Back in the “West Wing” episode “A Proportional Response,” Leo and Bartlet have a blistering confrontation over the proper use of armed military might by the lone remaining superpower trying to maintain a degree of conscience. It’s a fascinating sequence, especially in light of Bush’s actions several years later. When Leo presents certain actions as essentially the worst thing someone in power can do, and then you realize Bush did it, it’s sobering to say the least.
In the second season, “In the Shadow of Two Gunmen,” the director of the NSA states–after a shooting incident involving the President–that they do not know the whereabouts of several key terrorist leaders, “including bin Laden.” This was a reference that meant nothing to most viewers (including me) because it was pre-9/11.
And now, in the current ramrodding down the nation’s throat of John Roberts, I am moved to remember the first season episode “The Short List” wherein Bartlet is looking to fill a slot on the Supreme Court. The initial prospect, played by Ken Howard, seems good to go…until it’s discovered that he does not believe that the right to privacy is a fundamental right of American society. The INSTANT that they determine that, Bartlet and his people show him the door because, to them, the right to privacy is such a given, such a necessity, such an obvious and basic right for any number of reasons–not just abortion, but mandatory drug testing, illegal search and seizure, internet activity–that putting Howard’s character on the bench is simply unthinkable.
Funny how the real life administration is 180 degrees from that, embracing a candidate who does NOT believe in the constitutional right to privacy…a belief that would nicely erode everything that bothers the Bushies, ranging from legal abortion to protections from the intrusiveness of the Patriot act.
Every single place where, on the “West Wing,” the Bartlet administration–an administration of conscience–zigs, Bush’s administration zags. I just find that interesting.
I wonder if the next real-life election will involve a youthful Hispanic lawyer/cop going head to head with a likable former surgeon from a MASH unit.
PAD
• 
Bootlegging is the sale of Moonshine.
Actually, “bootlegging” is the smuggling of any regulated product for illicit, unregulated sale. The term comes from the Prohibition-era habit of some purveyors of “bathtub gin” of carrying their product in a hip flask, which could be concealed in the shaft of one boot, next to the leg. It’s also applied to the illegal smuggling and sale of, for instance, illicitly-recorded movies and music (the Grateful Dead fans were notorious for “bootlegging” their concerts). The term was adapted by Larry Niven for the illicit collection and sale of human organs, in a future with reliable anti-rejection drugs – “organlegging”.
Okay, lecture over… 🙂
just curious PAD
if you were writing the west wing
how would the election play out?
would the 5th and 6th sesaon be any different ?
and if you wrote the series finale
how would you end the show ?
Knuckles,
Grew up in the Everett/Lynnwood area, school in Bellingham.
During Prohibition, bootlegging was an art in Seattle (no, I’m not that old) but a lot of people kept up the tradition – especially in the mini Chinatowns all over. We were on the lower end of the economic spectrum, which opened a whole new part of the state…
I’ve heard so many times about the villainization of Republicans on the West Wing. They’ve had one truly villainous Republican that I remember off the top of my head: The Speaker of the House who drove the President into a government shutdown in a stupid dìçk-measuring contest over the budget. Except… OOPS, that really happened.
But the Republicans have been just as nuanced and fleshed-out as the Democrats. Witness:
* When a Democrat tries to wrangle a pile of pork-barrel promises from Our Heroes over his vote on the estate tax, they tell him to take a hike and make their deal with a fiscally conservative, intelligent Republican.
* When Josh and Sam totally bungle the drug investigation of the first season, a Republican tells them exactly how they screwed up, and gives them a lifeline to make a deal and get Leo out of the hearings.
* When a senator plans to sandbag Leo in the hearings over Bartlet’s MS and Leo’s alcoholism, it’s a Republican lawyer who steps in and gets the hearings shut down, choosing honor and dignity over political horror shows.
* As someone has mentioned, they had a positive Republican as a REGULAR, until Emily Proctor got a better offer from CSI. She was the voice for conservatism, and argued Sam to a standstill too often, from my POV. 🙂
* John Goodman took over as a Republican president and managed not to destroy the country. In fact, he concentrated on national security and ensuring continuity of government while Our Heroes fretted about political leverage.
That’s all I can remember off the top of my head. Frankly, the Democratic party apart from Our Heroes gets a worse rap than the Republicans. In the second or third episode, Josh berates a Democratic congressman who is withholding his vote because he hasn’t had enough photo-ops with the president. Every time they do a major speech, some Democrats come storming to the White House with political bûllšhìŧ to throw at them. And then there’s the utter disaster that the various Dem candidates went through, led by the brainless VP.
Sorry, folks. Just don’t see it.
I forget who said it but there are *two* superpowers in the world: the United States and Everyone else…
Many times they represent the conservative side of the argument, but more often they don’t. The Christian group are idiots, anyone who holds to “family values” are portrayed as stupid, drunk or rude. The Florida Governor who ran against Bartlett – apparently a characture of Bush – was as inept as they come. A better opponant would have been welcome – not to mention that the debate responses that Jeb gave were eloquent, but empty…
On the other hand, when they do it right, they do it right. The gay Republican senator comes to mind.
