Patriotism In The Film Mr. Smith Goes To Washington

The main plot of the movie, Mr. Smith goes to Washington is a conflict between Jeff Smith, Senator Paine, and Jim Taylor. A senator of a state passed away causing a new senator needing to be appointed. Jim Taylor a local publicist who had pull around the Senate, pressured the governor to select Jefferson Smith. He was appointed as the new Senator of the State, because everyone thought that he was incompetent, naive, and would not get in their way. However when Smith passed a clever bill that got in the way of Jim Taylor’s scandal, Jim and Senator Paine tried to do whatever they could to get Jeffrey expelled from the Senate.

2. In today’s world there would be some mixed reactions to a senator like Jefferson Smith. Some people would disapprove of him because he is not the characteristic senator and has no political experience. They would think that he was young, and inexperienced, and that he did not deserve to be in such a highly respected position. Other people would love that he was standing up for what he knew was right, and that he was doing what needed to be done against those people who take advantage of our

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is a film about an average man’s journey and experience in Congress as Senator of Mississippi.

“Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” Mr. Smith was too naive to survive as a senator during the time the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” took place. Mr. Smith’s naiveté was most evident in his ambitious proposal to start a national boys camp. However, when false allegations regarding Mr. Smith’s motives for starting the camp surfaced, Smith was too idealistic to defend himself from the political machine that accused him of acting in self-interest. Making matters worse, Senator Smith was a genuinely honest and simple-minded man, making it difficult for him to survive among his scheming colleagues.

This informative book that the author, Joanne Freeman, focuses on a constructive journey of providing a comprehensive re-examination of the political culture that was exhibited in the historical orientation of American. The text has revealed an overwhelming unstable and a strange political world that is founded on the values of a code of honor and this has been achieved by exploring different materials that had focused on both the private and public figures. Relevant information explored are from key figures found in the history of America, including Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and Aaron Burr, which Freeman has utilized in building a strong argument on the subject of the book (Freeman, 2002).

George Washington became President in 1789 and since then has been regarded as America’s “Founding Father”(10). This grand and hero-like status is said to have “began gravitating to Washington six months before the Declaration of Independence, when one Levi Allen addressed him in a letter as ‘our political Father.’”(10). The preservation of Washington’s role as a national hero has been allowed by authors and the media omitting his many flaws as if they had either been forgotten or were no longer important. Yet by excluding these human faults, they have projected an almost god-like hero and inflicted him upon the nation as their Father, somebody whose “life still has the power to inspire anyone”(10).

The film portrays the government in a very negative light and shows how the senators have no real influence on lawmaking. Mr. Smith’s struggles as a senator gave the impression that the government functions completely on bribery, blackmail, and lies. The film gives a very strong message about the lack of democracy in American government and politics, along with the ignorance of the American people. Mr. Smith portrays the average American citizen: he is naïve, has faith in the democracy, and is ignorant

Jensen presents two alternative definitions of patriotism in his speech. The first one suggests that patriotism is to

Larry Schweikart believes despite the excessive racism, sexism, and bigotry throughout the history of the United States, when the story is told “fairly,” all that can be taken away is a sense of awe at the obstacles overcome, the blood split, and the nation built. Although corruption can be seen over the course of time, the freedom of the nation overcame all else and created a bright light of a society in a world of dark oppression. Schweikart emphasizes the idea that history is often taught from a single, biased perspective, clouding the true image of the American nation as it progressed over time. He also emphasizes the ideals of character, tied to liberty, tied to property, and how they were all necessary for success. More generally, Schweikart believes that throughout the history of the United States, it has proven time and time again to be a nation based on the principles of freedom and justice, exemplified through its actions in every aspect, such as the liberation of people’s and bringing them to a higher state of living, and the sharing of power with those who had none, no matter where they came from, or who they were. “All men are created equal”; the United states is the “last, best hope” of earth; and America “is great because it is good” all extend Schweikart’s basic ideals that the United States’ history, when viewed with the basic ideal of “the ends justify the means,” creates a story

The United States, a developing nation, remained under the influence of idealism and paradox for a period of time, and thus were incapable of being self-sufficient enough to run a country on their own. They relied on England to protect them and practically run the colonies from overseas. Subsequently, America joined the family of nations that preaches men are created to be equal. This notion is expressed in Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. Though in the past Jefferson was seen as the greatest founder of the United States, today his more unknown attributes in the nation have come to be a topic of discussion, making a debatable conversation about the concept of presentism arise. Today, Thomas Jefferson is examined and evaluated from many different perspectives of his career during his lifetime in both adequate and deficient aspects, arousing the question if founding fathers, like Jefferson, should be remembered for their highest achievements, or for their individual failures and how the concept of presentism disarrays these outlooks.

There are many individuals in American History, whom we as Americans regard for their courage and audacity in shaping our nation. We learn in our history classes the great accomplishments of our founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Ben Franklin. One other great founding father and our First President, George Washington was one whom we learned much about. We learn in school that he is as a prime example of leadership, citizenship, and overall individual achievement for his many contributions to our nation’s earliest struggles. But although we are taught that George Washington was this man of great disposition, no man is without his flaws. Many scholars have sought to enlighten individuals to these cracks in the Nation’s

Jefferson Smith is trying to win the fight against the corrupted politicans around him in order to achieve his idealistic opinions and plans.

Washington reminds the Americans the importance of remaining united. He addresses the citizens by proclaiming, “The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations (21).” He continues by acknowledging the achievement of independence and liberty was due to working together as one. Therefore, Americans, as a unified nation should guard and preserve the union of the nation. He is talking about citizens of the United States, whether naturalized or by birth, should put America above all. And that the very name, American, should conjure up strong patriotism. This new nationalistic uprising in the United States has come with a price - a huge increase of hate crimes under the guise of nationalism and the “Make America Great Again” slogan from the current presidential administration.

“Give me liberty, or give me death!” is a quotation attributed to Patrick Henry, which he used to close his speech to Virginia Convention. During this time period, the 1770s, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson all made arguments in favor of separation of the American colonies from Great Britain; many of these appeals were persuasive for different reasons, whether that be logical, emotional, or pertaining to credibility and trust, which is to say logos, pathos, and ethos. First of all, we will examine Henry’s arguments during his speech at the Virginia Convention. Then, we will identify Paine’s appeals in a part of his essay, The Crisis n1. Lastly, we will evaluate Jefferson’s myriad of arguments in a part of his Autobiography.

The birth of a nation does not happen overnight nor with one word. One can clearly see how words and ideas have an impact on people’s thoughts and writing by examining “The Declaration of Independence” and Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense.” Basically, the two documents echo principles stated in John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government,” and share a style of expressing their feelings on national issues; the authors examine and give reasons for colonial problems with the government and offer a solution. The tone and audience might vary, but the overall message is similar in its principles, showing the impact Locke and Paine had on such a vital document in our history as the “Declaration of Independence”.