The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"The Best Man," Sixty Years Later
Gore Vidal's classic film on presidential nominations holds up
Just in time for this week's DNC, I have an essay over at Law & Liberty on the 60th anniversary of Gore Vidal's classic film on presidential nominating conventions, "The Best Man." I've always enjoyed the film for its portrayal of the fun and banality of democratic politics--as well as its ironic take on the whole thing. Here's an excerpt:
This year marks the 60th anniversary of perhaps the greatest political film of all time, 1964's The Best Man. Based on a play of the same name by Gore Vidal, who also wrote the screenplay, The Best Man tells the story of a deadlocked political convention at which two candidates vie for their party's presidential nomination. Sixty years on, the film remains tremendously entertaining: clever, suspenseful, with an exceptional cast. The dialogue is outstanding. Considering what we have witnessed in the current presidential campaign—and it's only August—Americans might again find interest in Vidal's depiction of the backroom intrigue that determines a nomination.
The Best Man holds up for its mordant but profound observations about American democracy. There's not much idealism here. The film's most principled character has flaws that make him unfit to lead and the ultimate nominee is a "nobody" whose lack of record is his best quality. But there are important lessons about the sort of person who seeks high office in a democracy—and the sort of person high office requires. Perhaps surprisingly, given that Vidal was a man of the Left and had a rather acid personality, The Best Man offers a basically fair, even forgiving, depiction of progressives and conservatives. Neither are wholly good nor wholly bad, just human.
You can read the whole essay here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
My Moms an actress and made sure I was decently versed in the classics.
We did Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and then The Best Man. I remember liking the bite of The Best Man more.
‘he has every quality if a dog except loyalty.’
It’s been decades. I need to watch this again.
Want to share your conclusion: “ Two hundred years ago, the Framers recognized the flaws inherent in human nature and democracy, which is why they adopted a constitution with so many guardrails against ambition and checks against the exercise of power. It’s those guardrails and checks—together with the sense we have had of participating in a common enterprise—that have preserved the American Republic. If that Republic is going to endure, it will be saved by those things again.”
Would have loved to see a PPV Steel-Cage match between William F Buckley and Vidal. My money would have been on WFB. Great Flick BTW, 64' "Dr. Strangeglove" and "The Best Man" and "Goldfinger" all in the same year
Frank
It's a good article. Near the end:
I don't think one side is "uniquely" good. Few do though some will say President Biden has done an impressive job, which he has.
I know the Democrats are flawed. And, yes, as the last part notes afterward, guardrails protect us. Pure democracy won't.
We had past threats. I don't like absolutes such as "absolutely" -- they are overused. A losing presidential candidate in 1860 later became a high official in a movement that tried to secede from the Union violently.
Trump might not be "unique" but he is particularly dangerous as are the forces on his side. As we saw before, he does not believe in many of the "guardrails and checks," including not working with foreign enemies and supporting violence to stop the lawful transfer of power.
"The Best Man holds up for its mordant but profound observations about American democracy."
And Biden/Kamala/Democrats do?
Government sucks. Stop pretending your side is virtuous and the other side demonic.
False equivalence.
Cantwell is a vicious demagogue who stokes fears of “the enemy within” and the film’s message is that he must be stopped. And it is not true that the principal character has “flaws that make him unit”. He merely has to step aside when news of his infidelity might leak out. And the film certainly does not hold up — Trump’s history of unapologetic infidelity was public knowledge for decades and it did not disqualify him.
And JFK, and Bill Clinton? Their unapologetic infidelity was not disqualifying?
Clinton apologized publicly, with his wife next to him. JFK’s infidelities were not known to the public.
JFK's adventures were well enough known for Marilyn Monroe jokes, and the press knew all about them.
How many of Bill's adventures did Hillary know of at the time? And her knowing of them, while still blaming the victims, is hardly to either's credit.
Stop making excuses for your party's heroes, or stop blaming the other party's heroes for doing the same thing. The partisan hypocrisy does you no credit.
Did you really expect Hillary to take the side of the women her husband cheated with?
She could have remained neutral or said "No comment." She chose to go on the offense and call her husband's rape victims liars.
Is that really honorable?
It's despicable.
Pretty narrow set of requirements of how the wronged woman should act to avoid your judgement.
Luckily, pretty sure no one cares.
You apparently care enough to respond.
Wokies apparently only believe selective victims.
Bill did not have sex with "that woman" Mizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Lewinsky, and Paula Jones was Arkansas Trailer Trash who was probably smoking Crack while pleasuring herself when William Juffuhson was on TV and has a "False Memory" of him showing her his "Little Bill". Oh, and the other woman who accused him of raping her? She has no corroborating witnesses!!! (actually they're all dead, Jim)
Frank