What’s Wrong With ‘The West Wing’?
Two decades after the legendary series began, its entanglement with real-world politics is stronger than ever. Why do critics claim it has ‘failed us’?
The West Wing is unarguably beloved. The ensemble political drama has been praised by fans, critics, and politicians alike. Its seven multi-award-winning seasons saw it repeatedly ranked among ‘Best TV of All Time’ lists, and garnered no fewer than 26 Emmy’s, including the award for Outstanding Drama Series every year from 2000–2003.
It was among the first of that bunch of shows that heralded the ‘new era’ of millennial television, bumping the medium up a notch on the low- to high- brow culture scale. When I first watched it, I thought of it as ‘refined comfort watching’ — harmless, captivating television with a dose of probably-unreliable insight.
Harsher critics have called it everything from ‘competence porn’, to a show whose ‘politics are profoundly limited’, to ‘a terrible guide to American democracy’. Since it ended there’s been increasing critique around its legacy, in light of the political turmoil America finds itself in this decade.
The central premise of these arguments is that The West Wing is basically the entertainment arm of everything wrong with center-left politics; a politics which cemented its mediocrity in the 90s, the socially-stagnant space from which The West Wing was born.
How close is this reading? And how influential can The West Wing have really been on today’s political life?
Left of center?
The West Wing’s writers have expressly placed it as a response to the scandals of the Clinton era. These ‘scandals’, of course, will seem fairly tame to us in the post 9/11, post-truth, post-culturally-apocalyptic world.
But at the time, Clinton’s administration appeared ‘plagued’; almost $80 million was spent on the Starr Report— the GOP’s investigation into controversies such as the Whitewater scandal and the Lewinsky case — which made the basis for his impeachment. (The 9/11 Commission, by comparison, cost around $12 million.)
The writers, then, very much saw themselves as pushing a progressive agenda, attempting to move away from the embarrassment and ‘centrism’ of the Clinton era. Writer Eli Attie, who had been a White House aide and speechwriter, said:
“Part of the initial energy of The West Wing when it first went on the air was, imagine if you had a sort of a Clinton administration without the scandals, without the compromises, without the sort of calculus that made it shift to the center when it was politically expedient or politically necessary.”
From their ‘progressive’ Hollywood vantage point, The West Wing creators saw themselves as an edgy yet wholesome force for good. Since the show ended, they have continued playing into that story; all while what constitutes a ‘progressive’ show, industry, and/or candidate in the 2010s has been, at best, unmasked.
The writers, producers, and actors would come to see themselves as significant players in left-wing politics. And they convinced us; as 2020s standards continue to chaotically reform the political landscape, West Wing-ers are still being frequently commissioned to preach.
A West Wing Special to Please, Please Get Rid of Trump
A West Wing Special to Benefit ‘When We All Vote’ premiered on HBO Max on October 15, 2020. The special is a theatrically-staged reimagining of the season 3 episode “Hartsfield’s Landing”, featuring the entire surviving main cast. New segments about voting rights and the importance of voting were written in by showrunner Aaron Sorkin and Attie, as one of many activist attempts to persuade people to vote in the imminent election.
An honourable idea. But you know you’re in trouble when the hottest take on your activism is from ‘iluvbutts247’:
Well-known artists have long been politically outspoken, of course. Recently they’ve ranged from the well-informed and tonally beloved (see: Mark Ruffalo or Killer Mike interviewing Bernie Sanders ahead of the 2016 vote) to the tone-deaf (see: we received the video of you singing in your mansions; thanks, we hate it.)
Most celebrities getting ‘involved’ in politics can be easily dismissed as ‘out of their lane’; butmost of them are not commissioned to do a special, set in the White House and posing as, effectively, politicians, discussing an actual election.
The special isn’t the first time that West Wing alumni have engaged directly with the White House and Democratic campaigns:
Richard Schiff, who played White House Communications Director Toby Ziegler, recently canvassed for Biden’s campaign:
Vox’s take on Schiff’s collaboration was that: “In supporting Joe Biden, Schiff is deliberately playing to those for whom The West Wing represents an ideal for how Washington should operate.”
That ‘ideal’ is the main fuel for critics’ fire.
Rhetoric for Slacktivists
The ‘realism’ of the show comes up time and time again in its praise. Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics, said in WaPo that:
“The one thing The West Wing absolutely nailed was the breakneck pace of life inside the White House. Before entering the government, several of my mentors who had served in the Clinton White House told me explicitly that I should watch The West Wing to prep for the frenetic nature and long hours of life in the Executive Office of the President.”
