Summary of the Film

Summary of the Film
The film depicted the various civic roles in the US governance systems. It explored the roles of the head of state, the president’s appointments duties where he was supposed to appoint the state officers for Senate approval. In the movie, the second term president appointed Robert Leffingwell to the position of the Secretary Of State, a very influential docket in government. He believed that his vice president Harley Hudson was not strong enough to carry on his governance policies in case he died. His appointee, however, had to get approval from the Senate, a place with members having deep vested interests across the parties. Both the opposition and the president’s party had people who were proponents of the appointment and people who vehemently objected the appointment. The debate fast shifted from the role of the public officer to the suitability of Robert Leffingwell to take up the role. The opposers to the appointment like Senator Seab Cooley, a senior member of the Senate House strongly believed that Leffingwell had a soft spot for the communists like the Soviet Union, and at one time was a member of the group. To him, this made the appointee not qualified to take on the most powerful government role after the president.
On the contrary, proponents of the appointment, the majority being the members of the president’s party like Senator Fred Van Ackermann believed that Leffingwell was highly qualified and perfectly fitted the position owing to his ability to maintain peace and order in the USA during the time of the cold war.

The tussle divided the senate house thus prompted the Senate majority leader, Bob Munson, to create a Senate subcommittee to review the appointment. He made the undecided Senator Brig Anderson to chair the committee. During the investigation, Anderson realized that Leffingwell was indeed a liar and had past that was closely affiliated with the communist group. When he decided to reject the appointment, he was blackmailed and given life threats to cajole him into supporting the president’s appointee. Leffingwell, therefore, had to make the moral choice of doing the right thing, either accepting the appointment or rejecting it based on his dark past.
How The Film Relates To The Government.
The film invoked article 2 section 2 column 2 of the US constitutions. The statute provided for the president as an appointing authority, to appoint the state officers into position, albeit awaiting approval from the Senate house. Therefore, the president’s appointees could not assume responsibilities unless they got fair review and approval by the Senate. This gave the concept of the need to advise the President in appointing the officers and the president receiving consent from the Senate to carry on with the appointment. The top-down approach to appointing the public officers with an involved senate was a close associate of the US government structure.
Moreover, the general synopsis of the film showed that the influential opinions that normally determined the success or failure of the American governance was vested on the Senate discussions that comprised of two major parties, the Democrats, and the Republicans. The film plot thus inferred the political aspect of the US, a country where the president’s party was normally the most influential, but with all the members having the democracy to make their independent decisions on trivial issues like the approval of the president’s appointees. These were very close associates of the film and the US governance systems. In American civic governance, the secretary of state was a very influential docket, and thus whoever was appointed to the role had to be carefully analyzed. In the film, the same was inferred as the appointment of Leffingwell created sharply divided opinions on the floor of the senate house. This also alluded to the US governance structure that had a powerful secretary of the state, who could also influence the policies of the reigning president in significant ways, even if the president died.
The Film in Context; Fake And Accurate Elements In The Film
Like any other film, the names of the characters starring in the film were not the real name of the American senators and leaders who were present at the time of the film release, 1962. The need to create an abstract name for the leaders to depict the challenges that the American governance was facing was also not consistent in the film, though there was close relevance that could provide a pointer to the leaders that the film inferred. For instance, the senator from North Dakota, Hanson, was commonly depicted to be from South Dakota. Moreover, the film identified the senators and the leaders to be either affiliated with the majority party or the minority party. The majority party being the president’s party, comprised of many people who endorsed the appointment, and the minority party comprised of those who opposed the appointment. On the same spirit, the Nevada senator, Parrish who was stated to belong to the majority party was a member of the minority party in the government of that day. Similarly, the Colorado senator, Eastwood who was depicted in the film as attending the Majority party functions, was also seen in the senate house seeking permission to speak with the minority leader.
It is true that the film was developed at a time when there was a high-level mistrust among the elected leaders in the American political systems between the democrats and the republicans. Based on the representations in the Senate house, it was possible to conclude that the president who was reigning was a Democrat since the majority of his party members were from the traditional Democrat states in the US. For instance, the South Carolina Senator Cooley, who was also the majority leader in the senate house hailed from a state that had historical adherents to the democratic political party, having supported the former Democratic presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. During that time, it is true that John F. Kennedy was the president and he was a Democrat. Due to the heightened political tensions at the time that were also fueled by the increasing civic awareness among the various ethnic communities in America, it was imperative that the president appointed lieutenants and people who could carry forward his party agenda. When John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, the Democrats’ secretary of state, David Dean Rusk remained in control of the powerful government docket till the year 1969. During the time, the democratic ideals were in full implementation. Thus there was no hitch in the aftermath of the president’s assassination. The film, therefore, pointed to realistic events in the American historical development that could be explained to mean occurrences.
Conclusion
Governance is important when the leaders can agree on trivial issues based on principles and not on party affiliations. The true aspects of the various issues facing the America people should be looked at objectively and not subjectively. This allows the critical review of the problem and thus leading to the development of credible solutions that are not founded on party euphoria. The party members should be important in supporting the president’s views, but if they are confirmed to be less popular with the truth, the party members must have the power to reject such presidential views. It is, therefore, important that the American leaders imitate such ethical and democratic standards in dealing with the problems of the present day America.