Crimson Tide

A county-by-county map of the results of the 2016 United States Presidential election.

A Chinese businessman once voiced his disdain for American elections, lamenting that they are "highly unpredictable" and thus difficult to plan around. To be honest, this shouldn't be surprising; businesses like predictability and in authoritarian states like China, elections often have pre-determined outcomes. However, the 2016 United States Presidential election, held last week, proved to be anything but predictable as every pollster, pundit, and prognosticator was proved wrong when Donald Trump won the presidency by a score of 306-232 electoral votes over Hillary Clinton. This came as a shock to everyone, Clinton and Trump supporters alike (myself included), and in the days since, everyone has been asking themselves the same questions: How did this happen? Why did so many people vote for Trump, in spite of his inflammatory and bone-headed comments? Did gender, race, or immigration play a role? In this post, I'm going to examine each of these questions and give you my own thoughts on the factors that led to Trump becoming the 45th President of the United States.

The campaign leading up to this election was anything but ordinary: Wild accusations, gaffes, and insults traded between the candidates became everyday news. Donald Trump, with his off-script, firebrand manner, made many inflammatory statements about his opponents, Republicans and Hillary Clinton alike. In addition, the revelation of questionable past business dealings and unflattering comments about women and minorities made Trump's campaign a daily Public Relations nightmare. The Clinton campaign wasted no time using the struggles of the Trump campaign to their advantage; indeed, the Democrats' strategy for winning the election seemed to consist solely of discrediting Trump's character and his fitness to be President. Considering Trump's lack of experience (having never served previously in government or the military) and his unrestrained manner, this appeared to be a solid game plan. As the campaign wore on, Clinton's lead in the polls steadily grew and by November 9th, it seemed like the election would be only a formality, a coronation for the country's first female President.

Unfortunately for Clinton, the United States isn't China. As usual with Presidential elections, the first few states called on Election Day carried no surprises. However, after a couple of hours, the heavily anticipated vote counts from the swing states of Florida and North Carolina started to trickle in, and they indicated that Trump was faring much better than expected. In particular, Florida, a battleground state where many expected the count could go late into the night or early hours of the next morning before a winner was declared, was actually called quite early for Trump, a surprise to many observers and an ill omen for the Clinton campaign. Before long, Trump had secured victory in both North Carolina and Florida, and began looking toward the Mid-West swing states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan for an edge. As the numbers came in, the nation held its breath as it watched the unthinkable happen: Trump, who needed a Hail Mary to flip at least one of these "reliably blue" states, ended up securing victory in all three to win the election.

I watched all of this drama unfold live on CNN. It was interesting to see the mood of the commentators change throughout the night, from confident and relaxed at the onset to concerned and confused at around the midpoint and finally to shocked and dismayed at the conclusion. Once it was obvious that Trump was going to win the election, the commentators and analysts began asking: How did this happen? After all of the terrible and off-putting things Trump had said and done, why would so many people still go out and vote for him? After these questions were posed, it wasn't long before the accusation of sexism, racism, and xenophobia on the part of the American electorate began flying. Celebrities and personalities all over social media voiced their displeasure, accusing voters of sexism for having decided against electing the first female President, despite the fact that Clinton was obviously much more qualified to hold the office than Trump. On CNN, contributor Van Jones delivered his now-famous monologue in which he declared that the result constituted a "White-lash", or a vote of opposition by white people, against the increased political presence of minorities and influx of immigrants into the country.

Ultimately, these critics are wrong in their assessments of the voters and the reasons why Trump was elected. You see, voters have very practical concerns when it comes to selecting a new Commander-in-Chief. Many political observers and activists often see issues  through a certain viewpoint that agrees with their ideology but may not be shared by the average voter. For example, many of these such observers and activists were hoping to see the first female President elected, especially when that candidate was running against someone who had made very negative remarks about women in the past; for them, the politics of gender were front and center in this election. However, voters who had more pressing concerns (such as economic security, healthcare, taxes, and jobs) didn't have the luxury of spending their vote on the candidate that would provide the best political optics; instead, they voted for the candidate who they felt would serve them best as President.

