Too Big to Fail, which premieres on HBO on May 23, 2011, features a star studded cast recounting the events that led to the financial crisis and bailouts by the U.S. government in 2008. It is a mini-series packed into a 98-minute made-for-television movie where several essential characters are quickly introduced and where finance and economics are casually discussed. It may help if one has a baseline of knowledge about the crisis before watching the movie. If one doesn’t know who Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner are or what Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and AIG are, it may prove slightly difficult to follow.

Although the Director, Curtis Hanson (L.A. Confidential, 8 Mile), was limited to telling a very long and complicated story in a very short amount of time, he was able to skillfully pull it off. Perhaps this is because the screenwriter, Peter Gould (Breaking Bad), deftly adapted Andrew Ross Sorkin’s 2009 prize winning New York Times Bestseller, Too Big to Fail.

The cast was right out of a Robert Altman film, there was a large number of well known actors including William Hurt (Paulson – Sec. Treasury), James Woods (Fuld – Lehman Bros), Paul Giamatti (Bernanke – Chair, Federal Reserve), Bill Pullman (Dimon – JPMorgan Chase), Ed Asner (Buffet – Berkshire Hathaway), Billy Crudup (Geithner – President, Federal Reserve), Matthew Modine (Thain – CIT Group), Tony Shalhoub (Mack – Morgan Stanley), Topher Grace (Wilkinson), Cynthia Nixon (Davis), and many others. They all looked and played their parts very well with the exception that there seemed to be no effort made toward sounding like the people they played. It was difficult to get past the notable voices of the actors. Paul Giamatti sounds like Paul Giamatti and nothing like Ben Bernanke. Hurt sounded nothing like Paulson. Crudup nothing like Geithner. Perfection wasn’t necessary, but it seemed as though there was little to no effort made at all by the actors to at least sound a little more like the real people they were portraying and less like themselves.

The story opens on a  shot of Ronald Reagan. It is news footage of a speech he gives on deregulation. Credits play as we see an image of Clinton signing a piece of legislation as the audio of newsmakers make mention that this is Congress’ bill being singed. Alan Greenspan is seen and states, “Don’t regulate for regulation’s sake,” which is followed by Bush proclaiming everyone should live out the American dream and own their own home. Miscellaneous clips talks of high profits and subprime loans, and then mortgage meltdown and government bailout.

At this point, I am thinking this film is going to be about blame… and that blame is going to be deregulation ushered in by Reagan, the Republican Congress during the Clinton years, Bush 43, and Reagan through Bush’s Federal Reserve appointee, Alan Greenspan.

This prompts me to check the cast and crew to see who they support and if they are bringing their agenda to this story in their hopes to rewrite history and put Republicans in a negative light and Democrats in a positive light before the election in 2012. And, of course, the Director and the Writer are both ardent Obama supporters. All those at HBO support Obama like Co-President Eric Kessler, Co-President Richard Plepler, President of HBO entertainment Sue Naegle, President of HBO Films Len Amato and Executive Producers Paula Weinstein, Carol Fenelon, and Ezra Swerdlow. Even the Cinematographer Kramer Morgenthau and Casting Director Alexa Fogel have contributed to Obama’s 2008 campaign. And the Obama supporting list of actors is long too: Topher Grace, William Hurt, Matthew Modine, Cynthia Nixon, and Amy Carlson. As if that’s not enough, there are many other ardent left-wingers like Paul Giamatti, Bill Pullman, Tony Shalhoub, and Ed Asner.

Then the story opens on James Woods playing Dick Fuld, Chairman and CEO of Lehman Brothers… an ardent Democrat and Obama supporter. James Woods stands out as the political maverick in the cast. In a recent interview with New York Magazine, Woods is quoted as saying, “I’ve always said that the next Obama slogan should be, ‘Barack Obama: Putting America Out of Business,’ because that’s what he’s doing.” So I decided to turn off my bias filter and give this story a chance.

As the story unfolded, I saw that the villains in this film weren’t the Republicans, rather it was a single villain… the total and complete financial collapse of our nation, or as Bernanke puts it, “[replaying] the depression of the 1930s. Only this time… far, far worse.” So, regardless of any one American’s political affiliation watching this film, total and complete financial collapse is an enemy we can all collectively desire to defeat.

