"What's Next?
April 21, 2017 2:01 PM Subscribe
How liberals fell in love with The West Wing.
The article is not inaccurate, but also not helpful.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:37 PM on April 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by blue_beetle at 2:37 PM on April 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
I found that boring and badly written, to the point that I finally gave up even skimming. But if you like this snippet, you may well like the whole thing:
The administration and its staff are invariably depicted as tribunes of the serious and the mature, their ideological malleability taken to signify their virtue more than any fealty to specific liberal principles.posted by languagehat at 2:40 PM on April 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
Even when the show ventures to criticize the institutions of American democracy, it never retreats from a foundational reverence for their supposed enlightenment and the essential nobility of most of the people who administer them.
This reminds me a lot of the MTV News piece about Liberal Fan Fiction and its dangers, but with a singular focus on the West Wing.
posted by sleeping bear at 2:41 PM on April 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by sleeping bear at 2:41 PM on April 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
This reminds me a lot of the MTV News piece about Liberal Fan Fiction and its dangers, but with a singular focus on the West Wing.
Kweku has been particularly vocal on twitter about this kind of thing. He has alluded to it being a uniquely woke white liberal phenomenon.
posted by R.F.Simpson at 2:47 PM on April 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
Kweku has been particularly vocal on twitter about this kind of thing. He has alluded to it being a uniquely woke white liberal phenomenon.
posted by R.F.Simpson at 2:47 PM on April 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
Chapo just did a West Wing episode, fun one (subscriber only though).
posted by grobstein at 2:59 PM on April 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by grobstein at 2:59 PM on April 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
Chapo?
posted by jacquilynne at 3:09 PM on April 21, 2017
posted by jacquilynne at 3:09 PM on April 21, 2017
I found that boring and badly written, to the point that I finally gave up even skimming.
Me too.
While I always loved the leftie-ness of The West Wing, it was Sorkin's text that I loved the most. When the good guys shut down the bad guys, it was always with Sorkin's zingers. I could watch forever.
But yeah, the article stinks-on-ice.
posted by dfm500 at 3:09 PM on April 21, 2017
Me too.
While I always loved the leftie-ness of The West Wing, it was Sorkin's text that I loved the most. When the good guys shut down the bad guys, it was always with Sorkin's zingers. I could watch forever.
But yeah, the article stinks-on-ice.
posted by dfm500 at 3:09 PM on April 21, 2017
By Internet standards, the best take-down of the West Wing I've ever seen is positively prehistoric:
"The West Wing, in other words, plies a resolutely insular, therapeutic vision of presidential politics, one that often renders policymaking indistinguishable from the conduct of an encounter group. Indeed, in the thickets of controversy that crop up in the Bartlet Administration, the strongest objection to a policy or a decision to overstep protocol is usually that it doesn't feel right. And when the members of Team Bartlet chart a new policy course, it is because they agree that it suits the perceived national mood or because it springs (in the grand tradition of TV serials) from a profound personal experience. If one of the sixties' most enduring—if dubious—notions is that the personal is political, The West Wing operates from the converse: the political is, above all, personal."
posted by belarius at 3:18 PM on April 21, 2017 [12 favorites]
"The West Wing, in other words, plies a resolutely insular, therapeutic vision of presidential politics, one that often renders policymaking indistinguishable from the conduct of an encounter group. Indeed, in the thickets of controversy that crop up in the Bartlet Administration, the strongest objection to a policy or a decision to overstep protocol is usually that it doesn't feel right. And when the members of Team Bartlet chart a new policy course, it is because they agree that it suits the perceived national mood or because it springs (in the grand tradition of TV serials) from a profound personal experience. If one of the sixties' most enduring—if dubious—notions is that the personal is political, The West Wing operates from the converse: the political is, above all, personal."
posted by belarius at 3:18 PM on April 21, 2017 [12 favorites]
This essay is super-frustrating, because I think there is a really good point in there:
But it's buried under so much needless snark and posturing that it's almost impossible to unearth. It takes literally 18 paragraphs to get to this passage, which seems to contain the central thesis. And even then, you have to read pretty closely to see what he's actually trying to say, which is that the West Wing is dangerous as political propaganda because it espouses a worldview in which being "reasonable" and pragmatic and "reaching across the aisle" is more important than passing policy that does things liberals supposedly believe in, like raising people out of poverty or protecting the environment.
