A Man for All Seasons: The More Things Change, the More They Remain the Same

Having finished watching the 1966 version of the film, I could not help but wonder at how little seems to have changed in politics in half a millennium separating the events shown in the film from our own time. Individuals who base their actions on principles and do not deviate from their own conscience are ultimately destroyed by unscrupulous, corrupt individuals who enter politics for the sake of power and influence rather than of public service.

Aside from his obviously admirable qualities such as strong morals, virtue, honesty, and consideration for others, one of the most impressive things about More, based on how he is presented in the film, is his clear-headedness and realism when it comes to his view of politics as a whole. He is well aware that the fact that he bases his decisions on conscience and moral principles does not mean that others who wield political power and influence do the same. He knows that power corrupts; he encounters examples of it firsthand, swamped by petitioners and offered bribes practically every day. This is why More tries to dissuade Richard Rich from seeking a post at the royal court and instead go into teaching; he can envision Rich doing much more good as a teacher. Perhaps he can also envision that Rich, if given access to the halls of political power, would become just another corrupt, opportunistic schemer; certainly Rich's open ruminations on whose influence, More's or Cromwell's, would be more beneficial to him is a good indication of the things to come for him. More proves to be a great judge of character in his evaluation of Rich - as he happens to be on numerous other occasions throughout the film.

The only notable difference between politics of today and of court of Henry VIII is that today More would not have lost his life due to his convictions. His political life, however, probably would be equally over if the events took place in 2009 rather than in 1535.

While the film shows once again while people who follow their principles regardless of political convenience are unable to exert significant influence on the political life of their respective countries, it also brings to mind another sad fact, namely that people who do possess strong principles and convictions, once reaching positions of power and influence, quickly abandon them in order to remain in those positions. There is little doubt that the disillusionment most of the U.S. populace experiences today with what is derisively called inside-the-Beltway politics stems from frustration at their elected representatives who often get into office on the strengths of their principles and convictions and then conveniently abandon them.

In my opinion, the crux of the problem is that politics has become a profession rather than a calling, a job rather than public service. Politicians yearn for power for its own sake rather than as a tool to be used to further the interests of their constituents. With power becoming the end instead of the means, it is not surprising that political figures the likes of Thomas More are unlikely to emerge anytime soon, if ever, in American politics.