The heroes, however, that’s a little more complicated. The actual heroes of the story are Republicans Henry Paulson (Secretary of the Treasury), Ben Bernanke (Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve), and Independent Timothy Geithner (President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York). They artfully maneuver their way through the minefield of economic collapse. Bear Stearns has already collapsed, Lehman Brothers is on the brink, Merrill Lynch next, and with all this going on, AIG – the safety net for all these creditors – was in the process of imploding from its own lack of liquidity and inability to meet its obligations. If AIG falls, all the banks fall. People would pull their money out of their banks and there would be no George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) trying to stop the “run on the bank” by convincing his depositors to take only what they need from his honeymoon stash. America, as we know it, would be in ruins.

Every maneuver in their quest to stabilize the markets is met with unpredictable reactions. Once they believe they’ve averted disaster, the pundits, investors, and citizens react differently than expected. It’s a reminder of Nobel winning economist F.A. Hayek’s precept that, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

But in the end, as we all know, it was capital injections in the form of a Troubled Asset Relied Plan (TARP) that would “save the day.” In short, the plan would see the U.S. government purchase assets and equity from all financial institutions, even if they didn’t need it, in order to stabilize and strengthen the financial sector. As Bernanke put it, the upside would be stabilizing banks faster, the downside would be nationalizing a few banks. Their plan to soften the blow was that they would force private banks to participate in this plan under law, but that the government would not have a voting interest or the ability to tell the banks how they use the money injected into their coffers… leaving the question to the viewer, “They will lend it out, won’t they?”

But, was TARP the right solution? If one believes it was, then the heroes of this story are without a doubt Republicans Paulson and Bernanke. But, if one believes it wasn’t the right solution, then the Republicans are just kicking the can down the road. Regardless, the story is a quest for a private solution, according to Paulson.

As Republican public relations guru Jim Wilkson (Topher Grace) says at one point, “You just can’t hand the banks massive piles of cash. Nobody’s going to go for it. To the Republicans, it’s nationalization. To the Democrats, it’s a bailout. And the banks are going to go ballistic.”

The story is well crafted and builds suspense out of the unexciting topics of finance and economics. There were parts that bothered me, like making the Republican Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Christopher Cox, look like an immature boob, or Republican presidential candidate Senator McCain look like he is clueless on economic matters contrasted by Senator Obama’s grip on the subject, or simplistically blaming deregulation while omitting the fault of Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or that derivatives and subprime loans were born during Clinton’s presidency, or more importantly that in 2006 Republicans pleaded with the Democratically-controlled Congress to begin taking measures by pulling the reigns back on Fannie and Freddie to mitigate the impending economic disaster.

Those criticisms, however, were offset by so many of the lines delivered by Topher Grace’s character, Jim Wilkson, who best resembled the attitudes and feelings of most Americans during this time. At one point, it is suggested that the government purchases up the toxic assets of the banks, to which he responds, “Ohhh, call it cash for trash,” he also calls nationalization “the N-word” and that it is un-American, and he suggests that the government running the banks would be like the government running the Post Office, which they “run like a dream.” Another character addresses the issue that the government having the ability to dictate compensation would be the biggest “brain drain this country has ever seen.” And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is characterized as something like the head of the Mafia. Her character comes across as an elitist snob, which I particularly enjoyed.

The movie was a surprise. Although it wasn’t 100 percent balanced, it was enough for this right-winger to actually enjoy it. And the filmmakers did a pretty decent job packing in a lot of characters and a lot of story into a short amount of time. If Obama-loving HBO can pull off the upcoming Sarah Palin story, Game Change, and the Dick Cheney movie, Angler, with the same deftness and fairness, I will be pleasantly surprised.  Better yet… I will be astonished.

Jim Geraghty started a brouhaha yesterday by criticizing how the makers of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” received $1.2 million in tax credits by filming in the state — and that Palin signed the 2008 law which made it possible. Because she’s now apparently omnipotent, able to see into the future and plan for it by signing into law a complex program with numerous in-house checks and balances. Geraghty questioned Palin’s conservative credentials.

… but it looks problematic for a crusader for small government to end up collecting a seven-figure paycheck from an endeavor that received a seven-figure subsidy, all set up by a program she signed into law.

What’s problematic is to define the tax credit in this issue as a “subsidy.”

Tax credits are offered as an incentive to do business in a particular area, city, or state as a way to attract business and commerce into said area. These tax credits are usually offered as a percentage of total money spent and the credits can be sold at a discount to businesses looking to alleviate their tax load. The exchange creates a cashflow that helps offset the costs of doing that particular business in that area; in this case filming in Alaska is very expensive. A net gain of dollars flows into those local communities and the credits establish a way for a particular locality to compete with other cities or states for business; over the long term it can they help establish a broader tax base by increasing the number of professionals drawn to the area.