That candidate was Donald Trump, a successful businessman who made trade reform with the aim of bringing back well-paying manufacturing jobs a centerpiece of his campaign and whose experience building businesses in the private sector was set to help him do just that; by contrast, Clinton admitted that she possessed little economic acumen and promised that her economic policy would simply be a continuation of that of President Obama's administration. Did this decision to vote for Trump mean that the voters endorsed his vulgar past comments about women, and by extension, establishes them as sexists? Of course not. No one likes the remarks that Trump made about women, but the American voters were not voting for a role model or a best friend; they were voting for a President who could help make their lives better, and when the choice presented to the voters for that purpose was between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, they chose Trump.

Next, you have the Van Jones argument, that voters supported Trump because they hold racist and xenophobic sympathies. Aside from the obvious problems with proving that over 61 million Americans are unabashed racists and xenophobes, you can discredit this idea entirely by simply looking at the election data. In 2008, President Obama was elected over John McCain by a margin of 365-173 electoral votes and 69-60 million popular votes. In 2012, President Obama was again elected by a margin of 332-206 electoral votes and 66-61 million popular votes. As you can see, Obama was elected by comfortable margins each time. However, many of the voters who helped place Obama into office voted for Trump this time around. Does that mean that the same voters that voted for Obama twice have all of a sudden become racists in the four years since the last election? Ridiculous. A truly bigoted nation doesn't elect an African-American to the Presidency by comfortable margins twice. Of course, this kind of rhetoric shouldn't be surprising coming from Van Jones. After all, he's made a career out of race politics, so it's in his professional interest to spin every topic into a race issue. The day that race is no longer a hot-button political issue is the day that he finds himself out of a job.

Unfortunately, the Left's excuses for the loss didn't end there: The Electoral College, the media, independent candidates, the FBI, the Russians, the Democratic party, minorities, and Hillary Clinton herself have all been blamed for the loss. However, instead of tackling each of these excuses in turn, I'll just let it suffice to say that the Left is currently in a tailspin, desperate to find a scapegoat that massages their political ideology rather than accepting the most obvious and accurate explanation: That their movement is simply out of touch with the average American voter. You see, through Obama's 8 years in office, the Democratic agenda has been met with a lot of success on the coasts of America; social justice and liberal progress initiatives thrived in the left-leaning states of New York, Massachusetts, California, Washington, and Oregon. But while that was happening, the heart of America, the states of Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were struggling and decidedly less interested in any social agenda and more so in economic policy, an area where they had been left behind. So, it should come as no surprise that when the 2016 Presidential Election came around and the Democrats asked these same states to vote to keep them in office that the answer was a resounding "No".

Instead, these the voters in these states started their own movement, a turn in the tide, if you will, that demands change in the form of a new government that puts the people's basic need of economic security first, rather than frivolous "cultural progress" initiatives. That is what Donald Trump and the Republican Party have promised to deliver, and that is what the American people really need. With a unified Republican government in office starting on January 20th, this is the best opportunity that we have had in a long while to effect real, constructive change and progress. I'll be watching closely, because if they manage to succeed, American's best days will truly lie ahead.

The Everyday Heroine

From an early age, I developed an appreciation for classic movies. Whether it was the screwball comedies of the 1930s, the World War II epics of the 1940s and 1950s, or the gritty Westerns of the 1960s, something about the style and spirit of that era of Hollywood captured my imagination. Despite this affection for Hollywood's Golden Age, I never really took the time to fully explore the most prolific works and performers of the time period; whether it was a lack of time, means, or direction, this intriguing pursuit always remained an elusive endeavor. However, with a little help from various online resources (such as Wikipedia and IMDB), I've decided that the time is right to begin this oft-deferred adventure in earnest.

For this particular undertaking, I am going to select a handful of the biggest stars of the classic Hollywood era (in no particular order) and, using the American Film Institute's 100 Years, 100 Stars list as a guide, watch/research each of their biggest hits. Since there is such a large body of content to process, I expect that this pursuit will take years to see through. That said, I've elected to begin this journey with a profile of a star not listed on the aforementioned guide; a star whose peculiarities on and off the screen (as well as her odd and winding career path) carved out for her a niche in Hollywood history that is as unique as she was. For this first step of my journey through Hollywood history, I present my profile of the actress Jean Arthur.

Jean Arthur

1930s publicity photo.

