The West Wing Live Debate 11/6/5

[Pangloss]

I thought you might find this interesting for a couple of reasons.

 

"The West Wing" is an American television show, which comes on the NBC network on Sunday nights. It's several seasons into its run. Martin Sheen plays a Democratic president, and I've always found the show interesting because of the way it attempts to portray the job and the office as realistically as possible. They discuss real politics, real political choices, real ethics and morality, and they look at real consequences.

 

Just to give a brief example of this, the president is a "liberal Democrat", but he's often forced to act in "conservative" ways, such as with situations requiring military action, social compromises, and so forth. Often the show conceeds intelligent points of view and valid reasoning from the right side of the aisle, treating those opinions and solutions with respect and fairness, even though the "current president" is a Democrat.

 

 

OK, so getting to the point: Next week they're going to do the show LIVE. The reason why they're doing it live, however, requires a bit of explanation, which will bring me to why I mention it here.

 

 

Over the past season and the current season, about 50% of the storyline of the show has been about who will succeed President Bartlet as the next POTUS. Last season they went through the primaries, and now they're coming up to the election. The two candidates are played by Jimmy Smits (the Democrat) and Alan Alda (the Republican).

 

Now what you would THINK would be the case, following standard Hollywood trends and the fact that the show has always been about a Democrat, is that the Republican would be portrayed as a sinister, evil type, as has happened in so many movies in recent years, right? And the Democrat would be a picture of perfection, attacked mercilessly by those evil Republicans, and so forth.

 

Ah, but you'd be wrong. In fact the whole campaign has turned into a fascinating study in role reversal. And the writers have left us with no stereotype-based clues as to who will win! It's quite fascinating.

 

Just to give an example, on the subject of abortion, the Republican is pro-choice, and the Democrat is pro-life! Impossible, you say? Not at all! The Democrat is a latino, from a catholic family. And the Republican is a moderate, standing on a pro-choice voting record. Such examples exist in our current society already, and it's not hard at all to see how this very situation could arise.

 

 

So in case you haven't guessed, next week's live broadcast will be a *debate* between the two candidates. Pretty clever, eh? They're supposedly going to run the episode exactly like a real presidential debate, except that both candidates have insisted on a "no rules" debate (so in a sense it won't be like a real presidential debate at all). And the show itself really will be live, so the actors could flub their lines and so forth -- just like politicians often do.

 

It should be quite fascinating, and an interesting study in politics. Check it out if you can. It's Sunday night on NBC at 8pm Eastern time. (Those of you living outside the US will have to check your schedules, or perhaps wait for the DVD.)

[john5746]

Sorry, its bad enough to watch a real debate!

[Douglas]

Just to give an example' date=' on the subject of abortion, the Republican is pro-choice, and the Democrat is pro-life! [b']Impossible, you say? [/b] Not at all! The Democrat is a latino, from a catholic family. And the Republican is a moderate, standing on a pro-choice voting record. Such examples exist in our current society already, and it's not hard at all to see how this very situation could arise.

I've never watched "west wing"......but

 

I guess I can understand a moderate pro-choice Republican getting the lead role on the ticket, but I seriously doubt you'd ever see a pro-life Democrat on a ticket. After all, Kerry had to announce he was a pro partial birth abortionist to secure his far left base.

[Pangloss]

Actually we've already had a pro-life Democratic presidential candidate. He won 3.5 million votes and five states in the primaries in 1984, and 6.9 million votes and 11 primaries in 1988. (See if you can guess who it was before you click this link.) Is it really THAT much of a stretch to envision one reaching the final ballot?

 

That's the funny thing about "big tent" politics (and the American two-party system). Just when you think you know exactly what a "Democrat" or a "Republican" is, they bonk you on the head and remind you that there are a LOT of issues before us, and every individual's take on each individual issue is different.

[Douglas]

Ok, Ok, Pangloss, you got me on that one, but reinforced my argument. That was '84, this is '05. Even the famous Jesse Jackson, baptist minister et al, had to switch to pro abortion in order to maintain some sort of status with the mainstream dems.

 

Anyway, Alda will probably win the election.

[Pangloss]

Well that's a fair point about changing times. A lot of people have, for example, made the point that the post-Reagan Republican party is vastly different from the Nixon-era Republican party (Nixon having created the EPA, ended Vietnam, etc).

 

One thing that the Miers nomination has suggested to me is that "the base" is a more powerful influence than I had previously calculated. The West Wing is also contributing to my understanding of the value of "the base". I tend to say things like "well who else are they going to vote for", but in fact they do have plenty of sway with their candidates.

[Phi for All]

Not being a big TV watcher, I didn't discover West Wing until late in its second season. By then I felt I'd lost too much of the storyline to be able to pick it up but the few episodes I caught were excellent!

 

You can imagine my joy when I took my daughter trick-or-treating this Halloween at my brother's house and he handed me the first two seasons on DVD! We're still in a Firefly phase but will start watching when we finish the last of Firefly (again).

 

I'll definitely tape Sunday's episode of West Wing. Thanks!

[Douglas]

One thing that the Miers nomination has suggested to me is that "the base[/b']" is a more powerful influence than I had previously calculated.

Not meaning to change the subject, but it's interesting about "the base". Some democrats refer to the republican base as the "religious right", but in the case of the Miers nomination, part of the "religious right" endorsed Miers (James Dobson for example). The bulk of the Miers opposition seemed to have come from the mainstream conservatives.

[Pangloss]

It's an interesting point. There is a significant Republican base that has no basis in religion whatsoever. It just hasn't been as prominent in recent years, either in MSM reportage or in reality.

[Douglas]

It's an interesting point. There is a significant Republican base that has no basis in religion whatsoever. It just hasn't been as prominent in recent years, either in MSM reportage or in reality.

I'd be guessing that the MSM likes to portray the republican base as religious lunatics.

 

Of all the conservatives pundits I know in talk radio, only Alan Keyes and perhaps Bob Dornan could be considered "religious right".

[Pangloss]

It's not just the MSM in that case, though. The religious right has definitely become more energized and active entirely on its own, and has come to dominate Republican politics. It's not a false representation by the media -- it's a solid reality. The MSM is pumping the case a bit to sell papers, but it's still a real phenom.

 

Both extremes have become incredibly energized. IIRC, John Kerry received more votes in 2004 than all but two people in all of American voting history -- Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. It seems pretty clear that the religious right is a potent force.