A good show, and believe me, you don’t hear that from me often.
You know, I think West Wing may be more accurate than the news media. The news outlets were predicting New Orleans would have thousands dead (at last count, it is 579), it would be flooded for 6 months (large portions of it are already drained), and that gas would reach as high as $4 a gallon (yesterday gas in Iowa was back down to the $2.49 it was before Katrina).
Iowa Jim
I realized two things about the West Wing/real world divide a while ago. First that just as Jed Bartlett’s administration could be considered the dream liberal presidency then GW Bush’s administration is considered by many conservatives to be the dream conservative presidency. Second that the West Wing could be considered an alternate universe from our’s and, in true Star Trek tradition, one will lead to the “mirrorverse” and one will lead to the Federation. I imagine it is up to each person to decide which one our universe is.
I know that, personally, I’m fairly certain that our’s will be the one to spawn Spock-with-a-beard sometime in the distant future but then my brother calls me a hippie liberal anyway. =D
Haven’t you heard? The PC movement has eliminated BC and AD from the calendars. It’s now BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era). So, marking the calendars in 2000 compared to Christ is now irrelevant.
Well then the entire state of Israel must be overrun by hippie, tree-hugging, PC-spouting liberals.
> “Conservatives are liberals who’ve just been
> mugged. Liberals are conversative who’ve
> just been arrested.”
And a Libertarian is someone who got mugged, called the cops to report it, and got arrested for his trouble.
Well then the entire state of Israel must be overrun by hippie, tree-hugging, PC-spouting liberals.
Yes. God forbid (pun intended) that the scientific community actually try to seperate itself from religious terminology.
First that just as Jed Bartlett’s administration could be considered the dream liberal presidency then GW Bush’s administration is considered by many conservatives to be the dream conservative presidency.
Arrrr, ye scurvy son of a dog! Be ye so knave that ye can’t see that Bush spends doubloons like a man about to walk the plank! Arrrrr! If Bush be the dream conservative presidency, than my name not be Black Tom Kidd. Which it be.
Arrrr!
(This had better be Talk Like A Pirate Day or I be looking pretty stupid by now, methinks. Arrrrrr?)
Yes. God forbid (pun intended) that the scientific community actually try to seperate itself from religious terminology.
Yeah but if you are still saying it’s 2005 CE you are STILL buying into the religious dogma, even if you give it new letters. What happened around the year 0 that made it the common era, as opposed to, say, 1564 or 1643?
It’s like saying “Ok, we’ll say ‘One nation under God’ but “God” means Generator Of Diversity. Ha! THAT’LL show ’em!
Arrrrrrrr!
(This had better be Talk Like A Pirate Day or I be looking pretty stupid by now, methinks. Arrrrrr?)
Bill, Bill, Bill…..you know better than to hand out a straight line like that…..
Arrrr.
GW Bush’s administration is considered by many conservatives to be the dream conservative presidency.
Not hardly. Sky high deficits and an increase in the size/power of the federal government is not something most conservatives want. They want decreased spending, more local government to increase accountability and a strong foreign policy. With Bush only the last has been in sight.
Oh, before I forget: Arrrrrrrrr!
BUSH SUCKS!
Yeah but if you are still saying it’s 2005 CE you are STILL buying into the religious dogma, even if you give it new letters. What happened around the year 0 that made it the common era, as opposed to, say, 1564 or 1643?
You’re not buying into religious dogma, you’re simply recognizing that a sizable percentage use a different reckoning system than you do and for convenience and to avoid confusion, you give it a nod. There’s no obligation to actually believe the dogma to which it’s attached.
Not hardly. Sky high deficits and an increase in the size/power of the federal government is not something most conservatives want. They want decreased spending, more local government to increase accountability and a strong foreign policy. With Bush only the last has been in sight.
And given how badly his bungled out relationships with just about every other nation in the world, his foreign policy isn’t exactly something to be proud off.
What gets lost in these debates is that there are different breeds of conservatives and liberals. Bush, for example, is the wet dream of social conservatives and the anti-science conservatives, the factions that believes stopping abortion and the teaching of evolution are the most important issues of the day. He’s also favored by big business conservatives, since his main philosophy of government is figuring out how to transfer as much taxpayer’s money into the coffers of his corporate buddies.
The main faction in conservative circles that’s disappointed with Bush are the limited government conservatives. Fortunately for the GOP, they’re being hunted to extinction. 🙂
Seriously, if we’ve learned anything in the past tens years, is that if you want to make the GOP the party of big spending, make them the majority party in Congress. If you want to turn the Democrats into deficit hawks, make them the minority party.
And vice versa. It’s just the nature of the beast and when you’re sitting on $3 trillion dollars to spend, it’s easy to justify slipping in a line for a “mere” $221 million for a bridge to nowhere, regardless of what party you belong to.
“Yeah but if you are still saying it’s 2005 CE you are STILL buying into the religious dogma, even if you give it new letters. What happened around the year 0 that made it the common era, as opposed to, say, 1564 or 1643?”