This is indeed a common worldview among the Democratic technocratic elite (I spent half a decade in or adjacent to that world, so I know it well) and I think it is a huge problem in terms of the Democrats' ability to govern effectively in our current political climate. But you'd have to be pretty dogged to get through 18 paragraphs of the author being a very Clever Boy (hilariously, in much of the way he criticized Sorkin for) to get to that point.
posted by lunasol at 3:19 PM on April 21, 2017 [22 favorites]
The lack of any serious attempts to change anything reflect a certain apolitical tendency in this type of politics, one that defines itself by its manner and attitude rather than a vision of the change it wishes to see in the world. Insofar as there is an identifiable ideology, it isn’t one definitively wedded to a particular program of reform, but instead to a particular aesthetic of political institutions. The business of leveraging democracy for any specific purpose comes second to how its institutional liturgy and processes look and, more importantly, how they make us feel—virtue being attached more to posture and affect than to any particular goal. Echoing Sorkin’s 1995 film The American President (in many ways the progenitor of The West Wing) it delights in invoking “seriousness” and the supposedly hard-headed pragmatism of grownups ... The administration and its staff are invariably depicted as tribunes of the serious and the mature, their ideological malleability taken to signify their virtue more than any fealty to specific liberal principles. (emphasis mine)
But it's buried under so much needless snark and posturing that it's almost impossible to unearth. It takes literally 18 paragraphs to get to this passage, which seems to contain the central thesis. And even then, you have to read pretty closely to see what he's actually trying to say, which is that the West Wing is dangerous as political propaganda because it espouses a worldview in which being "reasonable" and pragmatic and "reaching across the aisle" is more important than passing policy that does things liberals supposedly believe in, like raising people out of poverty or protecting the environment.
This is indeed a common worldview among the Democratic technocratic elite (I spent half a decade in or adjacent to that world, so I know it well) and I think it is a huge problem in terms of the Democrats' ability to govern effectively in our current political climate. But you'd have to be pretty dogged to get through 18 paragraphs of the author being a very Clever Boy (hilariously, in much of the way he criticized Sorkin for) to get to that point.
posted by lunasol at 3:19 PM on April 21, 2017 [22 favorites]
good guys shut down the bad guys,
The sorkin fantasy that bad guys can be shut down with argumentation bled over into real life Democratic politics and should have been abandoned the day Trump won.
posted by R.F.Simpson at 3:22 PM on April 21, 2017 [37 favorites]
The sorkin fantasy that bad guys can be shut down with argumentation bled over into real life Democratic politics and should have been abandoned the day Trump won.
posted by R.F.Simpson at 3:22 PM on April 21, 2017 [37 favorites]
Let's walk and talk.
posted by Artw at 3:31 PM on April 21, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by Artw at 3:31 PM on April 21, 2017 [8 favorites]
There is much that is original and much that is good, but what is good is not original and what is original is not good.
posted by PMdixon at 3:38 PM on April 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by PMdixon at 3:38 PM on April 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
Author dislikes smug neoliberalism, tries to make ice cold take relevant by connecting it to current events.
I agree that parts are not inaccurate, but I think the article is missing one of the key themes of the show: people coming together to be a part of something and make something. The theme summed up well by a monologue from another Sorkin show, Sports Night (video):
The point here is that The West Wing was a show about people who say "I want to be a part of this." It separated characters not by whether they were smug or not-smug, as the author claims, but by whether they were interested in building things up or tearing each other down (and yes, I am shamelessly falling into the second camp in posting this comment). Most of the dramatic tension in the first few seasons comes not from policy debates, but from clashes between these two ideologies, both between different characters who represent opposite sides of the divide, and within characters who exhibit a bit of both. A good chunk of the show is wrestling with the desire to win vs. the desire to do the right thing and looking at the places where the two approaches conflict.
And the context of the time is important to this theme. This is a show that first aired in 1999. It's easy to forget now, but this divide was meant to be seen through the lens of the Clinton impeachment. You had a second term Clinton White House that was willing to compromise on all sorts of things the left held dear in the name of technocratic neoliberalism, and a Republican Congress who instead of taking them up on the offer, decided to torch the place.
Now, the point where the show sometimes falls flat is that it likes to fall back on an undying technocratic optimism that getting a bunch of serious smart grown-ups with the best of intentions together in a room will always result in the best outcome, that we all ought to just set ideology aside and the right answers will prevail. Which, you know, sounds a bit like how we ended up in Vietnam. It doesn't always work that way. But it's also a little disingenuous to blame the show for emphasizing "intelligence over ideology" when the usual complaint against the show is that it has too much ideological preachiness.
Could the show have reached higher in its policy ambitions? Sure. If it's a work of fiction anyway, why can't we write ourselves universal healthcare and free college (not, as the show did, tax deductible college, which is a plan so useless to lower income families that only the likes of Rand Paul would support anything like it today)? But if that's your complaint, then you're forgetting the show's model: the Clinton White House. I suspect that your real problem in this case isn't with the show, it's with the DLC and the Clinton Administration and Newt Gingrich and the general failure to adopt leftist policies in the 90s. And that's fine, I have complaints about all those things too, but you're asking for a different reality, not a different show. When the author blames the show's administration for failing to achieve "any transformational policy achievements whatsoever," he's pretty clearly just blaming Bill Clinton. And insofar as your reality maps on to the show in that case, it appears to have all the dramatic tension of an imaginary Democratic Socialist paradise, which is to say none. "What if we had a show where a bunch of Jacobin writers ran the White House, wanted us to have universal health care, and then we all got universal health care, and then everybody was happy" is not a good model for a successful TV show; this premise inherently lacks conflict.
