Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

It's Not "Rocky", It's "Crimson Tide"

In paying very close attention to the Senate hearings yesterday a life-imitating-art moment occured to me.  It was brought home in the difference between the questions posed to Crocker and Petraeus by John McCain and the questions posed by Barack Obama.  The recent identification of the Clinton campaign to Rocky Balboa had me thinking of pop-culture characters where our candidates were concerned, but after yesterday I realized we were thinking about the wrong characters and the wrong movie.

While it was swell for Hillary to think of herself as the fighter who never gives up, and we were all busy reminding each other that HIllary/Syllvester loses in the end, the real problem is that Hillary not only missed the more applicable story line - she isn't even in the movie.  The screenplay we will have playing out before us is not "Rocky", it is "Crimson Tide". 

The characters are so clear.  John McCain is the grizzly, staunch, experienced commander (Gene Hackman) who in light of his cold-war mentality takes having his finger on the button very seriously.  Unfortunately he is more inclined to take that serious mission to its logical conclusion - at some point you have to push the button.  Barack Obama, however, is the Harvard educated, bright, clear thinking, philosophical younger officer of conscience (Denzel Washington) who refuses to react out of fear.  His education informs the kind of decisions he makes, and the seriousness with which he dispatches his responsibilities is always tempered with a global perspective.  It is the idea that unintended consequences are not situations that you fall victim to, if you are willing to think it through.  If you are willing to apply what you have learned

I have always liked this movie, and I think I would still find it pertinent even if Obama didn't have the obvious attributes and star qualities of an actor like Denzel.  The story itself is the real parrallel.  Iran is the myriad of Russian targets that we know (as observers) should not be hit.  McCain has his finger on the button, and due to his vast experience, training, and hyper-vigilance is going to stop at nothing to let those bombs fly.  Obama is the last hope we have of the sane, methodical, cool-under-pressure commander who can see the ramifications of his actions, even though he has never faced a situation of this magnitude.  Being able to see clearly in the middle of many agendas is what his education was about in the first place.

The more I think about it, the closer the story resonates.  It is almost frightening how close.  As McCain makes his case for his vast war experience being the deciding factor for the presidency, he leaves us vulnerable to the horrific results that are likely to unfold.  Now that Iran is flirting with nuclear power the similarity only tightens.  As Obama presents his arguments in a measured and cautious manner he is both praised and villified.  People mistake thoughtfullness for calculation, they mistake coolness for uncaring.  But this thoughfullness, coolness and measured caution is how he is going to approach some of the most dynamic and potentially disasterous crisis we have seen since we acquired the ability to blow each other up.

I, for one, want the movie's ending.  The old guy retires with commendation, and the young guy gets command.  The battle between young and old is not seen as the end, but as the beginning of what is more informed, more palpable, and quite frankly, more conscious.


Comments (14)

They got a name for the winners in this world.
Hillary wants a name when she loses.
The call Obama the Crimson Tide.
Call her Deacon Blues.

It must be the day of Steely references; earlier my co-worker mentioned something about a "green earring" and of course THAT song had to be in my head all day (til you just replaced it ;)

Great song.

O well done.

I really like the post.

:)

awesome reference...I'm singing it in my head now...

I'll take FM - w/ no static at all...

Fun post - thank you.

avatar

I know Gene Hackman.
And you, Mr. McCain, are no Gene Hackman.

Unless, you were thinking of Hackman's role in Young Frankenstein.

Hackman wasn't in Young Frankenstein; Gene Wilder was. McCain is NO Gene Wilder, who is a peace-loving, intelligent, and sensitive man, EVEN in Young Frankenstein.

avatar

Gene Hackman was the blind man in Young Frankenstein. Ivy is correct.

avatar

Then again, Hackman was in film called "Loose Cannons". Hmmm.
Also he was in "First to Fight"...
Then too "A Covenant with Death"
...."Bite the Bullet"
..."A Bridge Too Far"
..."March or Die"
..."Misunderstood"
..."Extreme Measures"
..."Absolute Power"
Are we seeing a pattern here.
Will Gene Hackman be available to play McCain in his bio pic?

avatar

I love the film "Crimson Tide." But I disagree with a number of points. Gene Hackman's Commander did NOT react out of fear. He was following established miliary policy and procedure. Remember, the tribunal's findings at the end of the movie are that the Commander (Hackman) and the XO (Denzel) were both right and both wrong. All the Harvard schooling in the world couldn't change the fact that the dilemma they faced had no one, right answer. And how is Denzel's position more conscious? "THEY'RE FUELING THEIR MISSLES!!" Hackman screams. He wants to protect his country from nuclear-armed radicals; take out as many silos on the ground before their missles are launched. But Denzel hestiates to start a nuclear war that could result in their mutual destruction, especially when there's a possibility (the cut-off message from HQ) that their orders to launch preemptively have been re-called. The cost of being wrong was to high for him. Both characters are intelligent, educated men who know the intended, and unintended consequences of their decisions.

But how would Denzel (or Obama) act if the enemy are conventially-armed Islamofascists, or an Iran that doesn't yet have the ability to destroy us? The calculations are entirely different. Will Obama always err on the side of caution, and is that necessarily always the best policy?

Kensi, you remember the film WONFERFULLY, but the futher details do support my premise. We have candidates here who are both right - from their perspectives. The tribunal's conclusion in the film is that established military procedure had not moved with the times, and that future decisions needed to move forward with a more modern perspective. The conflict proved the need for change. That is what we are living through. It is a mistake to get caught up in specific plot points and not see the more moral picture.

I would disagree that the formerly established position is not based in fear. Hackman's screaming is brilliant in showing that these decisions, while accepted as dutiful procedure are based on fearful arguments that no longer exist. The entire cold-war was a time of fear (duck and cover?). It is why the public reacts to it so easily now. We are conditioned to see things in black and white terms.

I also think it is a mistake to view the more modern persepctive as erring on the side of caution. To recognize that we need to not blow up the world IS consciousness. While the Iranians may not have the power of the Russians, the region has as much potential to reek havoc on our world.

This is a time to stop, and think.

For the record, Denzel was right. The Lipizzaner stallion is dark when it is born:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipizzan#Color

avatar

The little plot points are at the heart of the matter. There's a big difference between "They're fueling their missles!!" and "Curveball told us he's got some WMD programs." A difference between taking a cautious approach to some saber rattling, and calling for a peace conference as troops cross the Rhine and countries are annexed.

As for Obama "being able to see clearly in the middle of many agendas" because of his great education, apparently he missed the lecture about getting up and walking out of a church when its pastor spews hatred and is teaching his flock to needlessly fear and loathe the government, whites, and Jews.

Post a Comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Book Club Calendar

Coming Soon



Nov. 30-Dec. 4



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address