Well, no, not really. Common era simply denotes when the calendar that we are all now using started. And sure, you’re more then welcome to get into a semantic argument about how that all was organized by the Church in Europe, woppity wop, but that isn’t the point. The point is that the Gregorian calendar (a Catholic creation) has been adopted by all nations of the world in common. If this stemmed from a worldwide conversion to christianity, then great. But it didn’t. Now, do all nations use it exclusively? Also no. But most use it for international business, politics, etc. So yes, I’d say ‘common era’ is far more appropriate. Now if you want to rail about it being far too PC, that’s your business. I, however, think you’re being silly if you do.
So am I buying into the religious dogma? Nope. I’m simply accepting that the current calendar is the one we are using, one that has selected an arbitrary Year Zero that happens to land around the time that Christian legend claims that Jesus Christ was born (even if he was born in 3 BCE or something like that). It’s the standard, love it or leave it. I’d use the Iranian calendar or the calendar that the former USSR used, but those aren’t really all that popular these days (even if they are basically the same as the one we are using now).
“Every single place where, on the “West Wing,” the Bartlet administration–an administration of conscience–zigs, Bush’s administration zags.”
And that sums up the difference between democrats and republicans. If Alda’s character were to be elected this season I believe we would see a much more Bush-like administration.
I was thinking last night about “West Wing” and the desire for a real President Bartlet. I think a lot of what makes Bartlet a president we all admire is that we see what an honorable person he is in his daily life. (The Thanksgiving when he gives Charlie the Bartlet faimily knife I still think is the greatest act of his administration.) I would actually like for the powers that be to do a reality show on the next presidential campain. (Either have one show covering both candidates or one for each.) I think that being able to see the true nature of the Presidential hopefuls would be very beneficial and enlightening to the Americain public.
“(This had better be Talk Like A Pirate Day or I be looking pretty stupid by now, methinks. Arrrrrr?)”
Can’t it be both?
“If Alda’s character were to be elected this season I believe we would see a much more Bush-like administration”
Absolutely not. Because Bush’s administration serves the interests of religious extremists in everything from invasion of privacy to making decisions about science based upon religious dogma; whereas Alda’s Arnold Vinnick is a man of fractured faith who has taken all questions about his religious practices off the table (an action that, in real life, would not settle the issue but instead serve as the starting gun for the press to make EVERY question about his religious practices. Then again, “West Wing” has been something of a political fantasy since the beginning, so…)
PAD
I think that being able to see the true nature of the Presidential hopefuls would be very beneficial and enlightening to the Americain public.
Which is exactly why it’ll never happen. Both parties spend far too much time and money creating an image of what they think the American people want in a president to mess it up by letting the American people see what they’re really like in person.
Alan Alda plays a Republican? So if he wins the presidency and WW follows him, it’s a safe bet that conservative views WON’T be shown. While I don’t doubt it would be interesting, I doubt it would be fair…
> I was thinking last night about “West Wing”
> and the desire for a real President Bartlet.
He exists: his name is Howard Dean.
I head Dean give a speech on C-Span in February 2004 which sounded as if Aaron Sorkin had written it…and he was Governor of Vermont vs. Bartlet’s Governor of New Hampshire.
“(This had better be Talk Like A Pirate Day or I be looking pretty stupid by now, methinks. Arrrrrr?)”
Can’t it be both?
Arrrr, just couldn’t resist sticking your mizzenmast up me poopdeck! I’ll Keeh-haul ya for this!
He exists: his name is Howard Dean.
Oh great, now I have to clean coffee off my keyboard…
Speaking of Dean, I’ve been wondering: obviously Hillary Clinton is running (Bill’s appearance this weekend made that clear). Obviously John Kerry is ready for another shot at it. Am I right in thinking that Dean has already taken himself out of the race? I seem to remember something to that effect. Which might be too bad for those who like him because I could imagine a scenario where he benefits from a Kerry/Hillary slugfest.
Not that I don’t fully expect Hillary Clinton to be the next Democratic nominee, because I do and I think that those who have for some reason insisted that she would never get the nod will have some serious crow to eat. Whether or not she will win may well depend on who the Republicans nominate. McCain or Rudy–she loses. Any other Senator or Romney–she wins. Some governor to be named later…we’ll see.
Dean is out for at least the next election. His job as chair of the DNC is to basically hand everyone their balls back. I’d love to think that Kerry and Edwards know better, but sadly, I know better. They will be also-rans in the next cycle, much like Slieperman was in 04.
I don’t find it improbable at all that Hillary would get the nod, I just find it improbable that she’d get elected. She never seemed to engender the same good feeling amongst people that Bill Clinton did. That said, I’d like to see it come down to Wes Clark and Hillary as the final two. I’d love to see who the Democrats vote off the island then…
Ladies & Gentlemen, Mr Lawrence O’Donnell, writer and, sometimes, co-producer of The Left, I mean The West Wing:
http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/breakdown.html
Didn’t Ruth Bader Ginsburg desire to lower the age of sexual consent to…. what was it… twelve? Thirteen?
There’s your absolute right to privacy.