In short, if you want to be angry at someone for the fact that Democrats in the 90s were into technocratic bipartisian pragmatism, you should be angry at Bill Clinton, not a TV show. If you're angry that this strain is still part of the Democratic Party, then stop telling us the old way didn't work, and start giving us a new way that works better.
posted by zachlipton at 3:40 PM on April 21, 2017 [37 favorites]
I agree that parts are not inaccurate, but I think the article is missing one of the key themes of the show: people coming together to be a part of something and make something. The theme summed up well by a monologue from another Sorkin show, Sports Night (video):
He invented television. I don't mean he invented television like Uncle Milty. I mean he invented the television in a little house in Provo, Utah, at a time when the idea of transmitting moving pictures through the air would be like me saying I figured out a way to beam us aboard the starship Enterprise.(Note that this isn't, you know, entirely accurate, and the play Sorkin wrote about this is far more inaccurate, but I digress.)
He was a visionary. He died broke and without fanfare. The guy I really like though was his brother-in-law, Cliff Gardner. He said, "Philo, I know everyone things you're crazy, but I want to be a part of this. I don't have your head for science, so I'm not going to be able to help much with the design and mechanics of the invention, but it sounds like you're going to need glass tubes."
You see, Philo was inventing the cathode receptor, and even though Cliff didn't know what that meant or how it worked, he'd seen Philo's drawing, and he knew that he was gonna need glass tubes. And since television hadn't been invented yet, it's not like you could get them at the local TV repair shop. "I want to be a part of this," Cliff said. "I don't have your head for science. How would it be if I were to teach myself to be a glass blower? And I could set up a little shop in the backyard. And I could make all the tubes you'll need for testing." There ought to be Congressional Medals for people like that.
The point here is that The West Wing was a show about people who say "I want to be a part of this." It separated characters not by whether they were smug or not-smug, as the author claims, but by whether they were interested in building things up or tearing each other down (and yes, I am shamelessly falling into the second camp in posting this comment). Most of the dramatic tension in the first few seasons comes not from policy debates, but from clashes between these two ideologies, both between different characters who represent opposite sides of the divide, and within characters who exhibit a bit of both. A good chunk of the show is wrestling with the desire to win vs. the desire to do the right thing and looking at the places where the two approaches conflict.
And the context of the time is important to this theme. This is a show that first aired in 1999. It's easy to forget now, but this divide was meant to be seen through the lens of the Clinton impeachment. You had a second term Clinton White House that was willing to compromise on all sorts of things the left held dear in the name of technocratic neoliberalism, and a Republican Congress who instead of taking them up on the offer, decided to torch the place.
Now, the point where the show sometimes falls flat is that it likes to fall back on an undying technocratic optimism that getting a bunch of serious smart grown-ups with the best of intentions together in a room will always result in the best outcome, that we all ought to just set ideology aside and the right answers will prevail. Which, you know, sounds a bit like how we ended up in Vietnam. It doesn't always work that way. But it's also a little disingenuous to blame the show for emphasizing "intelligence over ideology" when the usual complaint against the show is that it has too much ideological preachiness.
Could the show have reached higher in its policy ambitions? Sure. If it's a work of fiction anyway, why can't we write ourselves universal healthcare and free college (not, as the show did, tax deductible college, which is a plan so useless to lower income families that only the likes of Rand Paul would support anything like it today)? But if that's your complaint, then you're forgetting the show's model: the Clinton White House. I suspect that your real problem in this case isn't with the show, it's with the DLC and the Clinton Administration and Newt Gingrich and the general failure to adopt leftist policies in the 90s. And that's fine, I have complaints about all those things too, but you're asking for a different reality, not a different show. When the author blames the show's administration for failing to achieve "any transformational policy achievements whatsoever," he's pretty clearly just blaming Bill Clinton. And insofar as your reality maps on to the show in that case, it appears to have all the dramatic tension of an imaginary Democratic Socialist paradise, which is to say none. "What if we had a show where a bunch of Jacobin writers ran the White House, wanted us to have universal health care, and then we all got universal health care, and then everybody was happy" is not a good model for a successful TV show; this premise inherently lacks conflict.