The optimal situation is to have a tax code is low enough where regulations aren’t so restrictive so as to warrant the need for tax credits. That is the real debate. However, it is within every state and city’s right to make themselves more competitive by offering tax incentives to attract business and create a business community. Aren’t we, as conservatives, supporters of the 10th Amendment? You pay for things by increasing your tax base, not by increasing regulations or taxes.

It’s also important to note that this was a bipartisan piece of legislation she simply signed into law to spur commerce and diversify Alaska’s economy — not something Palin created to help herself as has been subtly suggested on other parts of the web.

Still, should governments be in the business of subsidizing television programs? The precise arguments against PBS and NPR – that in today’s much more diversified media environment, almost all of the programming on government-funded radio and television networks could thrive in the private sector without government subsidy – would apply to the Alaska-based shows, no?

I respect Geraghty, but this is a bad argument. It’s incomparable to NPR (and absurd to compare it to other federal programs when this isn’t a federal issue) – this program deals with state tax credits first of all and secondly, it occurred in a state that enjoys a budget surplus, as Geraghty earlier acknowledged. Tax payers paid for nothing. It was also the cheapest PSA that Alaska has ever produced, considering that the cost of producing a comparable PSA campaign, excluding ad buys, would run in excess of $500k, and with ad buys you’re looking at over a million dollars. (Relatedly, my in-laws went to vacation and fish in Alaska recently based on the show alone. They found Alaska as beautiful as advertised.)

The bottom line is that the issue of film tax credits is grossly misunderstood. It’s a process open to anyone who can come up with a solid business plan to get them. Arguments against it include complaints about making states compete against each other; well, aren’t we conservatives? Don’t we like competition? Don’t we all realize that such widespread competition lowers the taxes across the board? Is that not a good thing, if we are to discuss this within the context of financial conservatism?

If limited government is to mean something, it means there must be some areas of economic activity that government does not seek to steer, influence, promote, regulate, or restrict.

Allowing companies more control over their dollars (by way of reselling credits, et al.) is less government intervention. Demanding more of their dollars is absolutely steering, influencing, regulating, and restricting the free market, and it certainly does promote the value of filming in one state over another.

As I said, the argument here should be about lower taxes across the board, as opposed to the actions some states must take in order to remain competitive. It’s also illogical to try and discredit Alaska’s program by comparing it with that of other states because variables differ in each state.

I love debate and disagreement when it occurs on the right because a competition of ideas ultimately makes the right stronger and frankly, more invincible. However, if you’re going to take a stand on an issue and place a target on a fellow conservative who takes more than enough heat from the left, it’s wise to make sure that you fully understand the issue and articulate it correctly.

Brought to you by award-winning writer and director Stephen Bannon, Generation Zero is the first film in the “Tea Party Trilogy,” which also includes Fire from the Heartland and Battle for America.  Featuring financial and cultural experts, authors, and pundits, including Lou Dobbs, Lawrence Kudlow, Tobin Smith, Victor Davis Hanson, Shelby Steele, Charles Krauthammer, Dick Morris, and Newt Gingrich, Generation Zero exposes the untold story of how the mindset of the Baby Boomers sowed the seeds of economic disaster that will be reaped by coming generations. Sean Hannity did an exclusive one hour special on Generation Zero, and the documentary has received extensive media acclaim.

This month, the Obama Administration will be making decisions that will have a major impact on the future of our country and economy.  From the upcoming debt ceiling fight to a possible government shutdown, March 2011 will be a big test to see if we can restore America’s fiscal sanity.  Generation Zero will give you the perspective needed to see how we got into this financial mess in the first place and what we can do about it.  Our leaders have a chance this month to address it before the next crisis occurs, if only they will listen.

So Anthony Maschek is a student at Columbia University – where he’s studying economics.

But he’s also a veteran of the Iraq War.

He was recently awarded a Purple Heart, after being shot 11 times in Iraq. He spent two years at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and still has to get around in a wheelchair.

He sounds like a pretty amazing guy – someone you’d want to buy a beer or two, given the chance.

Unless, of course, you might be a student at Columbia.

See, Maschek was speaking during a meeting last week at the school, on the topic of getting the ROTC program back on campus. While trying to explain the need for a strong military, he was shouted at, laughed at and called a racist.

It was like he was facing a poltergeist made up of Huffington Post bloggers.

Yeah, some Columbia students suck.

But, look – the fact that they disrespected the soldier only underlines how silly they are. And more important, their behavior serves to remind us that this crap still goes on.

