Movies

Opinion: Tempted to vote for Jed Bartlet in 2024? ‘The West Wing’ was always a fantasy

BBG News

Opinion: Tempted to vote for Jed Bartlet in 2024? 'The West Wing' was always a fantasy

As a passionate fan of “The West Wing,” I must admit that revisiting the show as an adult has been a mixed bag of emotions. In my younger years, it ignited a sense of political excitement and idealism within me, making the complexities of American politics seem less daunting and more intriguing. The quick-witted dialogue, walk-and-talk scenes, and occasional educational humor made every episode a thrilling journey.

As the next presidential election looms with a sense of impending gravity, it’s challenging not to daydream about a different scenario. Consider, for example, a leader who prioritized deeply held principles over the demands of their major contributors. Imagine one capable of truly empathizing and educating themselves when confronted with unfamiliar issues, instead of simply following the politically convenient path. Envision, even, a president who stirred hope within you, someone who ignited a sense of national pride, despite your reservations about such feelings. In essence, envision Josiah Edward “Jed” Bartlet, the U.S. President as portrayed by Aaron Sorkin and embodied by Martin Sheen over seven seasons of the acclaimed NBC series “The West Wing.”

Two actors from the series, Melissa Fitzgerald (portraying Carol Fitzpatrick, White House press secretary’s assistant) and Mary McCormack (depicting Kate Harper, deputy national security advisor), remain convinced about the show’s lasting impact and its favorable portrayal of politics. They have authored a book, “What’s Next: An Insider’s Guide to The West Wing, Its Characters, Crew, and the Show’s Lasting Impact on Service,” primarily aimed at enthusiasts of the show.

From time to time, I find myself brewing hot chocolate in my “Bartlet for America” mug, daydreaming about a scenario where President Bartlet served instead of the second President Bush, and later, perhaps, a President Santos – the character portrayed by Jimmy Smits who championed significant education reform. This fantasy takes me to a White House that resembles “The West Wing” rather than “Veep,” operating efficiently with minimal scandals, and tirelessly committed to improving the lives of ordinary citizens by undertaking diligent, though gradual, policy transformations.

Indeed, it’s acknowledged that the portrayal in “The West Wing” can be deemed overly idealistic and somewhat naive. It’s clear that President Bartlet, as well as his staffers, had their flaws, and the show did promote a certain form of American exceptionalism and patriotic ideals. However, it’s essential to remember that “The West Wing” was intended as a fantasy, a depiction of an idealized world rather than an accurate representation of reality.

In over 150 episodes, it not only kept us amused but also left an impact, with some episodes standing out more than others. Each one featured at least one powerful speech that made me hope for a government that truly functions or strives to function, or at least aspires to do so. I initially encountered it as a pre-teen, well before my move to the U.S., during family visits to California where I was pampered with as much frozen yogurt as I desired, had unlimited TV time, more channels than I knew what to do with, captivating commercials for toys I couldn’t have, and most delightfully, enormous bookstores that I could lose myself in. It seemed like a simpler era.

While “The West Wing” aired during George W. Bush’s presidency, following a tight election, it was broadcast when the Patriot Act was signed into law, the 9/11 attacks occurred, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were initiated. The show presented an idealized version of the White House, which resonated particularly with a higher-income demographic; a 2001 study showed that most of its viewers earned over $120,000 annually (equivalent to around $240,000 today). Given their relative insulation from systemic injustices linked to poverty, wealthier individuals may have found the show’s portrayal of government operations more believable than reality.

Enthusiastically, I, too, was drawn into this television series during my teenage and early adult years. The first few times I watched it from start to finish were particularly captivating. It brought excitement to the American political process, a concept that previously left me confused due to lack of proper education in school. The rapid-fire dialogue, one of Sorkin’s trademarks, and the show’s cinematography, with its lengthy walk-and-talk scenes, added a sense of urgency to even the driest policy discussions. The humor was not only amusing but occasionally educational as well. I will always remember the Big Block of Cheese Day episode where Sam Seaborn, the deputy communications director, had to meet with a ufologist, and C.J. Cregg, the Press Secretary, and Josh Lyman, the Deputy Chief of Staff, among others, learned that the maps we’ve all grown up with were both imperialistic and inaccurate.

Despite the humor and inspiration that the show frequently offers, such as in the well-loved two-part series “20 Hours in America,” there are significant concerns. Upon rewatching it, I found myself deeply troubled, for example, by the relationship dynamic between Lyman and his assistant, Donna Moss. What once seemed a charming “will they/won’t they” office romance now appears to me as not only unprofessional but also borderline abusive, with Donna enduring Josh’s frequent outbursts and accepting continuous belittlement from him. However, the issues extend beyond interpersonal relationships; the show’s excessive optimism, unwavering faith in the United States as the best nation, along with its predominantly white casting and casual sexism, have, based on anecdotal evidence, made it uncomfortable for many progressive individuals of my generation.

The original criticisms that the show was overly optimistic are still valid today. A sense of disillusionment and annoyance with the slow pace of government has likely been a common sentiment across political parties for quite some time. However, with social media providing real-time commentary on an already fast-paced news cycle, these negative feelings seem much more amplified and noticeable now.

In their analysis titled “What’s Next”, the authors choose not to critique how the series has become less relevant over time. Instead, they persistently highlight its strengths. It’s important to note that when “The West Wing” first aired, there was no other television show delving into government operations. Therefore, the political issues portrayed by the show were likely groundbreaking for many of its viewers at the time. For example, an early season episode presents a persuasive case for financial reparations for the descendants of enslaved African Americans, a concept that, despite its historical roots, might have been unfamiliar to a significant number of the series’ audience.

The specific instance you’re referring to isn’t detailed in the book, as it primarily explores the overarching concept of service and celebrates the cast members for their diverse social and political activism, such as assisting veterans and treatment courts that prioritize rehabilitation for people dealing with substance abuse issues. “What’s Next” is an inspiring and lighthearted read, avoiding any awkward or challenging behind-the-scenes aspects or problems during production.

“While ‘The West Wing’ remains a captivating and enlightening TV series, it’s important to remember that no piece of enduring media is flawless. The show presents a mix of engaging entertainment and occasional educational value, featuring remarkable performances by its talented cast members. However, it doesn’t serve as a guide for real-life situations, and it shouldn’t be treated as such.”

Following President Biden’s less-than-successful debate performance in the summer, show creator Sorkin wrote an unusual opinion piece proposing that the Democrats consider nominating Mitt Romney, a moderate Republican, as their presidential candidate. The idea aimed to attract enough conservative voters to prevent former President Trump from regaining power. However, once Biden withdrew from the race, Sorkin swiftly retracted his suggestion. For some, it was an intriguing intellectual exercise; for others, it was perplexing. Regardless, it should never have been interpreted as practical guidance for the real world. Similar to “The West Wing,” it was a departure from reality.

Ilana Masad is a books and culture critic and author of “All My Mother’s Lovers.”

Read More

2024-08-10 13:31

Previous post Layton and Josie sense a trap in Snowpiercer Season 4, Episode 4 (Preview)
Next post Formula 1: New landing spot emerges for Max Verstappen