposed to friends that what President Obama should do for the PEOPLE is what the Old Testament records as a Jubilee Year (every 50 years) in which all slaves were freed and all debts were cancelled.

President Obama could point to the Bible and have the government pay upon proof 25% of all people's debts to banks (credit card debt, mortgage payments, etc.). The government money would go to the banks and credit card companies, but people's debts would drop 25% right away. Next year, the same further 25% reduction could be offered for those who keep trying to pay something after gaining the 25% reprieve.

This would help everyone in debt psychologically without handing out cash. If people see a light at the end of the tunnel, those who have jobs may be more inclined to spend and the economy would therefore recover. Without jobs and consumption, only the rich will prosper from the so-called recovery and the people will suffer and could turn nasty in 2012.

Could readers please comment on this. To me it seems so obvious, and would make the Democrats popular. The Neo-cons would not speak against the Bible, would they?

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you for raising the subject of the Jubilee Year from the Bible. I like that a lot.
Money is a human invention. Unlike our food or energy supply, how much of it we have is not dependent on outside-of-us physical mechanisms. If we wanted to wipe out all debt, the only thing necessary would be a general agreement to do so.
There are some challenges we face that **could** literally be swept away by the cultural decision to do so. How money relates to us, as a society, is one of those challenges.

[Rog49Thomas]

Great idea.

If it worked with Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, it can work a second time.

Let's have a movie in which Congress represents the people.

But let's also have a movie in which everyone in the country has access to medical care and insurance.

And another in which there are no wars.

A couple of box office hits and this could be quite a different world.

Or, we could just watch more feel good movies, while the same old stuff continues to go on.

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

Just FYI, my essay was not about making new movies. So, I'm not sure on what basis you wrote your comment.

I did talk about the inspirational power of one particular motion picture. But my essay was about "we, the people" taking responsibility for our country.

I guess it's possible that you didn't read beyond the headline. That's the only explanation I can think of for why you commented on a topic unrelated to what I wrote.

[Rog49Thomas]

No, actually I read your article.

Several things prompted my snarky post.

First your call for action ended with
(1) go see "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"
(2) go and visit the Jimmy Stewart museum in Indiana PA

But more importantly, I was greatly put off by the focus on the fake world of entertainment.

Are we so far gone as a nation that ...

- we need the entertainment industry to tell us what to do as citizens

- we need them to inspire us to struggle for social justice or a fair shake for the average citizen

- we need to have faux heroes (that is folks who actually didn't do anything except recite someone else's script in a make believe confrontation)

If so, then maybe the best thing is to retreat fully into the make believe world. We already do it at election time. Why not all the time? It could be after all A Wonderful Life, I suppose.

Out in the real world there are real stories -- Natalie Karisyan, the couple in Louisiana denied a marriage license, those couples in California denied marriage licenses because of some silly Proposition, real wars with real people getting killed, and on and on.

And real heroes - not actors playing heroes.

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

Well, now that you're out of "snarky mode", we can have an adult conversation. (Impossible with people who act like children taunting each other in a school yard. I work hard to avoid that myself, even though I sometimes slip up.)

I respectfully suggest you research the role that imagination plays in human development... along with the related field of story telling-based developmental communications. Concurrent to that, I suggest you investigate why Ralph Nader - who has created a very significant amount of positive, "real world" change in America - decided to write a novel (and a 700 page one at that) about what sort of future America could have. (You'll find he's trying to help us all create a "new story" of America's future, following a model used by authors such as Upton Sinclair and John Steinbeck.)

Imagination plays a hugely important role in worlds of innovation and "process improvement", because without "imagining" what you could do differently you never do anything other than repeat the same things you've historically done time and time again.

If you've never been inspired to "think differently" by watching a motion picture or a television show, I can respect that your particular life has not included any such motivational moments. But at the same time, I request that you not deny the existence or value of something just because you have never experienced it.

There are a great many people who have had such experiences... have been motivated to try something new after some entertainm­ent-themed experience (and I am including the music industry under this heading). "Hands Across America" - mentioned in my essay - was produced by an organization that grew from the world-wide acclaim for the song "We Are The World".

There are many other examples of music, literature, motion pictures, and TV shows that have made a difference. And there are actual partnerships such as the one between Walt Disney and Wernher von Braun in the 1950's that sowed the seeds for the creation of NASA.