In short, if you want to be angry at someone for the fact that Democrats in the 90s were into technocratic bipartisian pragmatism, you should be angry at Bill Clinton, not a TV show. If you're angry that this strain is still part of the Democratic Party, then stop telling us the old way didn't work, and start giving us a new way that works better.
posted by zachlipton at 3:40 PM on April 21, 2017 [37 favorites]
I used to love the West Wing. Then I got a job in government. Now I feel embarrassed for having loved the West Wing. Veep makes me embarrassed for having worked in government.
posted by My Dad at 3:44 PM on April 21, 2017 [14 favorites]
posted by My Dad at 3:44 PM on April 21, 2017 [14 favorites]
. But it's also a little disingenuous to blame the show for emphasizing "intelligence over ideology" when the usual complaint against the show is that it has too much ideological preachiness.
High Broderism is an ideology tho. We've just chosen not to call it such for some reason.
posted by PMdixon at 3:45 PM on April 21, 2017 [7 favorites]
High Broderism is an ideology tho. We've just chosen not to call it such for some reason.
posted by PMdixon at 3:45 PM on April 21, 2017 [7 favorites]
For those who were a bit disappointed in the article, might I suggest you listen to and subscribe to the the West Wing Weekly podcast instead.
It's been an enjoyable trip back, and even though there are parts of the West Wing that have not aged well (the sexism of Josh towards Donna as just one example), it's still a wonderful show that brings out strong feelings for me. It is a fantasy of liberal politics, but I'm ok with that.
posted by Fizz at 3:47 PM on April 21, 2017
It's been an enjoyable trip back, and even though there are parts of the West Wing that have not aged well (the sexism of Josh towards Donna as just one example), it's still a wonderful show that brings out strong feelings for me. It is a fantasy of liberal politics, but I'm ok with that.
posted by Fizz at 3:47 PM on April 21, 2017
When the author blames the show's administration for failing to achieve "any transformational policy achievements whatsoever," he's pretty clearly just blaming Bill Clinton.
In this other piece about (against) "the technocratic fallacy" he does link the origins back to Bill Clinton.
(for Jacobin no less!)
posted by Kabanos at 3:52 PM on April 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
In this other piece about (against) "the technocratic fallacy" he does link the origins back to Bill Clinton.
(for Jacobin no less!)
posted by Kabanos at 3:52 PM on April 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
My thesis is that The West Wing is AU fanfic of Star Trek: The Next Generatiom. (TNG is way better though!)
posted by grobstein at 4:09 PM on April 21, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by grobstein at 4:09 PM on April 21, 2017 [6 favorites]
I think this is a great essay, because it publicly articulates a set of criticisms about the show: I had watched through several seasons of it during college, for me, The West Wing was something totally new, and engaging and engrossing, but also alien and a very white narrative—but that was over a decade ago, and a young person's understanding and awareness and conceptualization of politics changes over that amount of time. Looking back, The West Wing was not a medium that offered substance in the way of a political education relative to all the other ways you could learn about politics, crucially because it is an instance of the problematization of how overtly-political TV shows (c.f. The Daily Show or The Colbert Report as contemporary instances) lay claim to, or are socially accorded, political legitimacy without a deeper analysis and critique of their political "neutrality" in the medium and the inconsistencies that creates.
The counterargument that The West Wing has certain value today because it had an idealist narrative like Star Trek ("people getting together to make a difference") is a weak one for the same basic reason.
And again, it is possible to have thoroughly enjoyed a thing, but also look back on it and recognize and be accepting of the limitations of it because it was a product of its era, and you/I/we/authorial have moved on. Nobody is saying not to (re)watch the show. Far from being cold, that's being critically appreciative.
posted by polymodus at 4:10 PM on April 21, 2017 [6 favorites]
The counterargument that The West Wing has certain value today because it had an idealist narrative like Star Trek ("people getting together to make a difference") is a weak one for the same basic reason.
And again, it is possible to have thoroughly enjoyed a thing, but also look back on it and recognize and be accepting of the limitations of it because it was a product of its era, and you/I/we/authorial have moved on. Nobody is saying not to (re)watch the show. Far from being cold, that's being critically appreciative.
posted by polymodus at 4:10 PM on April 21, 2017 [6 favorites]
I don't just take swipes at Jacobin randomly; I at least do my research to try to make sure they're vaguely deserved.
I feel like he really wanted to write that other piece again, but they don't put your article in Current Affairs unless it's more catchy than a recap of who promoted Neoliberalism (ignoring the fact that the term is often simply used to mean "Democratic Party policies I do not like") and why it's bad, so he tried to hook it into the West Wing to give it some pizazz.
And that's fine—I certainly don't object to a good takedown of Neoliberalism—, and there are plenty of worthwhile criticisms of the show that need to be aired (the West Wing Weekly podcast Fizz mentioned is doing some great revisionism in this regard). But I think that casting the show's primary tension as the smug vs. the un-smug is missing the point that it's really supposed to be about the people with a sense of duty vs. the people without one.
