|
The Contender
by Reginia Judge
There are several themes illustrated
in The Contender. This film utilizes the process of
selecting political leaders as a vehicle through which we consider
topics such as sexism and the right of privacy.
 Laine
Hanson may very well be the first woman to hold the office of
Vice President of the United States. Three weeks have passed
since the vice president's death and the president is anxious
to name a successor. His designate is Senator Laine Hanson,
the gentle lady from Ohio. Before she can assume office, however,
Senator Hanson must participate in a confirmation hearing administered
by the House of Representatives. The hearing will assist the
House in deciding whether to reject or consent to her nomination.
Herein lies Senator Hanson's nemesis, Senator Shelly Runyon,
Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Runyon has
another candidate in mind for the vice presidency. For this
reason, he will do whatever it takes to ensure enough votes against
Senator Hanson. In order to discredit and humiliate her, Senator
Runyon leaks information about an alleged sexual encounter Senator
Hanson had in college.
The focus of this film is the
inquest Senator Hanson undergoes as part of the confirmation
process. The senator feels that she is being subjected to a
higher level of scrutiny because she is a woman. In actuality,
her gender is both an asset and a liability. The president makes
no secret of the fact that putting a woman in office means a
great deal to him. He believes in the concept of making the
American dream blind to gender and wants to crystallize this
belief by choosing a female vice president.
The film blatantly illustrates an instance in which she is subjected
to a double standard because she is female. Upon her nomination,
Senator Hanson's husband is advised that he should stay behind
the scenes during the confirmation period. It is explained that
although a wife seen behind her husband is viewed as supportive,
a husband in the same position is viewed as a puppeteer. This
conveys the notion that it is acceptable for a woman to be seen
supporting her husband, but she is not worthy of similar public
encouragement. On the surface this sentiment imparts a since
of shame upon men, but what it really does is cast a disparaging
light on women. It sends a message that it is all right for
a woman to "stand by her man," but she is not entitled
to reciprocal treatment, at least not in public. Casting a negative
reflection on men cleverly accomplishes this objective.
In the senator's opinion, her
gender has precipitated the inquiry about a sexual encounter
that supposedly occurred when she was nineteen years old. She
states, "If I were a man nobody would care how many sexual
partners I had in college. If it's not relevant for a man, it's
not relevant for a woman." Senator Hanson is described
as a cancer of virtuous decay because of an incident that purportedly
occurred more then twenty-five years ago. Questions that must
be raised at this juncture are: Why is this incident so critical
to the confirmation process? Is a virtuous candidate more trustworthy
and reliable than one who is not? By whose standard should one
be characterized as virtuous?
The very mention of the past
of a candidate or political appointee raises the issue of the
right of privacy. Must the public know if a candidate committed
adultery or had children out of wedlock in order to determine
if the candidate is fit for office? Should moral character be
one of the barometers upon which we elect our public officials?
Of course we want politicians to possess a since of morality.
Because they are entrusted with such tremendous amounts of authority,
we want politicians to be honest and forthright. At what point.
however, does our investigation of them move beyond seeking to
appoint an honorable person and become a witch-hunt?
The measure of an individual's
capability for assuming office should be based on the individual's
opinions, philosophies and political track record. However,
this is not always the case. The lives of public figures, both
past and present, are placed under a magnifying glass for the
entire world to examine. The confirmation hearing of Clarence
Thomas exemplified this fact. Additionally, it is common knowledge
that the awareness of marital infidelities can cost candidates
elections. Remember Gary Hart? Yet in contrast, the Monica
Lewinsky affair didn't seem to hurt President Clinton's standing
with the public even after his impeachment. President Clinton's
situation evidences the fact that public sentiment can go either
way.
In refusing to address any
questions based on her past sexual conduct, Senator Hanson makes
an important statement. Her position indicates that these types
of personal questions have no place in the political arena and
therefore she will not address them to either confirm or deny
their accuracy. She states, "I cannot respond to the committee's
lightly veiled accusations because to do so would imply that
it was all right for them to be made." Imagine what would
happen if all those with political aspirations responded like
the senator.
Posted February 1, 2001
|
