Juror #2 is most likely the last of the great Clint Eastwood’s directed films. 

He has not lost a brain cell; the film is a masterpiece about the unexpected challenges of the human condition.  It is about the wholly unpredictable consequences of an unexpected and uninvestigated incident and how it can be an unknown tragedy. 

Without giving away too much about the film, it is hard not to consider its relevance to our nation’s current predicament. 

And a predicament it is. The 2024 election is days away and the nation is still catastrophically divided between two vastly divergent theories of what kind of country we were, are or will be.  It all depends on the choices we make based on the information we have.

In the film, a jury is faced with what seems like, is presented as, a no-brainer guilty verdict. 

The “facts” are laid out before them, and they, all but one of them, take the facts as presented as the undisputed truth. 

The film is an obvious loving homage to the fine film of 1957, Twelve Angry Men, in which a similar case is presented to a jury who likewise accepts the facts presented by the prosecutor.  They do not question the case as delivered to them. 

Watch that film to see how it ends. It too, was a morality play about how we human beings are so easily seduced by people we are taught to believe, to trust.  It takes an outsider, a gadfly, to ruffle the feathers of the sheep, those good citizens who have been taught all their lives to trust the people who hold positions of power in their communities, state and nation.

Both films, Twelve Angry Men and Juror #2, tread into those waters.  Given the 67 years between the two films, it is indisputable that the human condition has not changed.  Some of us are good but gullible, some of us rely on a gut instinct for a variety of reasons and stand up for the possibility of alternate explanations of crimes without reliable witnesses.   And too many of us are sheep who swallow whole what anyone in a position of power says, asserts as fact, be they lawyers – prosecutors or defense attorneys, doctors, professors or politicians. The politicians are the worst of the bunch.  Their business is lying and they have developed it into an art form.

 All of which brings us to the crisis of our current national predicament, an election with two candidates so notoriously different in every way, whose personalities, qualifications, ideologies and policies are vastly different in every way,  the choice for whom one votes should be simple.  

One candidate has already been the president for four years. Despite the lawfare perpetrated against and upon him, he prevailed.  He was a great president – the economy thrived and then  recovered quickly after the COVID debacle.  He made us energy independent.  There was peace; we were not engaged in any wars. 

The other candidate, an unqualified understudy of a truly terrible president, was appointed only for her gender and race. Her qualifications for the job were not a consideration.  She checked a box.  She was never, ever meant to be a replacement candidate. She was meant to be Joe Biden’s job insurance. 

But when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer finally decided to address Biden’s dementia, they executed a coup and Biden held up Kamala to be the candidate.  Pelosi and Schumer (and Obama) got played by their DEI VP selection exactly like juries get played by prosecutors with tunnel vision.  “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” (Lavrenty Beria).  That is how our justice system, formerly the envy of the world, has become a process Stalin would love.

Eastwood’s film demonstrates, as did Twelve Angry Men, how malleable juries are.  Yes, they often do come to the right decisions, but they are limited by what judges allow them to hear. Very often, crucial evidence of a defendant’s guilt is withheld from juries.  It takes a brave person on a jury to be the one to challenge a group who just wants to go home.  He or she is a person who dares to question the facts and wonder what has been concealed. 

At this moment in time, the American people are the jury.  We are to judge who is better qualified , who is better able, with enough experience to run this nation.  The jury in Juror #2, in the end, chose poorly and the consequences will be dire for some.  If the American people choose poorly, all of us will suffer, especially those of us who know what a Harris presidency will bring. 

Eastwood’s film is a nightmare of moral exigencies, exactly the kind American voters face today.  Do we vote for the guy who we know can do the job or the DEI choice who lacks any qualifications for the job, who cannot answer any question asked, least of all about how she would “fix” the economy; she has no idea how to fix anything. 

As for the border, she has vowed not to fix that.  She will immediately grant amnesty to the ten/fifteen million illegal aliens she has welcomed into the country.  That’s the plan; insert millions of aliens into red states and create a permanent Democrat authoritarian regime

The decisions of the juries in the two films, Juror #2 and Twelve Angry Men, fell to the good citizens who showed up to serve – one came to the right decision, one came to the wrong decision.  Watch both films and judge for yourself.  Both are morality plays. 

America is at a crossroads, that much is clear.  One path wants this nation to be great again.  The other has a globalist vision in which individuals are insignificant beyond their membership in a minority group. 

That Kamala Harris has any supporters is a sad commentary on the current state of our citizenry’s moral authority. Hers reeks of the communist ideology she has long embraced. 

Trump really does just want to make America great again.  Those of us of a certain age remember how it was and we want it back for our kids and grandkids.

Image: Pixabay / Pixabay License