Mr. Potter is a conservative Republican
Mr. George Bailey is a Liberal Democrat
2007-12-25 01:47:59 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
GEORGE: Tom! Tom! Randall! Now wait... now listen... now listen to me. I beg of you not to do this thing. If Potter gets hold of this Building and Loan there'll never be another decent house built in this town. He's already got charge of the bank. He's got the bus line. He's got the department stores. And now he's after us. Why? Well, it's very simple. Because we're cutting in on his business, that's why. And because he wants to keep you living in his slums and paying the kind of rent he decides. (The people are still trying to get out, but some of them have stood still, listening to him. George has begun to make an impression on them.)
2007-12-25 01:59:33 · update #1
GEORGE: Joe, you lived in one of his houses, didn't you? Well, have you forgotten? Have you forgotten what he charged you for that broken-down shack? (to Ed) Here, Ed. You know, you remember last year when things weren't going so well, and you couldn't make your payments. You didn't lose your house, did you? Do you think Potter would have let you keep it? (turns to address the room again) Can't you understand what's happening here? Don't you see what's happening? Potter isn't selling. Potter's buying! And why? Because we're panicky and he's not. That's why. He's picking up some bargains
2007-12-25 02:00:44 · update #2
I watched this movie again yesterday for the umpteenth time. I think you make a good comparison even though I seriously doubt that's what was intended in the movie. All I can say is God bless the George Baileys of the world.
2007-12-25 01:53:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do agree that there are political overtones. I don't agree with your party assignments. At the time the film was made, I suspect that George Bailey would most likely have leaned toward Republicans, too.
And the conservative/liberal split back then had nothing to do with the current "conservative" trend toward turning the United States into the last banana-republic economy. I don't actually see much support for government intervention in the economy here. In fact, the whole theme of private enterprise driving the improvements in a whole community's standard of living is very much in the tradition of American conservatism (known to the rest of the world as "classical liberalism").
The fact that the villain looks to you like a post-Reagan, neocon Republican can be regarded as a sad commentary on the direction taken by the party in recent years.
2007-12-25 12:08:00 · answer #2 · answered by Samwise 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Worst of all, Potter sold first, knowing the taxpayers would bail him out when he lent to people who couldn't pay in the first place. The developers and builders got their money, and Potter will get his, and home ownership won't have improved at all!
2007-12-25 10:23:01 · answer #3 · answered by mommanuke 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, but if George Bailey was a liberal Democrat, he would have taxed everyone in the city to pay for Uncle Billy's stupidity. He also would have left everyone living in the slums instead of giving them the means for a better life.
2007-12-25 09:58:21 · answer #4 · answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
How many times does one have to watch it to catch on to the political implications?
2007-12-25 10:06:44 · answer #5 · answered by robert c 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