Headscratchers / Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

• Nobody ever suggests building a camp somewhere else in the state. Or even considers the recreational possibilities of a lake. Even if we accept the contention that the Dam was unnecessary and inappropriate, is it that much of a stretch to sell the land for a camp instead?
  • Boy howdy, that's just scratching the surface. For one thing: Dams are for rivers; YOU DO NOT DAM A CREEK (unless of course you are a beaver). For another, why not move the camp farther up-stream? Also, you have to look closely at it, but in the process of trying to discredit him, Taylor transfers legal ownership of the land to Smith. How exactly are they supposed to build a dam on land that Jeff Smith now owns, and how could it possibly profit Taylor?
    • In the second case, by making him look like a selfish fool trying to save his own property. In the first, a little thing called "Eminent Domain."
    • Taylor bought up land with the intention of selling it to the government for a dam project proposed by his puppet senator. This would net Taylor a hefty profit. That is a graft, and it's illegal.
      
      When Taylor transfers ownership to Smith, it would discredit him either way, since he had the children who would benefit from a camp make donations for the camp, so if he already owned the land, he would be pocketing the nickels and dimes of school children. Taylor's land would have been bought anyway, but only about 200 acres or less, and he wouldn't have made anywhere near the profit he would from the government, and even if the rest of his land was bought for a dam project, it would have lost its value by the camp.
    • Maybe Willet Creek was just a name, and it was actually a river?
    • It's just a little stream, in Smith's own words. Given smith's concern for areas downstream, it sounds like a dam that serves no legit purpose. Not every dam generates electricity,some just create reservoirs, so Willet Creek Dam would destroy the landscape and cut off downstream areas from their freshwater source.
  • As for why they don't just move the dam to placate Smith there's an element of dick-swinging Control Freakery going on as well. Smith was supposed to be an easily-led pushover, so when he turns out to be a lot more resilient then Taylor expects, Taylor's power is threatened. He's used to being the big cheese whose orders are obeyed without question, so if he compromises even a little bit — especially in the benefit of someone who everyone thought was just a brain-dead hick — in his mind he's a little weaker, and that has to smart for him. He doesn't just want the project to go ahead — he wants Smith crushed to re-assert his power and authority in the situation.
• Why didn't the Boy Scouts want to participate? Absolutely nothing in the movie is the least bit derogatory to the "Boy Rangers", so what was the problem?
  • Maybe they thought the movie would flop.
  • Maybe they agreed with the Production Code Administration, whose director Joseph Breen feared it was potentially anti-American. "Loaded with dynamite, both for the motion picture industry, and for the country at large." They felt it had a "generally unflattering portrayal of our system of Government, which might well lead to such a picture being considered, both here, and more particularly abroad, as a covert attack on the Democratic form of government." This picture almost didn't get made at all. It was not well received by Congress or the Washington press. Several senators walked out of the Washington premiere.
• So as part of the framing of Smith, the ownership of the creek is transferred to him. Doesn't this give Jeff a relatively simple solution? He asks if the land is really his. If the answer is "yes," he gives the land to the Boy Rangers. If the answer is "no", then he asks how he can possibly make profit from land that doesn't belong to him. Either way, the problem is solved.
  • The actual problem at that point in the film is not getting the land or establishing a camp, it's the corruption in Smith's state and his unjust expulsion from the Senate (which will also destroy his reputation back home). His owning the land doesn't solve either of those problems. The filibuster is about exposing the Taylor machine and bringing it down.
• Taylor's master plan was to make Jeff Smith the legal owner of the land which he wishes to dam. How does Taylor profit from this?
  • Presumably he would have gotten some kind of large kickback for helping to build the dam.
  • He had the children who would benefit from the camp donate so he could buy the land outright. By Taylor giving Smith the land, it would make Smith look like a crook, since he wouldn't need to raise funds to buy it, and would thus be "pocketing the nickels of school children."
• If Smith was really a crook who owned the land around Willett Creek, as Taylor's character assassination alleged, then he would have had no good reason to oppose the bill put forward by the corrupt senators in favor of his own bill— either way he would be the one to get the money!
  • Perhaps to make it look like an attempt at Villain with Good Publicity?
• Jeff is crazy about American history and civics. How come he doesn't know more about the workings of the Senate or how a bill is introduced?
  • Maybe that had to do with Federal government process (at least intricate ones) well-known to the American public?
  • I suppose this one has to be chalked up to Rule Of We-Have-To-Explain-This-To-The-Knuckleheads-In-The-Audience-Somehow.
• For that matter, how can he not know about James Taylor, who owns nearly every newspaper in his state (and probably radio stations along with them), numerous businesses, probably has the state legislature in his pocket... The fact that he doesn't know who Taylor is is unbelievable for a man that into civics and public affairs.
  • You're talking about the nitty-gritty sausage-making realities of civics and public affairs, though. It's pretty clear that Smith, while he's knowledgeable about the procedural functions of government and is deeply idealistic, is also a little bit naive when it comes to the grimy realities of state and federal politics. Smith knows all about the parts of the process that the public sees, whereas the whole point of Taylor is that he's pretty much the epitome of the underhanded backroom deals part of the process that the public is only dimly aware of at best (especially at the time the story was set). And in any case, how many local radio station / newspaper owners, influential businesspeople and lobbyists can most average people name from within their local area? How many can you name?
  • Also, ultimately, Anthropic Principle is at play here. This isn't a strict representation of reality. It's an idealised fantasy about an average joe who gets elevated to state office, encounters corruption, and wins. It's essentially a fairytale set in the American political system. Jeff isn't a 'real' person, he's an archetypal representation of The Everyman. Taylor isn't a real political insider, he's the archetypal representation of the corrupt political manipulator. If Jeff was a little savvier, a little less naive and a little more politically aware, he'd lose the innocence that makes him the hero this particular story needs, and if Taylor were better known he'd lose the shadowy menace that the story needs as well. Ultimately, the story needs them to be this way, so they're this way.

---