Maybe the point is that a sense of duty isn't enough? Maybe it's that the Clinton Administration didn't achieve enough, didn't even try to achieve enough? It's a complaint that's not invalid, but far easier to make when you use the world of a TV show to divorce it from all actual context like what the American people wanted and what Congress was willing to accept.
posted by zachlipton at 4:18 PM on April 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
I feel like he really wanted to write that other piece again, but they don't put your article in Current Affairs unless it's more catchy than a recap of who promoted Neoliberalism (ignoring the fact that the term is often simply used to mean "Democratic Party policies I do not like") and why it's bad, so he tried to hook it into the West Wing to give it some pizazz.
And that's fine—I certainly don't object to a good takedown of Neoliberalism—, and there are plenty of worthwhile criticisms of the show that need to be aired (the West Wing Weekly podcast Fizz mentioned is doing some great revisionism in this regard). But I think that casting the show's primary tension as the smug vs. the un-smug is missing the point that it's really supposed to be about the people with a sense of duty vs. the people without one.
Maybe the point is that a sense of duty isn't enough? Maybe it's that the Clinton Administration didn't achieve enough, didn't even try to achieve enough? It's a complaint that's not invalid, but far easier to make when you use the world of a TV show to divorce it from all actual context like what the American people wanted and what Congress was willing to accept.
posted by zachlipton at 4:18 PM on April 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
I feel like he really wanted to write that other piece again, but they don't put your article in Current Affairs unless it's more catchy
Yeah I'd agree.
And it felt like he had just binge-watched The West Wing for the first time ever and was frustrated that he had missed out participating in flood of think pieces about it 10 years ago. I dunno, maybe he couldn't stand watching enough Madam Secretary to turn it into 3000 words.
posted by Kabanos at 4:30 PM on April 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
Yeah I'd agree.
And it felt like he had just binge-watched The West Wing for the first time ever and was frustrated that he had missed out participating in flood of think pieces about it 10 years ago. I dunno, maybe he couldn't stand watching enough Madam Secretary to turn it into 3000 words.
posted by Kabanos at 4:30 PM on April 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
This guy's writing sucks right out loud.
posted by MissySedai at 4:37 PM on April 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by MissySedai at 4:37 PM on April 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
I went to enough JSA events in high school to tell you that (in the 00s) the sort of people who aspired to be (and some of them became) "wonks" and political operatives fucking loved this show. I think the influence on the worldview of certain political folks from that generation is real. Technocratic liberalism and "both-sides-ism" and D.C. navel-gazing are all older than that though and I feel like at this point The West Wing is a kind of an easy target for lefties to try to outdo each other taking shots at. Lord knows I don't have any objection to entertaining oneself this way but I am a little bored of it personally. There are probably people out there who have not heard the whole spiel yet, and who should, but I feel like they're probably not gonna be reading this one.
posted by atoxyl at 4:41 PM on April 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 4:41 PM on April 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
the sort of people who aspired to be (and some of them became) "wonks" and political operatives fucking loved this show.
It's like saying a lot of wanna-be cops really loved TJ Hooker.
posted by My Dad at 4:50 PM on April 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
It's like saying a lot of wanna-be cops really loved TJ Hooker.
posted by My Dad at 4:50 PM on April 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
(Sports Night was still pretty good, though, right?)
posted by tobascodagama at 5:13 PM on April 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 5:13 PM on April 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
An apolitical show about the whitehouse... A show about late night sketch TV that was orthogonal to comedy... such a wierdly specific talent to make abstract procedurals.
posted by ethansr at 5:29 PM on April 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by ethansr at 5:29 PM on April 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
So how did liberals fall in love with the West Wing?
posted by No One Ever Does at 5:35 PM on April 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by No One Ever Does at 5:35 PM on April 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
Because it panders to our smug, elitist,hypocritical sanctimony and just goes to show how little we know about the real world and we like chardonnay and brie.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 5:45 PM on April 21, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by ActingTheGoat at 5:45 PM on April 21, 2017 [7 favorites]
LBJ was a liberal. Could be quite ugly, though. JFK was more charismatic but he was on track to get nothing of real consequence done (except for saving the world).
Maybe the magic of West Wing is that it combines the two?
There is nothing remotely Clintonian about Bartlett's character.
posted by My Dad at 6:00 PM on April 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
Maybe the magic of West Wing is that it combines the two?
There is nothing remotely Clintonian about Bartlett's character.
posted by My Dad at 6:00 PM on April 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
So how did liberals fall in love with the West Wing?
It's a fantasy world where things are orderly and make sense.
posted by Artw at 6:58 PM on April 21, 2017 [15 favorites]
It's a fantasy world where things are orderly and make sense.
posted by Artw at 6:58 PM on April 21, 2017 [15 favorites]
posted by clockzero at 7:11 PM on April 21, 2017 [8 favorites]
This guy's writing sucks right out loud.