Fact is, we live in a culture where reality TV trumps reality, patriotism seems quaint, and no-talent teeny boppers gain more respect and adulation than our boys at war. We got kids who thinks Skins is hipper than soldiers.

That bugs me.

Anyway, I hope their stupidity, heard by many, prevents them from ever getting a job or having sex with people who bathe.

That’ll only leave them with one option – working at Columbia.

Which, given the school’s track record, will probably take them.

And if you disagree with me, you’re worse then Hitler.

Tonight:

Diane Macedo

Larry Gatlin

Chris Rozvar

I think everyone is pretty aware of the overwhelming liberal bias of Hollywood in general but it’s bigger than that, most creative people, period, tend to be heavily on the left. Why is that, and what can be done to get the true message of conservatism into films and entertainment? 

The American Dream Trailer from American Dream on Vimeo.

Let’s first take a look at what makes good media. Regardless of the format, whether narrative or documentary, the first and foremost thing people want is a good story. Telling a good story and crafting interesting characters is a talent. Film-making is not something that everyone is going to be able to do well. I say this not to discourage anyone but more to identify what the real issue is. The biggest strength of the liberal voice is that they use the elements of story-telling far better. They know that stories of struggle and triumph are far more engaging than messages of statistics and fear. I am convinced a lot of liberals would like the story of free markets and small government a lot better if we did a better job telling it. 

Think about the following: Is the problem that we need more people on the right making films, or is it that we need more good filmmakers thinking right? 

I would propose it is the latter. 

If that is the case how do we get those good filmmakers to think right? Well what is being on the right anyway? 

I think we have a real identity crisis as to what “conservatism” is. Trying to identify true conservatism based on party affiliation is a big mistake. The republican leadership is no more truly conservative than the democratic leadership. This taking sides based on party is alienating and divisive. It also makes for an all or nothing proposition. 

What we should be doing instead, as storytellers and conservatives, is uniting on issues that we can all agree on and working together to advance those through media. 

I recently made a film that I think does this. It’s called “The American Dream” and you can check out the trailer and purchase the DVD from our website THEAMERICANDREAMFILM.COM. It’s best if you just check it out for yourself to see what makes it different. It celebrates at least what I consider to be true conservative values. I have shown this to people across the political spectrum, and what you realize is that people think far more similar than you would have believed. The message of conservatism is uniting, but it has been hijacked by wolves in sheep’s clothing. They now use it to advance an agenda of control and government expansion. 

I am hopeful that all the film-makers out there will check out what we did and have the same reaction. It’s not the Democrats versus the Republicans, that is but a distraction. The real debate is liberty, freedom and prosperity vs. control and poverty. Once you get that its no longer about party we can put that “US” Vs “THEM” aside and start making films that convey the message of liberty being the greatest mission statement a nation has ever had. 

The Michael Moore’s of the world tell good stories about bad ideas. We need to start telling good stories about good ideas, and the results will be truly amazing.

Since Star Wars appeared in 1977, Hollywood has been primarily driven by two factors: the blockbuster film and the star-driven vehicle.   The studio’s portfolio theory economic model requires the blockbuster.  It is these massive revenue generators that push a studio into profitability, to counteract the revenue drag created by other films, which lose money.  

The star-driven film has been around since Hollywood’s golden age.  There is an implicit assumption that audiences will go to a movie with their favorite star.  The reason things got out of whack was because, in the 1990’s, agencies wisely began pushing the asking price of their clients up – way up.  Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Carrey, Cruise – they all became $20 million men.  This was a brilliant strategic maneuver.  Knowing that the industry was driven by fear, the agents knew that the first time a studio caved to an outrageous salary demand, all the other studios would do the same.  No studio wanted to be left out in the cold without a star to drive its latest blockbuster.   So they caved.

The asking prices continued to escalate, with some stars getting a piece of gross revenue. 

Now the market is correcting.  The reason, as I’ve stated before, is that audiences grew tired of the decreasing quality of Hollywood product.  Total movie admissions throughout the past decade have been flat to down year-over-year, with the exception of 2009, when people chose to go to the (comparatively cheaper) movies over other entertainment events.  This trend, combined with the decline of the DVD market (and syndication in television), began to restrict Hollywood revenues.  Meanwhile, production expenses continued to rise, as did advertising expense.  The internet’s fragmenting of consumer attention exacerbated the problem. 

