The Nuclear Football, Acceptance, and Dr. Strangelove
Released in 1964, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, is one of the shining examples from Stanley Kubrick’s filmography of the director’s ability to excel at a multitude of genres. He mastered horror in The Shining, science fiction in 2001: A Space Odyssey, war in Full Metal Jacket, and, of course, satire in Dr. Strangelove. What all these films share is a strict commentary on the flaws of human nature.
And there are a lot of flaws within both the antagonists and the protagonists of Dr. Strangelove. Essentially, the film follows the story of an attempt at preventing the end of the world via nuclear weapons after tension between the Americans and the Soviets results in the ordering of a strike on Russia. The objects of these countries’ desires are so indescribably petty that it makes perfect sense for the fate of the world to be left in the hands of the United States and the Soviet Union, the two countries that best exemplify the idea of selfish patriotism. Both nations are obsessed with themselves and their own interests. Because of this, the rest of the world suffers. Ultimately (and here’s a fifty-three year spoiler alert), when the world is destroyed, it’s because the Soviets and the Americans could not put aside their disparate differences for the sake of the planet’s well-being. So neither country wins.
Despite this lose-lose scenario, the one credit that can be given to the Kubrickian caricatures (which, let’s be honest, are not entirely too far off from how the current leadership in the United States and in Russia would act in a similar scenario) is that they never stop trying. They do not accept that the world is going to end. They do not become complacent. They try to come to a mutual agreement and even though all options are far from exhausted, President Merkin Muffley (Peter Sellers) and Soviet Ambassador Alexei de Sadeski (Peter Bull) are working and thinking and proposing solutions until the very end, even if the very nature of the movie’s conclusion (a montage of mushroom clouds to “We’ll Meet Again” by Vera Lynn) betrays the idea that they will “meet again.” There will be no Earth to meet on anymore.
An important question that must be posed of these diplomatic leaders, though, is are their intentions innately good? Yes, they do not sit back and allow the “worst imaginable” to transpire. But do they do it for the right reasons? Consider the exchange between Muffley and General Turgidson (George C. Scott). “I will not go down in history as the greatest mass-murderer since Adolf Hitler,” Muffley says, to which Turgidson responds, “Perhaps it might be better, Mr. President, if you were more concerned with the American People than with your image in the history books.” There is, at least, something positive that can be taken away from Muffley’s statement. Yes, it’s this kind of hubris that plunges the world into chaos in the first place. But even if he’s misguided, he refuses to quit. He knows mass-murder is a bad thing, even if he’s not sure why.
Could the same be said for President Donald Trump? “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” Trump said thirteen months ago (has it really been that long already?). What are his priorities? Based on the first month of policies, they are definitely not in the vein of making America great again. Are they to make Donald Trump great again? To make his ego great again? Is he merely a less articulate President Muffley? Perhaps. But there’s so much that can be said to condemn our glorious leader (Praise Be to Trump), that when examining the ideas of acceptance and complacency, a growing amount of concern can be directed towards the Republican Party.
Fifteen days ago, some guy named Richard DeAgazio posted a picture of the man carrying the nuclear football which, if you do not know, exists so the president can launch a nuclear attack even if he is not at the White House. This would be bad enough if the picture wasn’t taken at the Mar-a-Lago club where, after North Korea did their semi-regular, increasingly-becoming-less-worrying-with-every-attempt-because-we’re-getting-so-desensitized-to-this-shit flexing of a nuclear missile muscle, Trump met with the prime minister of Japan and advisors in plain sight. Now, I could go on a whole rant about how hypocrisy is dead and if Hillary Clinton had ever done anything like this, the world would have exploded, but when Trump does it, the Kool Aid drinkers immediately jump to his defense, but that’s not what this essay is about. This essay is about acceptance.
I am entirely uninterested in accepting this sort of disregard for national security. I am really not on board with the idea that a man neither I nor the majority of Americans voted for will, if things maintain their current trend, be responsible for the suffering and death of us all. So, I refuse to become complacent.
There are so many fucking hot takes from political pundits. Every now and then I see some Republicans and even some Democrats say that every bit of outrage from liberals only serves to help Trump get elected again in 2020. That means absolutely nothing to me. It’s total bullshit. Trump could shoot someone on fifth avenue and you’d still see Tim Kaine on Morning Joe talking about how it’s just a distraction from Steve Bannon and liberals need to focus on “the task at hand” (pick a new one every day) or risk another loss in 2020. We could all be clawing each other’s skin off Fight Club style in an underground bunker for the privilege of clean drinking water and there would be six think pieces in the Boston Herald about how this “helps Trump.”
The resistance has been ongoing for some time now, but I refuse to let it peter out. And I know millions feel the same. What is the Trump administration hiding about their ties to Russia? And to get back to my earlier point about GOP complacency, why isn’t the chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Jason Chaffetz refusing to investigate such ties? Instead, more effort is spent into putting out how the leaks came out of the White House. (Priorities, man!) This is seriously becoming more and more totalitarian by the second. If any Congressional GOP member would stand up against the imminent danger that Trump presents to the world, it would be a rarer place to see a spine than an invertebrate, but it would also be the cause for the Congressman or Congresswoman to be reelected literally forever. Instead, they remain silent. For what? Their agenda? To take rights away from transgender kids? To say, “Fuck it” to endangered species? To replace national parks with new NRA offices and coal mines because that’s where the money comes from anyway? None of that’s going to matter when the world is exploding as a crooner ponders when we’ll meet again. Don’t know where, don’t know when. But all I hope is that Jason Chaffetz isn’t there. Because I’m sure he’d find a different angle to politicize a nuclear holocaust. Hey, asshole. If the world becomes a nuclear wasteland, I don’t think you’ll have to worry about keeping Goldman Sachs on your good side.
Let’s stay vigilant. Let’s be ready for the worst. An investigation on this absolute chaos in the White House might fall to the responsibility of the people. At least, we’d do a better job than Chaffetz. It’s a task one must take seriously because Donald Trump’s ego is too fragile for us to allow him to be responsible for the end of the world. I mean, Peter Sellers is even more talented.
Next week: transgender bathrooms, control, and the court trial of Tyrion Lannister from Game of Thrones.