Again, perhaps you've done what you've done exclusively because of "real news events". It's great if that's what works for you. But that's not the entire universe of catalytic cultural change agents that exist for all people.

Thanks again for getting out of "snarky" mode. You opened the door for me to present the theory behind my essay more completely.

[Rog49Thomas]

Thanks, but I am never out of my snarky mode.

Your post is descriptive (what is), mine is prescriptive (what should be).

Yes, many people are moved by entertainment.

Dr. Beck got quite a crowd out on the streets in DC 12 September based on entertainment. Folks are showing up to town hall meetings bearing fire arms.

As a general rule, it's really better to live in the world of facts. And base one's actions on reason not emotion.

If we don't, we run the risk that someone with a compelling script and nice sets will sell us the most manifest of absurdities. Like the miracle of St. Ronnie. Or that of Bush the Lesser. And perhaps those to come of Sister Sarah.

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

"Thanks, but I am never out of my snarky mode."

Actually, I think you just were.

"Your post is descriptive (what is), mine is prescriptive (what should be)."

No, my post is about what I say should be, based on the management / developmental sciences (specifically, the science of innovation) as applied to sociological challenges. Yous is about what you say should be, based on cutting out emotions (to paraphrase your argument). We have a difference of opinion about how "what should be done" should be designed.

"Yes, many people are moved by entertainment...Dr. Beck got quite a crowd out on the streets..."

You make my point for me. The emotional component exists. It is used by some to create destructive change and by others to create constructive change.

I want to use it to create constructive change. If you don't want to benefit from the positive aspects of the use of this element of human experience (or deny that such a positive aspect exists), that's up to you. But that still doesn't negate the fact that this is part of how things change.

Thanks for the dialogue.

[Rog49Thomas]

Think we're not on exactly the same wavelength.

I am all for constructive change.

My concern is the consequences from a reliance on emotions..

Emotions, particularly faux emotions ginned up by a movie or a great speaker, certainly cause change.

As Lewis Cheskin proved, a bit of shiny tin foil, a little yellow coloring and a fancy name works wonders. A lesson well learned by those who manage our electoral process..

Once we embrace emotion based politics as opposed to fact and logic based, Pandora's box is opened.

Hitler was quite skillful in stirring emotions. Some of my relatives paid the price.

For every "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", there is a "Triumph of the Will" or a "Birth of a Nation".

This is particularly dangerous tactic with immature populations like that in the USA..

Fundamentally, we lack faith in our own capacity as citizens and so make our candidates larger than life heroes. Lacking self confidence and respect we need a mommy or daddy figure to lead us like little children.

We continually fall for political patent medicine nostrums. Tax cuts with new improved maverickyness. Change that we can believe in. Magic flag lapel pins. No assembly, thinking or hard work required. Just clap your hands and believe - really believe.

Anything that promotes that behavior is not - in my opinion - good for democracy in this country.

[Steven G. Brant - Huffpost Blogger]

"Think we're not on exactly the same wavelength."

I agree. We're not on the same wavelength at all. I am willing to validate your experience of what works to create change, while you are denying that what I am advocating has any validity (because it's been used by evil-minded people to help create destructive change).

In a world where the tools available to those with evil intentions are also available to those with good intentions, I say it's extremely irresponsible for good people to not use those tools... especially since they've been used by good people in the past. Do you really think never making another "Mr. Smith..." is going to prevent the making of a future "Triumph of the Will"?

Check out http://www.visionsfortomorrow.net/ and you'll see how the Syfy Network (formerly the SciFi Network) has been using the power of science fiction for several years now to help people imagine better futures. Or check out the special event from this past spring, in which experts at the UN worked with people from Battlestar Galactica to create a special educational event for high school students. http://bit.ly/ke5aK

If people with good intentions tap the power of entertainment to help us think differently, a lot of good can happen.

"Hitler was quite skillful in stirring emotions. Some of my relatives paid the price."

I'm sorry some of your relatives suffered the consequences of Hitler's evil plans. I can certainly understand why you would have a personal aversion to anything that involves using similar advocacy activities as a result.

I also appreciate how easily coerced you feel a great many Americans are. So, why not use the power of the entertainment industry to help educate the public about their rights and responsibilities as citizens? Did you ever see "The Day the Universe Changed" created by British historian / educator James Burke? A masterful combination of education and entertainment elements.

Given your family history, it appears you fall into a special category. But I urge you once again not to deny that something that works exists and is available for use by the progressive community. That community is already using it.