The industry has responded in several ways.   They have drastically shifted their blockbuster model away from original films to branded entertainment.  Consumer brands have equal, if not more, consumer awareness than some stars.  The brand becomes the star.  How else to explain Transformers, which starred the mega-action hero…Shia LeBouf?  The two films have generated $1.55 billion in box-office revenue alone, and far more in ancillary markets.  Why add $15 million or more to the $150-$200 million production budget with a star when you just don’t need one to open the movie? 

A more interesting piece bit of evidence pops up in Arthur deVany’s book Hollywood Economics.  In his survey of dozens of films over a 20-year period, Mr. deVany determined that a star had negligible effect on the total box-office gross, in the aggregate.  Rather, he discovered that a star provided a box-office floor for a movie.  So while a supremely talented actor like Mr. Cruise might assure a certain attendance for a film, he was not the ultimate determining factor in how much revenue the film generated. 

As for gimmicks like 3-D and Imax, that’s what they are.  We’ve seen this before.  3-D was big in the 1950’s.  Oviously, technology has improved the experience since then, but with few exceptions has it been used with particular effectiveness (Robert Zemeckis’ Beowulf comes to mind).  Otherwise… anybody recall Sensurround?  Percepto?  Smell-O-Vision?  Frankly, unless you’ve actually shot a film in IMAX, it’s just a really big screen.  These gimmicks are just an excuse for studios and exhibitors to raise admission prices, to offset the stagnant admissions they’ve been experiencing.  

All of these things – branded entertainment, viewing gimmicks – are simply band-aids.  They are an attempt to mask an underlying problem: Hollywood content has been in decline for some time.  There is a solution, of course, and perhaps someone will see the light.  One hopes that, should Lionsgate take over MGM, that they will institute a new method of creating content and managing talent.  

Meanwhile, Hollywood just continues its unnecessarily expensive ways.  Do you or your kids really care if a star provides the voice of a Kung Fu Panda?  I know a few voice-over actors who would do the job just as well, and for a lot less money.

Here’s the diagnosis regarding Hollywood’s present malady:

1) Movies operate in a statistical environment of extreme uncertainty


2) Uncertainty creates fear


3) Fear creates a desire to control


4) Desire to control has resulted in a multi-layered, needlessly expensive studio bureaucracy, resulting in sub optimal risk management.


5) The goal of each individual level of the bureaucracy is to insulate itself from criticism from the layer above it.


6) This results in the hiring of the most expensive, but not necessarily most talented or suitable, creative team
to manufacture product that audiences are losing interest in and are not designed to achieve maximum ROI. 

1) Movies operate in a statistical environment of extreme uncertainty

It is impossible to predict the financial success of any piece of content. As Prof. Arthur de Vany’s meticulous research shows, in his book Hollywood Economics, it is indeed possible to predict the box office of any motion picture. However, that prediction will carry a standard deviation of infinity — and thus be of no value.

There are so many uncontrollable variables that determine what makes a hit or a flop that Prof. de Vany also concluded that stars are not even “bankable”. While some stars may provide a box office floor, they do not guarantee box office success. Production cost and advertising cannot buy an audience. Yes, certain things can hedge risk, such as the use of branded properties (Harry Potter, Transformers), particularly ones that have already seen successful box office. Still, the bottom line is you cannot predict success.

2) Uncertainty creates fear



Pretty obvious, no?

3) Fear creates a desire to control



Ditto.

4/5) Desire to control has resulted in a multi-layered, needlessly expensive studio bureaucracy, resulting in sub optimal risk management. The goal of each individual level of the bureaucracy is to insulate itself from criticism from the layer above it.


Both feature films and television suffer from an unnecessary multi-level bureaucracy that homogenizes product and stifles what audiences want most: good stories. The standard hierarchy appears thusly:

Corporate Owner

Network Head

Network Executive

Network Development Staff

Studio Head

Studio Executive

Studio Development Staff

Producer

Producer’s Development Staff

Writer

Too many people, with jobs at risk, must make a decision for content to cross to the next step. Thus, decisions are postponed until each level believes it has done everything possible to protect itself against its superior’s criticism or (worse) a flop. As responsibility for the content becomes greater and greater further up the chain, personnel focuses on how best to insulate oneself from risk, while simultaneously making whatever sacrifice is necessary to get the movie or TV show made. They follow these counterproductive courses of action instead of focusing on what must one do to make the best movie or TV show possible.

Exacerbating this issue (and with apologies to friends in the industry) is that most development staff historically possesses neither writing nor storytelling experience. What they have, and what they are mandated to exercise, is an ability to anticipate what their superiors desire. The Hollywood hierarchy is thus reactionary, and not driven to just tell a good story. The result of this bureaucracy is the production of content that viewers are unquestionably losing interest in. 