Which bits didn't you like?
posted by Sebmojo at 8:53 PM on April 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
Which bits didn't you like?
posted by Sebmojo at 8:53 PM on April 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
Having read it I'd say it's maybe a little over compressed and fond of its elaborately balanced sentences but not badly written. There's a whiff of troll ('that rap musical people like for some reason') but he's got a clear point and delivers it well enough.
posted by Sebmojo at 9:01 PM on April 21, 2017
posted by Sebmojo at 9:01 PM on April 21, 2017
A whiff of the troll? Parenthically waving away Hamilton as a "rap musical" that people like for "some reason" is full on troll, no explanation needed.
It's not hard to understand why The West Wing is beloved and it's disengenous of the author to pretend like he (I assume the author is a he) is some genius who exposed supposedly deep dark reasons why the show is so enduring. The West Wing is a feel good show about politics and politics in real life makes us all feel
shitty and dirty. That truth can fit in a tweet and this smug asshole can fuck right off for wasting so many words pretending it's anything more meaningful than that.
People across the political spectrum are watching in horror as the Trump presidency pushes through policies to gut the threadbare social safety net, and this guy is wasting time taking cheap shots at liberals. What a waste of a human being.
Seconding the West Wing Weekly as an alternative to TFA. It has been a delightful surprise to hear the thoughtful acknowledgment of the ways the show falls flat, like the aforementioned sexism, without taking away from what the show did get right.
posted by the thorn bushes have roses at 12:03 AM on April 22, 2017 [6 favorites]
It's not hard to understand why The West Wing is beloved and it's disengenous of the author to pretend like he (I assume the author is a he) is some genius who exposed supposedly deep dark reasons why the show is so enduring. The West Wing is a feel good show about politics and politics in real life makes us all feel
shitty and dirty. That truth can fit in a tweet and this smug asshole can fuck right off for wasting so many words pretending it's anything more meaningful than that.
People across the political spectrum are watching in horror as the Trump presidency pushes through policies to gut the threadbare social safety net, and this guy is wasting time taking cheap shots at liberals. What a waste of a human being.
Seconding the West Wing Weekly as an alternative to TFA. It has been a delightful surprise to hear the thoughtful acknowledgment of the ways the show falls flat, like the aforementioned sexism, without taking away from what the show did get right.
posted by the thorn bushes have roses at 12:03 AM on April 22, 2017 [6 favorites]
The West Wing is a feel good show about politics and politics in real life makes us all feel
shitty and dirty.
which is why I guess I've never seen a single episode. For me, it just felt immensely wrong. Quality TV about a genuinely good President while the reality was pretty much the polar opposite (remember when GWB was the Worst President Ever?) If they'd classified it (and hyped it) as Fantasy, maybe I would've watched. But as it was, it just felt wrong, not deceptive so much as desperate.
posted by philip-random at 12:41 AM on April 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
shitty and dirty.
which is why I guess I've never seen a single episode. For me, it just felt immensely wrong. Quality TV about a genuinely good President while the reality was pretty much the polar opposite (remember when GWB was the Worst President Ever?) If they'd classified it (and hyped it) as Fantasy, maybe I would've watched. But as it was, it just felt wrong, not deceptive so much as desperate.
posted by philip-random at 12:41 AM on April 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Quality TV about a genuinely good President while the reality was pretty much the polar opposite (remember when GWB was the Worst President Ever?)
Bush was elected during TWW's second season, just for the record.
posted by Etrigan at 4:54 AM on April 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Bush was elected during TWW's second season, just for the record.
posted by Etrigan at 4:54 AM on April 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Never mind this bullshit essay, let's get to the important stuff: Why did they mangle Toby's final plotline so terribly? A secret military spaceshuttle that his brother was on? That just screams the writer's room got terribly drunk and wasted at the Christmas party and had a terrible idea that no one wanted to take responsibility for.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:08 AM on April 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:08 AM on April 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
I never got that far and now am intrigued and want to know more.
posted by Artw at 6:14 AM on April 22, 2017
posted by Artw at 6:14 AM on April 22, 2017
Toby's bro was on a space shuttle that developed problems. There was no fix and the crew was going to die in orbit. So Toby leaked tgat there was another, secret, space shuttle used by the military. Once that became public knowledge then the super secret military shuttle HAD to go up and save Toby's bro and the others.