Early Years

Jean Arthur was born Gladys Georgianna Greene in Plattsburgh, New York in 1900, to parents Johanna Nelson and Hubert Greene. Arthur and her three older brothers had a somewhat nomadic childhood; Hubert worked as a photographer, and his job took the family all across the country for many years before finally settling in New York City in 1915.

Silent Film Career

While working as a model in New York City in the early 1920s, Arthur was discovered by Fox Film Studios and offered a role in a silent film. Arthur accepted, moving to Hollywood and taking the stage name "Jean Arthur" after her two favorite childhood heroes (Joan of Ark, whose full name was Jeanne d'Arc, and King Arthur). Despite a promising start, Arthur was panned by critics who lamented her lack of acting talent, and she considered leaving Hollywood altogether. However, Arthur found that she enjoyed acting and decided to continue her pursuit of a career on the silver screen.

Eventually, Arthur took a job making low-budget westerns for a small studio called Action Pictures. Working conditions were harsh (as B-westerns were often shot on-location with few amenities) and the roles were stereotypical "damsel in distress" parts (which Arthur loathed, likening them to a "diet of spinach"), but the films were moderately successful and helped keep Arthur's career afloat. Her success in these films eventually won her roles in more promising projects, though she was still plagued by criticism over her talent.

Paramount Pictures Career

In 1928, Arthur signed with Paramount Pictures, a major step forward in her career. At around this time, Paramount decided to begin producing sound films, or "talkies". Arthur was hesitant to transition to sound film for several reasons, not the least of which was her throaty, "frog-like" voice. Arthur and studio executives alike were afraid that audiences would not take to her voice (which she called a "fog horn" after hearing a recording of herself during a voice test), and as a result, she was not considered for the top roles at Paramount.

Arthur and her co-stars in a publicity photo for The Saturday Night Kid (1929) one of Arthur's early films.

Left to right: Arthur, Clara Bow, Jean Harlow, Leone Lane.

After years of languishing in sub-par productions and with her career deteriorating, Arthur's contract with Paramount expired in 1931 and was not renewed. Shortly after she was advised to move back to New York, since she presumably no longer had a viable career in Hollywood. Reluctantly, she packed up and went back east, one of many Hollywood washouts.

Broadway Career

Upon returning to New York in 1931, Arthur began to pursue a career on Broadway. While the productions she starred in drew little attention and her Broadway career was generally regarded as a failure, Arthur steadily developed her craft and was positively received by critics. Eventually, this led to her rediscovery by Columbia Pictures, who offered her a contract to return to Hollywood in 1934. Despite her lack of commercial success, Arthur considered her years spent on Broadway to be the happiest of her life.

Columbia Pictures Career

In 1935, Arthur starred in The Whole Town's Talking, her first Hollywood hit. Directed by the legendary John Ford, the film made Arthur into a star and established her screen identity as that of a hard-nosed working girl, the role type that she would be associated with for the rest of her career. Also at this time, Arthur began to bleach her naturally brunette hair a distinctive blonde that would become her iconic look.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936)

In 1936, director Frank Capra chose Arthur to star alongside Gary Cooper in his next comedy, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, after Carole Lombard dropped out three days before the start of production. Mr. Deeds was a hit and launched Arthur into superstardom; critics raved over Arthur's performance and the chemistry between she and Cooper.

Cooper and Arthur in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936)

However, during the production of Mr. Deeds, Arthur began to suffer from bouts of stage fright that would plague her for the rest of her career. In fact, Arthur would often become violently ill before shooting and would suffer crying fits between takes. Co-star Cooper stepped in to console Arthur through her anxiety; Arthur appreciated his efforts and would go on name Cooper her favorite co-star.

Later in 1936, Arthur reunited with Cooper to film the swashbuckling western, The Plainsman. The film was a success and Arthur's performance as Calamity Jane was popular with audiences and critics (and was also her favorite role of her career). However, the success of Mr. Deeds and The Plainsman brought another problem for Arthur to the forefront: Her reclusive personality.

During her first years in Hollywood, Arthur's reclusiveness did little to impact her career, as she had yet to accrue a following. However, by the end of 1936 Arthur was a household name, and as such she was expected to give interviews, participate in photo shoots, and attend parties to socialize with the Hollywood elite (like virtually all other major stars of her day). Despite this, Arthur typically declined to appear in public and loathed almost all forms of attention, which somewhat impacted her public appeal and frustrated studio executives.