It is reasonable to argue that this hierarchy worked just fine at one point in time — before the days of infinite choice. With limited choices, viewers watched what they were given. That does not prove that this structure had any inherent value, although this structure may very well have assisted in creating quality product.

However, the fact that so many movies and TV shows fail demonstrates that expensive capital is being thrown at a process that provides no predictive value for success. Further slowing down production is suboptimal productivity, and the redundant exercise of labor across the studio hierarchical spectrum.

The writer works with the Producer’s development staff, carrying out producer mandates. Oftentimes, however, the producer will reject decisions that have been outside of his/her presence, which sends the writer and D-staff back to the drawing board. Rather than address the important aspects of the script — namely, the story — it becomes a game of “what must we do to please the producer”?

This game continues on up the chain, where the storytelling (which is what truly draws audiences) becomes subservient to the whims of management that focus on the intangible and unproven “commercial” elements of the potential movie. Scripts are endlessly and expensively rewritten as each member of the bureaucracy registers their input. All this work is further slowed down because every person in the hierarchical chain is juggling dozens of projects, driving to meetings all over town, while also reading and thinking over the material they are developing.

The system is overburdened with too much material chasing too few “bankable” talent and executives, with too little time to truly devote to each project. The bottlenecks become nearly impossible to breach. This is not to say that those employed by traditional media companies aren’t working hard. They are. I’ve seen it first hand. Most of them barely have time for themselves.  The issue is how their time is being deployed, and whether it is being utilized in the most efficient way. I’ve been on countless “meet and greets” in my time, which consists of sitting down with an executive and talking. Just talking. It’s kind of a “let me make sure you aren’t psycho” blind date.

However, like most blind dates, it begins filled with promise but almost never leads to any kind of climax worth the time invested. Anyway, this system perpetuates itself despite its track record having been proven to be abysmal. The economic result?  Every major film production company has 30-40 scripts “in development”. Of these, 10% at best will likely become feature films, and each will take years before they reach the screen. In the meantime, millions of dollars are literally wasted developing films that never get made. As my first agent once told me, “Here’s everything you need to know about features films. ‘Who’s the director?  Wait three years”.

This results in a push towards low-volume, high-cost, hit-driven product that requires enormous revenue to show a profit, and is much more likely to show a loss. The same is true for TV. This “portfolio theory”, where a handful of big hits justify the making of dozens of flops, is the only thing keeping Hollywood in business. But as revenue from these hits has dwindled, particularly in the ancillary markets, and the costs of making content increases, the model has begun to break down.

Tomorrow morning: Breaking down the specific manufacturing problems in Hollywood. Be sure to read previous chapters of this 8 part series.

See the one point that liberals miss when they read the story of Robin Hood was that the man never stole from “the rich.” Leftists like to vilify the wealthy, but the tale of Robin Hood vilifies a corrupt government. Robin Hood was stealing from an oppressive monarchy/administration and giving the wealth back to its rightful owners. He was essentially re-distributing wealth by removing it from the initial re-distributors. Confused? Let’s break down the story of Robin Hood for a second:

• Members of the monarchy are born into positions of power without having been elected.
• Peasants are born into a life of poverty; all of their acquisitions are taken from them by aforementioned monarchy.
• Robin Hood sees the injustice in hard-workers living in squalor while corrupt government officials “be livin’ likes pimps” (this is a quote from the original text, of course).
• Robin Hood says “enough” and takes on the government.
• Government loses control in an elaborate sword-fight (Errol Flynn wears tights).
• The people take back what they’d rightfully earned in the first place.

Hmmm… I’m still not seeing this as any sort of socialist crusade. Where in the story does Mr. Hood steal from small business owners or entrepreneurs? If there’s a sub-plot where Robin Hood professes the necessity of “equal outcomes,” I haven’t read it. Perhaps it’s my mere fourth-grade reading equivalency getting the best of me, but nowhere in the book do I see the Prince of Thieves even SUGGEST any sort of higher or additional taxes.

So again, I’d have to ask: Why do liberals so often use Robin Hood as a Marxist parable? Have they not read the story, or have they only watched the Disney version?

Come to think of it, I thought it was weird when Sean Penn started quoting “Robin Hood the Fox.”

