I love "The West Wing." I owe that love all to my friend Simon, and he would point that out if I didn't, but man, do I love that show.
Granted, the past couple of seasons haven't been as good as the first three were, but it's still by far one of the best shows to ever be on television.
But, it's also very tough for a person disillusioned with real-life politics to watch.
The premise of the show, for those who are not fans, is that Martin Sheen is the President, a Democratic president (yay) who is this amazing politician that everyone loves, even when he does things that they don't necessarily agree with.
When he began running for his second term, he had to disclose that he had Multiple Sclerosis, and had had it since before his first term. Yet, he still got re-elected, because, darn it, people just liked him too much.
This is partially what I mean about it not being terribly realistic.
His staff, which really make the show, are comprised of ultra-liberal, ambitious people who follow Bartlet (Sheen) without question, or generally, without question.
The brilliance of the first three seasons of the show lied within the cast and Aaron Sorkin's writing and creation of characters. They had this very fast-paced, witty repartee in the White House, and if you were anyone who was ever interested in politics, you thought, "That's cool. I could totally work in the White House and exchange glib wit with fellow co-workers."
I won't lie. Just like I was spurred on to consider law school after watching "A Few Good Men" repeatedly, the idea of working in an environment like that of "The West Wing" seemed very desirable to me. What can I say? I'm a product of pop culture.
Anyway, the episode last night was especially good and especially implausible, but made me cry out of awe or appreciation nonetheless. The season finale centered around the Democratic National Convention and how the party had to find a nominee before the end. Now, I have no idea, because I'm historically challenged, if such a thing has ever happened, that going into a convention, the party wouldn't have a nominee, but that's what was going on.
The choices were Congressman Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits), Vice President "Bingo" Bob Russell (Gary Cole), and Ed O'Neill from "Married with Children" fame. His character's name was Baker.
Now, at any given point during the episode, it looked as though the delegates would go with any of the candidates. Each had his strong points, and each had particular parts of the country loyal to them.
Right when it appeared that the milquetoast Russell that couldn't possibly defeat the Republican challenger was going to win, and Santos would step out, Jimmy Smits delivered this utterly kick-ass speech at the convention about how it wasn't up to him to step back and take away that choice from the delegates, and that's when I started to cry.
Of course, he ended up with the nomination and chose Leo, a Bartlet staffer, as his VP, which made it all the better, but the reason I was crying was this: I am a Democrat. Whether I am irritated with the party right now, there is no viable alternative for me. I will likely never be a Republican; I just don't believe in what they believe, and while some people don't pin too much importance on their political affiliations, I do, and it's intrinsic to my personality.
I still agree with Democratic beliefs as a whole, but when I was watching "The West Wing," and yes, I know it's a fictional program, I thought, there is no one in the party right now that I would throw my support behind blindly or who could move such a group of people through his ideas and speeches.
"The West Wing" takes the things that I believe in and makes them possible in this fictional universe, and the idealistic part of me wonders why that can't happen in real life. Why can't the Democrats get their heads out of their asses and unify based on the principles that made them great in the first place?
We're not so far gone that it's impossible, but it's going to take a substantial amount of work, and I hope that the party can do it and do it soon, because the longer they flounder about and scramble to become cohesive, the less likely people are going to be able to identify with them again.
And, for the record, working for the Kerry campaign was nothing like being on "The West Wing."
2 comments:
it's funny how in a reality vacuum the democrats always win. i think that has something to do with the tax rate not being such an issue, or is it that in tv land every person wants to pay high taxes for a higher moral purpose? who knows. it's also funny how sex, drugs, and just plain old bad behavior is common place and wide psread in tv land, another reason why it is firmly in support of the democratic party. yup, all sorts of socially out of step ideals are not only accepted in the tv utopia but embraced and portrayed as "cool". so that's fine. the west wing can contiue on promoting it's liberal, touchy- feely, head in the sand, utopian fiction. but the truth of the matter is that we do not live in a vacuum, and it'll be awhile before the DNC can withstand the pressure of accepting the reasons for thier own decline.
and to answer your question, only until 30-40 years ago the main reason for the conventoin was acxtually to selct a candidate. it has only recently turned into a made for tv production that serves no other purpose than to allow aging politicians pat each other on the back while picking our proverbial pockets. now the conventions are no more realistic than the speach given by jimmy smits.
For your information, there is no sex or drugs on The West Wing, and I wouldn't really characterize it as being "head in the sand" either. Have you ever even seen an episode? They portray Republicans in a fairly positive light, as well as portraying the nutjobs in the Democratic Party.
And I hate to tell you, but as far as pomp and circumstance goes, the Republican Convention isn't any better; the Democrats just have better celebrities at ours.
And Jimmy Smits' speech was good. :P
Post a Comment