You Can't Take it With You (1937)

In 1937, Arthur teamed back up with Frank Capra to film the screwball comedy You Can't Take It With You alongside Jimmy Stewart.

Still from You Can't Take it With You (1937)

From left to right: Lionel Barrymore, Jimmy Stewart, Jean Arthur, Edward Arnold.

An adaptation of a Pulitzer Prize-winning play, You Can't Take it With You was met with significant hype. Luckily, the film met expectations and was very well received; in fact, Columbia was so confident in the film that studio executives held a massive press screening prior to its general release, and You Can't Take it With You went on win the Academy Award for Best Picture for 1937. As a result of her run of successful films, Arthur was a finalist to play the coveted role of Scarlett O'Hara in the upcoming production of Gone With the Wind (though the role would famously be awarded to Vivien Leigh).

Only Angels Have Wings (1939)

In 1939, Arthur joined with Cary Grant and director Howard Hawks to film Only Angels Have Wings. Arthur and Hawks clashed during filming, as Arthur was not accustomed to Hawks' highly improvisational style of directing. In addition, Hawks asked Arthur to play her role with more subtlety than she was used to; Arthur unhappily relented and performed her role as directed. Years later, after witnessing Lauren Bacall's performance in another Hawks film (To Have and Have Not), Arthur formally apologized to Hawks, as she finally understood what Hawks was asking of her.

Grant and Arthur in Only Angels Have Wings (1939)

Only Angels Have Wings was also notable for being the debut of future Hollywood star Rita Hayworth. Arthur shunned Hayworth during the production of Only Angles Have Wings, as she saw Hayworth as a threat to her position as Columbia's top actress (a title Hayworth would indeed assume upon Arthur's retirement). Years later, Arthur came to regret her snubbing of Hayworth.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)

Later in 1939, Arthur reunited with Capra and Stewart to film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, another box office success.

Stewart and Arthur in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)

While originally conceived as a sequel to Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (tentatively titled Mr. Deeds Goes to Washington), Gary Cooper was unavailable at the time, so Jimmy Stewart was chosen for the lead role and the film took shape as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Though the movie was a hit, the two stars repeatedly clashed during filming, with Arthur believing that Stewart was playing his role too "cute" and not channeling the "commanding" screen presence that Cooper had embodied. After the conclusion of production, Arthur vowed never to work with Stewart again, even going so far as to pass on the lucrative female role in It's a Wonderful Life simply to avoid Stewart. Despite their differences, Stewart considered Arthur "the finest actress I ever worked with.", and Arthur later considered Mr. Smith Goes to Washington one of her favorite films.

After filming Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Arthur slowed down the pace of her work considerably. After starring in no fewer than 10 productions from 1936-1939 left her physically and emotionally exhausted, Arthur negotiated an easing of her workload with Columbia to appear in no more than seven pictures over the next five years.

Unfortunately for Arthur, her first three films following Mr. Smith would prove to be unsuccessful. 1940's Too Many Husbands, while moderately successful at the box office, was largely overshadowed by its sister production, Cary Grant's My Favorite Wife. Arizona, also in 1940, attempted to reclaim some of Arthur's fire from The Plainsman, yet it failed spectacularly. 1941's The Devil and Miss Jones (produced by Arthur's then-husband Frank Ross) also underwhelmed.

Despite beginning the 1940s in a slump, Arthur remained quite popular with audiences, and her fortunes would soon turn around.

The Talk of the Town (1942)

Grant, Coleman, and Arthur in The Talk of the Town (1942)

In 1942, Arthur starred alongside Cary Grant and Ronald Coleman in The Talk of the Town. Directed by George Stevens, The Talk of the Town sees Arthur play the role of an innocent schoolteacher caught between a radical political activist (Grant) who is on the run after being accused of arson, and a stuffy law professor (Coleman), who are both vying for her affections. While more of a dramatic comedy (or "dramedy") than the pure screwball comedies that she was best known for, Arthur shined in her role and the film was a hit, performing well at the box office and even earning an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture. Arthur worked particularly well with Stevens, as they had similar approaches to their craft; Arthur would later name Stevens her favorite director.