History serving “a social aim,” rather than chronicling the past in a detached manner, is what readers get in A People’s History of the United States. With any luck, “The People Speak,” the History Channel documentary based on the book that premieres this Sunday, will be, like so many Hollywood productions, unfaithful to the original. Given A People’s History of the United States’ infidelity to facts, this might be the only chance viewers have of seeing anything resembling an accurate retelling of history.

Through Zinn’s looking-glass, Maoist China, site of history’s bloodiest state-sponsored killings, transforms into “the closest thing, in the long history of that ancient country, to a people’s government, independent of outside control.” The authoritarian Nicaraguan Sandinistas were “welcomed” by their own people, while the opposition Contras, who backed the candidate that triumphed when free elections were finally held, were a “terrorist group” that “seemed to have no popular support inside Nicaragua.” Admitting some human rights abuses, Zinn writes that Castro’s Cuba “had no bloody record of suppression.”

Readers of A People’s History of the United States learn very little about history. They learn quite a bit about Howard Zinn. In fact, the book is perhaps best thought of as a massive Rorschach Test, with the author’s familiar reaction to every major event in American history proving that his is a captive mind long closed by ideology.

If you’ve read Karl Marx, there’s no reason to read Howard Zinn. In fact, reading the most important line of The Communist Manifesto makes a study of A People’s History of the United States a colossal waste of time. The single-bullet theory of history offered by Marx–“The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle”–is relied upon by Zinn to explain all of American history. Economics determines everything. Why study history when theory has all the answers?

Thumb through A People’s History of the United States and one finds greed motivating every major event. According to Zinn, the separation from Great Britain, the Civil War, and both world wars—to name but a few examples—all stem from base motives involving rich men seeking to get richer at the expense of other men.

Zinn’s projection of Marxist theory upon historical reality begins with Columbus. According to Zinn, those following the seafaring Italian to the New World did so for one reason: profit. “Behind the English invasion of North America, behind their massacre of Indians, their deception, their brutality, was that special powerful drive born in civilizations based on private property,” maintains the octogenarian scribe.

A materialist interpretation continues with the Founding. “Around 1776,” A People’s History informs, “certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from the favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.”

Zinn sarcastically adds, “When we look at the American Revolution this way, it was a work of genius, and the Founding Fathers deserve the awed tribute they have received over the centuries. They created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times, and showed future generations of leaders the advantages of combining paternalism with command.” Rather than the spark that lit the fire of freedom and self-government throughout much of the world, he portrays the American Founding as a diabolically creative way to ensure oppression. If the Founders wanted a society they could direct, why didn’t they put forth a dictatorship or a monarchy resembling most other governments at the time? Why go through the trouble of devising a constitution guaranteeing rights, political participation, jury trials, and checks on power? Zinn doesn’t explain, contending that these freedoms and rights are merely a facade designed to prevent class revolution.

Zinn paints antebellum America as a uniquely cruel slaveholding society subjugating man for profit. Curiously, the war that ultimately results in slavery’s demise is portrayed as a conflict of oppression too. Zinn writes, “it is money and profit, not the movement against slavery, that was uppermost in the priorities of the men who ran the country.” Rather than welcoming emancipation, as one might expect, Zinn casts a cynical eye towards it. “Class consciousness was overwhelmed during the Civil War,” the author laments, placing a decidedly negative spin on the central event in American history. America is in a lose/lose situation. The same thing, according to Zinn, caused both slavery and emancipation: greed. Whether the U.S. tolerates or eradicates slavery, its nefarious motives remain the same. Zinn’s jaundiced eye fails to see the real issues surrounding the Civil War. Instead, he envisions the chief significance of the grisly conflict as how it allegedly served as a distraction from the impending socialist revolution.

By the time the reader reaches World War I, Zinn begins to sound like a broken record. “American capitalism needed international rivalry—and periodic war—to create an artificial community of interest between rich and poor,” the Boston University emeritus professor of history writes of the Great War, “supplanting the genuine community of interest among the poor that showed itself in sporadic movements.” Yet another diversion to delay the revolution!

“A People’s War?” is Zinn’s chapter on the war in which he served his country. Zinn suggests that America, not Japan, was to blame for Pearl Harbor by provoking the Empire of the Sun. The fight against fascism was all an illusion. While Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan may have been America’s enemies, Uncle Sam’s real goal was empire. Regarding America’s neutrality in the Spanish Civil War, Zinn asks:  “[W]as it the logical policy of a government whose main interest was not stopping Fascism but advancing the imperial interests of the United States? For those interests, in the thirties, an anti-Soviet policy seemed best. Later, when Japan and Germany threatened U.S. world interests, a pro-Soviet, anti-Nazi policy became preferable.” Reality is inverted. It’s not the Soviet Union that went from being anti-Nazi to pro-Nazi to anti-Nazi. Zinn projects the Soviet Union’s schizophrenic policies upon the United States. While Zinn awkwardly excuses the Hitler-Stalin Pact, he all but proclaims a Hitler-Roosevelt Pact.