Jeb was not pleased about this at all, Toby eventually wound up in prison, but Jeb commuted his sentence on the way out the door.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:20 AM on April 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Jeb was not pleased about this at all, Toby eventually wound up in prison, but Jeb commuted his sentence on the way out the door.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:20 AM on April 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
whoops, I got the storyline slightly wrong, here's the full scoop via Wikipedia:
In the episode "Things Fall Apart," the International Space Station develops a critical oxygen leak. With no civilian shuttles available to perform a rescue mission in time, a three-person crew finds itself trapped aboard the ISS. While the President contemplates rescue options, C.J. becomes aware of the possibility that a secret military space shuttle could be prepared in time to rescue the crew. However, this would involve revealing the shuttle's existence, particularly as one of the ISS crew is a Russian military officer. C.J. shares her speculation with several senior White House staff, including Toby. The information is leaked to Greg Brock, a reporter for The New York Times which triggers a full-scale investigation.posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:25 AM on April 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
In the episode "Here Today", Toby admits to C.J. that he leaked the classified information, which estranges the two. He knew that if the military shuttle's existence became public knowledge, the public would demand the safe return of the astronauts, which is what ultimately occurred. It is implied that his actions are related to the recent suicide of his brother. White House Counsel Oliver Babish debriefs Toby until his lawyer ends the interview. Toby reveals that he discussed the possible existence of the shuttle with C.J., but does not state that C.J. initiated the conversation. Toby offers his resignation to Bartlet, but Bartlet does not accept the resignation because he must dismiss Toby "for cause". Babish waits with Toby before he is escorted out of the White House, saying that someone should at least thank Toby for his years of service and wait with him to soften the blow.
Toby attends Leo McGarry's funeral, but sits in the back of the church to avoid press coverage. He is similarly unable to attend Leo's burial at Arlington National Cemetery because of the press circus his attendance would cause. Later C.J. is at an impasse about what to do after the administration's time ends and visits Toby. The two have a heartfelt reconciliation, with Toby advising her to take a leap of faith when C.J. finds herself at a personal and professional crossroad. Despite strong mixed emotions, Bartlet's final official act as President is to pardon Toby and thus spare him from having to serve his prison sentence. In the episode "The Ticket", a flash forward reveals that, at the time of the dedication of Bartlet's presidential library three years later, Toby has been teaching at Columbia University. Toby has been invited to the dedication by Bartlet and it appears they have moved on from the shuttle leak incident with Toby quietly offering to help Bartlet write his speech for the dedication.
Well, I dunno about all of that but I still follow Josh Lyman on twitter.
posted by janey47 at 6:54 AM on April 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by janey47 at 6:54 AM on April 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
People across the political spectrum are watching in horror as the Trump presidency pushes through policies to gut the threadbare social safety net, and this guy is wasting time taking cheap shots at liberals. What a waste of a human being.
yes he is an other and should be shunned, concur
posted by Sebmojo at 7:45 AM on April 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
yes he is an other and should be shunned, concur
posted by Sebmojo at 7:45 AM on April 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
Bush was elected during TWW's second season, just for the record.
and let me guess, the ratings improved ...
not by a lot, but they did go up for a while once Bush was elected.
just for the record
posted by philip-random at 9:03 AM on April 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
and let me guess, the ratings improved ...
not by a lot, but they did go up for a while once Bush was elected.
just for the record
posted by philip-random at 9:03 AM on April 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Never mind this bullshit essay, let's get to the important stuff: Why did they mangle Toby's final plotline so terribly?
Ugh, yes, that plotline was the worst. I don't know if they felt like they needed some white house drama to balance out the campaign stuff or what, but it was awful. A betrayal of a character I always loved, not to mention it just seemed so glaringly out of character for everyone. I mean, I know Toby was often at odds with others on the staff, but still.
I consider it the biggest mistake of the post-Sorkin West Wing era, although there were a couple others that also stand out. Like, CJ, the press secretary, being chosen as chief of staff over Josh, the obvious successor to Leo. It made no sense to me, as much as I like CJ. It seemed pretty clear that they just wanted a way to shove Josh out the door so he could do the whole campaign thing.
Also, just before that, when Leo and Bartlett get in that huge fight and Bartlett fires Leo (or maybe Leo resigns? It's been a while since I watched that episode because I hated it). That was another very out of character moment that just reeked of "we need drama and we already used up our shooting/bombing/kidnap the President's daughter storylines".
posted by litera scripta manet at 11:52 AM on April 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
Ugh, yes, that plotline was the worst. I don't know if they felt like they needed some white house drama to balance out the campaign stuff or what, but it was awful. A betrayal of a character I always loved, not to mention it just seemed so glaringly out of character for everyone. I mean, I know Toby was often at odds with others on the staff, but still.
I consider it the biggest mistake of the post-Sorkin West Wing era, although there were a couple others that also stand out. Like, CJ, the press secretary, being chosen as chief of staff over Josh, the obvious successor to Leo. It made no sense to me, as much as I like CJ. It seemed pretty clear that they just wanted a way to shove Josh out the door so he could do the whole campaign thing.
