Although teetering on the edge betwee existential and situational, Conrad made it clear, in the end of Wag the Dog, he is a situationalist. He doesn’t allow familiaritiesto get in the way of his ultimate goal. Case and point, when Stanley informed Conrad of his desire to receive notoriety for the “war”, Conrad had him escorted by the secret service, which let the audience to believe he was “dealt with so as to never speak of the event”.
Despite the fact Conrad was exceptional at what he did, his practices were very unethical. Not only did he helped organize a sham for a war, he helped protect a man that had sex with a little girl. President or not, he was a man first and should have been subjected to the same consequences as anyone else.
Conrad also helped LIE about the character of another nation. he defamed them by telling people they were harboring terrorists.
I believe the term “wag the dog” reflects democracy to a certain extent. We, the people, are the body of the dog and the politicians we elect are supposed to be the tail. They are a representation of the people from their regions and are supposed to reflect the views and opinions of those people. In many cases, that only works well on paper. The movie reflect the ability of the tail to influence the dog. We are led to believe many things by those who we appoint to follow our lead.
