I watched “It’s a Wonderful Life” over the holidays, as I do every year. A colleague of mine was saying the other day that he usually gets teary about 55 seconds in, when Janie sends up her prayer for her father, and said he’s never made it past Mr. Gower’s drug store without weeping openly. Not once …
And I was thinking as I was watching it: Who do we want to be? Do we want to be George? Or do we want to be Mr. Potter, who refers to his fellow man as “rabble” and “garlic eaters” and so on? And, I mean, we listen to the public debate these days, and everybody is out there defending the Mr. Potters of the world (they’re job creators, after all) and raging at the entitlements of the “riffraff,” as Mr. Potter calls the working folks of Bedford Falls.
And now, oh my gosh, someone did just that. Literally. Someone named John Feehery, President of Communications and Director of Government Affairs for Quinn Gillespie and Associates, wrote something called
“In defense of Mr. Potter.” Feehery has worked both as a staffer for three members of the U.S. House of Representatives Republican leadership (naturally) and as a legislative strategist in the private sector. Poor Mr. Feehery comes off as kind of an idiot, but he’s following his marching orders – he’s just adding on to stuff like the annual
“In defense of Scrooge” columns that pop up this time of year. It's the: "Don't blame the banks and your Galtian overlords" movement.
Here’s the thing – it’s not just that Mr. Feehery is wrong when he points out that Mr. Potter is a realist who promotes personal responsibility (um, no). It’s that he doesn’t understand the movie. Not even a little.
Here’s an actual paragraph:
“Potter was also a keen judge of talent. He knew that George Bailey could be a success, which is why he wanted to hire him for his vast business empire. Bailey rejected is kind offer and then, quite unceremoniously, started cursing the old man. What kind of respect is that?”
And, oh my gosh, NO. Potter isn’t hiring George, he’s buying him. And he’s burying the Building & Loan in the process. The board is only willing to keep the keep the Building & Loan going because of George (“They’ll vote with Potter otherwise”), so with George under his employ, the Building & Loan is toast. He can fire George after a few months, pay off the balance of the contract (or find a way to weasel out of it), and for one outlay of $60,000 Mr. Potter can be rid of them both.
I could certainly attempt to explain to John (may I call you John? Good) why predatory capitalism is a long-term evil, but first of all he wouldn’t understand it because he’s spent his adult life working for people who embrace it. And second, because Jimmy Stewart does a much better job:
“He did help a few people get out of your slums, Mr. Potter, and what's wrong with that? Why... here, you're all businessmen here. Doesn't it make them better citizens? Doesn't it make them better customers? Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking about... they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my father didn't think so. People were human beings to him. But to you, a warped, frustrated old man, they're cattle.”
Look, John, if you’re not smart enough to follow the story, don’t try to tell me what the story means. You look like an idiot. I’ve got no patience for people who mess up this movie; it’s a breakdown in the social order.