Everyone remembers “The King’s Speech”, a really enjoyable film about Prince Albert who later became King George VI of England. Colin Firth, the star of the film, delivered a magnificent performance in which he demonstrated how Prince Albert overcame serious psychological problems in order to ascend to the throne after the abdication of his brother. Last Thursday evening, we were treated to its sequel: The Queen’s Speech. Starring none other than Hillary Clinton, it’s another story about a political figure who had to overcome enormous difficulties in order to become the first woman President of the United States. As one of the actors said, “I can say with confidence there has never been a man or woman–not me, not Bill, nobody–more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.” Although both stories were based on the life of a real person, nobody ever expects Hollywood to stay with the facts. It is the job of the film industry to entertain, not to educate, and “The Queen’s Speech” remained true to Hollywood’s task. It was a wonderfully crafted, imaginative presentation with many entertaining moments.
Following a brief history lesson, the Queen set forth the theme of the speech by quoting the national motto: “e pluribus unum”, “out of many, (we are) one”. Of course, this is not really the national motto; the official motto of the United States is “In God we trust”, which was elevated to this status by a Republican. Still, one should never expect accuracy from Hollywood productions, and the idea of working together–“Stronger Together”–really is an inspiring theme. The notion that we as citizens of this great country are working together to solve the most urgent issues of the day gives me hope that I will be invited to the Queen’s next speech on Wall Street. I’m looking forward to sitting at the table with Lloyd Blankfein and the other boys at Goldman Sachs and talking about the problem of poverty in the US and the increasing income disparity. What a fine beginning to an acceptance speech!
Then came what I considered to be a stroke of genius. The Queen contrasted her positive view of the state of our country with the doomsday view of her opponent. Whereas Donald Trump has painted a bleak picture of our situation, Hillary Clinton was able to bring us back to the reality of our greatness and prosperity. Phrases such as: “Too many people haven’t had a pay raise since the crash”, “There’s too much inequality and too little mobility”, and “From communities ravaged by addiction to regions hollowed out by plant closures”–such inspiring phrases gave me a much better feeling about the state of our nation.
But the highlight of the speech was the announcement of the Queen’s credentials. She was First Lady when her husband Bill Clinton was President, she was US Senator from the State of New York for 8 years, and she was Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. As I heard these impressive words, I anxiously waited to hear the long list of accomplishments to her credit. But then came that most disappointing statement: “But my job titles only tell you what I’ve done. They don’t tell you why.” “Wait a minute”, I said to myself. “The titles are only references to positions, not accomplishments. I want to hear what you have actually accomplished!” But my objection was to no avail. The scriptwriters of the film had obviously faltered a bit at this point. They expected me to listen to the “why” of her accomplishments without knowing the “what” of them. If I don’t know what she actually did, why do I care why she did it? Still, all was not lost. To my great delight, the scriptwriters seem to have noticed the logical fallacy in their text, and so they finally decided to present us with real facts. After all, it is the record of accomplishments that will win our votes. Knowing this, they picked the real clincher as their lead-in: She went door-to-door in New Bedford, Massachusetts working for the Children’s Defense Fund. Now for those who don’t know, the Children’s Defense Fund is a non-profit organization founded in 1973 by Marian Wright Edelman, and it has been responsible for spearheading, among other legislation, a bill to assist handicapped children. Hillary was on safe ground to limit her comments to “door-to-door” support because the welfare reform of the First Lady’s husband–in the words of Marian Wright Edelman–“makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children” (Washington Post, June 3). Nevertheless, walking “door-to-door” is to her credit even if she championed the bill that forced more than a million children into poverty. Perhaps her second greatest achievement was “to help create the Children’s Health Insurance Program that covers 8 million kids every year”. Heaven only knows what the word “create” is supposed to mean in this context. The legislation was sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy and Senator Orrin Hatch, but apparently Hillary was a great support.
The Queen’s speech drew to a close with a litany of goals for her reign, and it included something that would appeal to everyone: rein in Wall Street, overturn Citizens United, save the planet, create new jobs, help the immigrants, rebuild the infrastructure, make college tuition-free for the middle class and debt-free for all, boost small businesses, support Israel, defeat ISIS… Before the litany ended, I was beginning to wonder if there would still be time for our little meeting with Lloyd Blankfein and the guys.
All in all, it was a most entertaining speech, although not as well done as the King’s Speech. Somehow the theme seemed to disappear before the speech ended. The progressive democrat Jeff Greenfield summed it up in this way: “Above all else, a speech must contain a central theme, one that provides a frame of reference for the message. Every line of JFK’s 1961 inaugural sets the table for ‘ask not what your country can do for you’… Here (i.e. in Hillary’s speech), as Churchill said of the pudding, it had no theme. And by the end, Clinton’s acceptance speech was a cacophony of cliché on cliché.” (Politico, July 29) In my opinion, Jeff is being too harsh. The Queen’s Speech was, after all, a Hollywood production, and it did have its entertaining moments.
Jack Brush is a Villager and frequent contributor to Villages-News.com. In his new book In Search of the Common Good: Guideposts for Concerned Citizens, he develops guidelines for balancing human rights with the urgent need to promote the common good in our society. For more information, seewww.jackebrush.com.