The reader learns that the Second World War was really about—surprise!—money. “Quietly, behind the headlines in battles and bombings,” Zinn writes, “American diplomats and businessmen worked hard to make sure that when the war ended, American economic power would be second to none in the world. United States business would penetrate areas that up to this time had been dominated by England. The Open Door Policy of equal access would be extended from Asia to Europe, meaning that the United States intended to push England aside and move in.” Yet, this didn’t happen. The English Empire expired, but no American Empire took its place. Despite defeating Japan and helping to vanquish Germany, America rebuilt these countries. They are now America’s chief economic rivals, not its colonies.

The profit motive certainly is central to numerous major events in American history. The discovery of gold at Sutter’s Fort in 1848, for example, undeniably stands as the primary reason—alongside the favorable outcome of the Mexican War—for the subsequent population explosion in California. The Gold Rush is one of several historical occurrences that conform to Zinn’s overall thesis. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. For every major figure or event whose catalyst was economic interests, scores were sparked by some unrelated concern.

To question Zinn’s method of analyses is not to say that economics does not influence events. It is to say that one-size-fits-all explanations of history are bound to be wrong more than they are right. History is too complicated to find a perfect fit within any theory. For the true believer, this inconvenience can be overcome. When fact and theory clash, ideologues choose theory. To the true believer, ideology is truth. Time and again, A People’s History of the United States opts to mold the facts to fit theory, leaving the reader to wonder what “people” he is referring to in the book’s title. Dishonest people? Left-wing people? Delusional people?

“Unemployment grew in the Reagan years,” Zinn claims. Statistics show otherwise. Reagan inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent. By his last month in office, the rate had declined to 5.4 percent. Had the Reagan presidency ended in 1982 when unemployment rates exceeded 10 percent, Zinn would have a point. But for the remainder of Reagan’s presidency, unemployment declined precipitously. While Zinn teaches history and not mathematics, one needn’t be a math whiz to figure out that 5.4 percent is less than 7.5 percent. Despite unleashing an economy that created nearly 20 million new jobs during his tenure, Reagan continues to be smeared by historians—and it’s not hard to figure out why. Reagan’s free market polices were anathema to Marxists like Zinn. Upset at the pleasant way things turned out—Reagan’s policies unleashed an economy that continuously grew from late 1982 until mid 1990—historians prefer to rewrite history.

These are but a few of Zinn’s errors, which curiously seem to always bolster the left-of-center position. No error goes against the grain of the author’s general thesis. Every author makes mistakes. Zinn, it seems, would make less of them if he used his mind rather than his ideology to do his thinking.

By now one might be thinking: On what evidence does Zinn base his varied proclamations? One can only guess. Despite its scholarly pretensions, the book contains not a single source citation. While a student in Professor Zinn’s classes at Boston University or Spelman College might have received an “F” for turning in a paper without documentation, Zinn’s footnote-free book is standard reading in scores of college courses.

More striking than Zinn’s inaccuracies—intentional and otherwise—is what he leaves out.

Washington’s Farewell Address, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and Reagan’s “tear down the wall” speech at the Brandenburg Gate all fail to merit a mention. Nowhere do we learn that Americans were first in flight, first to fly solo across the Atlantic, and first to walk on the moon. Alexander Graham Bell, Jonas Salk, and the Wright Brothers are entirely absent. Instead, the reader is treated to the exploits of Speckled Snake, Joan Baez, and the Berrigan brothers. While Zinn highlights immigrants that went into professions such as ditch-digging and prostitution, he excludes success stories like Alexander Hamilton, John Jacob Astor, and Louis B. Mayer. Valley Forge rates a single fleeting reference, while D-Day’s Normandy invasion, Gettysburg, and other important military battles are left out. In their place, we get several pages on the My Lai massacre and colorful descriptions of U.S. bombs falling on hotels, air-raid shelters, and markets during 1991’s Gulf War.

How do readers learn about U.S. history with all these omissions? They don’t.

Daniel J. Flynn is the author of A Conservative History of the American Left (Crown Forum, 2008) and Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas (Crown Forum, 2004), from which this essay is adapted. Copyright © 2004 by Daniel J. Flynn.