Also, just before that, when Leo and Bartlett get in that huge fight and Bartlett fires Leo (or maybe Leo resigns? It's been a while since I watched that episode because I hated it). That was another very out of character moment that just reeked of "we need drama and we already used up our shooting/bombing/kidnap the President's daughter storylines".
posted by litera scripta manet at 11:52 AM on April 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
I used to love the West Wing. Then I got a job in government. Now I feel embarrassed for having loved the West Wing. Veep makes me embarrassed for having worked in government.
posted by My Dad at 3:44 PM on April 21
I had been working for the City of Chicago for several years when the series debuted. A couple of years after that, I was working on a State funded project that was a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money masquerading as a process to ensure community input into economic development policy (it did no such thing). By the time the series ended, I had learned that I wasn't cut out for government work. (I would like to say that I simply refused to deal with the inherent dishonesty and game playing involved in politics. Fact is, I just sucked at that aspect of the work.) Despite the glaring contrast between the show and real life, I watched West Wing as if it were my second job.
Nonetheless, I cringed when I read your comment re being embarrassed for having loved West Wing. After all, it wasn't a show about how government works, it was an idealized version of how government should work. One shouldn't be embarrassed for loving a hypothetical world where the President is an actual scholar (admittedly, I could have done without his religion), a career in "public service" is seen as an honorable calling, and White House staff argues in favor of a foreign aid initiative because "we" (the US) don't turn our backs on those in need.
I actually wrote "Who wouldn't want this?" About then I remembered that 70% of my county supported Trump and I now I'm embarrassed for thinking that the show depicted some universal ideal
And I'm also wondering what their version of West Wing would look like.
posted by she's not there at 12:23 PM on April 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by My Dad at 3:44 PM on April 21
I had been working for the City of Chicago for several years when the series debuted. A couple of years after that, I was working on a State funded project that was a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money masquerading as a process to ensure community input into economic development policy (it did no such thing). By the time the series ended, I had learned that I wasn't cut out for government work. (I would like to say that I simply refused to deal with the inherent dishonesty and game playing involved in politics. Fact is, I just sucked at that aspect of the work.) Despite the glaring contrast between the show and real life, I watched West Wing as if it were my second job.
Nonetheless, I cringed when I read your comment re being embarrassed for having loved West Wing. After all, it wasn't a show about how government works, it was an idealized version of how government should work. One shouldn't be embarrassed for loving a hypothetical world where the President is an actual scholar (admittedly, I could have done without his religion), a career in "public service" is seen as an honorable calling, and White House staff argues in favor of a foreign aid initiative because "we" (the US) don't turn our backs on those in need.
I actually wrote "Who wouldn't want this?" About then I remembered that 70% of my county supported Trump and I now I'm embarrassed for thinking that the show depicted some universal ideal
And I'm also wondering what their version of West Wing would look like.
posted by she's not there at 12:23 PM on April 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
President Bartlett wandering around an empty White House at night in his bathrobe, unable to turn on the lights and afraid of the stairs.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 12:49 PM on April 22, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by ActingTheGoat at 12:49 PM on April 22, 2017 [6 favorites]
And I'm also wondering what their version of West Wing would look like.
probably something like this
posted by philip-random at 2:25 PM on April 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
probably something like this
posted by philip-random at 2:25 PM on April 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
I love fantasy novels, but I hate stories that fantasize. I love romance, but I hate romance novels. We tell each other stories to examine what is true, or what might with some work become true. These stories can involve dragons, FTL travel, sentient AI ... but they can't involve Republicans and Democrats, as they exist in our recent timeline, coming together to hash out a sensible policy for the good of us all. Because that's not true. The best we could ever do is by whipping and horsetrading, and the livestock market is pretty much broken down in the current atmosphere of mutual loathing.
posted by Countess Elena at 2:33 PM on April 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by Countess Elena at 2:33 PM on April 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
the sort of people who aspired to be (and some of them became) "wonks" and political operatives fucking loved this show.
It's like saying a lot of wanna-be cops really loved TJ Hooker.
I'm late to this thread, but I once had occasion to visit Jack Layton's home in Toronto. He and Olivia had the entire collection of West Wing DVDs stacked close to the TV.
posted by sevenyearlurk at 6:26 PM on April 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
It's like saying a lot of wanna-be cops really loved TJ Hooker.
I'm late to this thread, but I once had occasion to visit Jack Layton's home in Toronto. He and Olivia had the entire collection of West Wing DVDs stacked close to the TV.
posted by sevenyearlurk at 6:26 PM on April 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
« Older All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm Ready for My Nose Up | Choate Rosemary Hall Discloses Decades of Sexual... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
May I suggest "Luke Savage is super surprised to discover that The West Wing was not a Reality Show"?
posted by jacquilynne at 2:33 PM on April 21, 2017 [10 favorites]