The More The Merrier (1943)

McCrea, Coburn, and Arthur in The More The Merrier (1943)

After their success together with The Talk of the Town, Arthur and Stevens reunited in 1943 for The More The Merrier, a comedy about a young lady who finds herself unexpectedly sharing an apartment with two men during a housing shortage in Washington, D.C. Co-starring Joel McCrea and Charles Coburn, The More The Merrier was another hit, both commercially and critically. But perhaps most importantly, for her performance in the film, Arthur finally earned her first Academy Award nomination for Best Actress (which she ultimately lost to Jennifer Jones).

The reasons that Arthur had been consistently overlooked by the Academy over the course of her career (in spite of her excellent performances) were varied. Firstly, her best performances were often overshadowed be her co-stars (such as Gary Cooper in Mr. Deeds and Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith). In addition, Arthur's best roles were in her comedies, which never fared particularly well with the Academy. And finally, for an actor/actress to win an Oscar, it was expected that his/her resident studio would to quite a bit of politicking on their behalf. Unfortunately, the head of Columbia (Arthur's studio), Harry Cohn, was no fan of Arthur's; the two of them fought titanic battles over contracts and picture assignments (Arthur was quite picky about the films in which she would agree to appear and often rejected assignments, angering Cohn to no end), and as a result, Cohn felt no obligation to appeal to the Academy on her behalf. Nonetheless, modern film historians feel that Arthur's lack of recognition from the Academy is one of the great injustices in Hollywood history.

Retirement

Arthur in Shane (1953), her final (and only color) film appearance

After filming The More The Merrier, Arthur appeared in two more films (A Lady Takes a Chance in 1943 and The Impatient Years in 1944) to fulfill her contract with Columbia (neither film attracted much attention). Eager to leave the pressure and unwelcome attention of Hollywood, Arthur reportedly ran through the studio's streets while exclaiming "I'm free! I'm free!" on the day her contract expired.

While Arthur was convinced to come out of retirement for a couple of one-offs (A Foreign Affair in 1948 and Shane in 1953), the conclusion of her Columbia contract essentially marked the end of her film career. After her retirement from Hollywood, Arthur returned to Broadway for some limited stage work. Aside from a modestly successful production of Peter Pan which ran from 1950-51, Arthur's second stint on Broadway was an utter failure.

In 1966, Arthur attempted a short, ill-fated comeback on TV with The Jean Arthur Show, which was cancelled after 11 episodes. Afterwards, she decided to try her hand at teaching drama at Vassar College, where she instructed a future Hollywood star, Meryl Streep. Though the novelty of having a Hollywood star as an instructor was intriguing for both the school and students alike, clashes between Arthur and the faculty over her teaching style brought her final artistic endeavor to a premature end.

With every meaningful pursuit of her post-Hollywood life having ended in failure, Arthur became as reclusive as ever, retreating to the confines of her Hollywood estate. Arthur later died from heart failure on June 19, 1991 at the age of 90. In accordance with her wishes, no funeral service was held. Arthur's remains were cremated and scattered off the coast of Point Lobos, California.

Legacy

At a time in Hollywood when female roles were reserved largely for either damsels in distress or femme fatales, Arthur's screen presence as a worldly, hard-nosed working girl blazed a trail for the actresses who came after her. In addition, Arthur's up-and-down road to stardom inspired many caught in the dredges of Hollywood's depths to not give up on their dreams.

1935 publicity photo.

At the height of her career, the labels "The Everyday Heroine", "The Quintessential Comedic Leading Lady", and "The Queen of Screwball Comedy" where all ascribed to Arthur. In the years following her retirement, Arthur gradually came to be known as "The Actress Nobody Knew"; her distaste of publicity stood in stark contrast to the attention-hungry culture of Hollywood and much of her personal life was shrouded in mystery (she largely lived as a recluse and had no children). That said, I believe that Arthur's legacy lies not in her reclusion or even her trailblazing career path, but simply in the endearing spirit in which she performed. Whether bringing to life the romance of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, the comedy of You Can't Take it With You, or the drama of Only Angels Have Wings, Arthur presented a natural charm on the silver screen that is worth remembering.