But realism, as any film studies graduate, writer, or TV nerd knows, is not directly connected to a show being ‘realistic’. Hours of characters sat at desks answering emails, attempting to focus in the third meeting of the day, or taking a dump, would receive no praise at all.
Realism, in this context, usually means that the audience feels a level of authenticity to the subject matter. Perhaps most importantly, this comes in the form of a strong emotional connection to the characters, and — ironically — that the delivery of the episode is correctly paced for each point of the arc. (The ‘realistic’ pacing of our lived lives rarely feels correct. It’s called boredom.)
Pacing is what Sorkin is known for; a legendary playwright and screenwriter, his signature — arguably signed off by The West Wing’s infamous ‘walk and talk’ motif — is quickfire, complex-yet-graspable, witty conversation that continuously re-levels the stakes to wherever they need to be at our current altitude.
This is nothing to be scoffed at, it’s difficult and excellent writing (sometimes; see: The Newsroom). It’s rhetoric.
According to critics, rhetoric so effective that some people have been unable to divorce their engagement with The West Wing’s idealism from their complacency with left-wing action. They’ve gone so far as to say that the show made left-wingers ‘ill-prepared’ for the harsh realities of this decade.
Culture and politics writer Yair Rosenberg describes this in The Atlantic:
“There are few impasses an eloquent appeal cannot solve, and almost no foreign-policy conundrum for which a clever solution cannot be conceived. Outsiders — from the American people and their electoral preferences to foreign leaders and their national interests — play only bit parts in the ensuing drama.”
This is where I feel a conflict. The West Wing clearly has some issues — we’re getting to that — but it’s an overstatement to blame a single show for the political complacency of several demographics, and a nationwide misunderstanding of the President’s role. Granted, for many, the show may be the only (supposed) ‘inside peek’ they have had of how government works.
President Obama himself made the point that being an excellent orator does not ‘get things done’, as Rosenberg describes:
“Such creative liberties add up to a romanticized portrayal which leads viewers to expect more from their elected officials and government than either can reasonably deliver.
In 2008, Obama promised a new era of post-partisan politics. In 2012, humbled by congressional gridlock, an ailing economy, and unrest abroad, he repudiated “the thinking that the president is somebody who is all-powerful and can get everything done.” Which is to say, what plays well on television doesn’t work so well in Washington.”
None of this is to underestimate the show’s impact. If you’re wondering whether the following quote from Rosenberg is an overstatement:
“Just as it would be ill-advised to attempt to apply the lessons of ER to a patient in your local hospital, it’s not a particularly good idea to model your country on the political picture painted by The West Wing.”
…consider the fact that in 2011, the newly-formed Myanmar government was reported to have been watching DVDs of the show to prepare their democratic processes, and MPs in the UK are reported to have used a tactic from a season 6 episode to sway the result of a bill.
The Democratic party — and socially democratic movements around the world — have failed to capture a broad popular imagination. They have been unable to respond effectively to the growing political, industrial, and cultural monsters in our midst. Clint Worthington at Consequence of Sound calls the show ‘a blanket’, and ‘a dream’:
“the dream of a Josiah “Jed” Bartlet (as played by Martin Sheen) presidency was just that: a dream. In fact, I daresay The West Wing utterly failed to prepare the country for the realities of our modern political system. At its worst, it may have even heralded them.”
The two realities — that the show, and left-wing leadership, both more centrist than they realise, are out of touch — are not necessarily causal, but exist side-by-side as part of the same phenomenon.
Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in the Workplace
The results of this ‘all talk’ issue are tangibly felt, and exposed, in front of and behind the scenes. One of the criticisms levied at The West Wing is the same criticism often levied at progressive movements: for all the talk of equity, diversity, and inclusion, there is little concrete restructuring of power.
The overwhelmingly white, straight, male (etc.) cast of characters was written by an overwhelmingly white, straight, male writing staff, because this was the 90s in an overwhelmingly white, straight, male industry. Again from Vox:
“The 1990s were one of the whitest eras in American television, and though Sorkin initially hoped to lure Sidney Poitier to play the fictional president, the cast in the series’ pilot didn’t include a single actor of color.”
[NB: The pilot didn’t include a single main actor of colour.] Defenders will argue that art is simply reflecting life here, and that’s accurate. But the fact remains that no matter who is imitating whom, this supposedly progressive group of people made a show that did not represent the people to whom they claim to be speaking: those with less power.
Political commentator, lawyer, and former National Press Secretary for Bernie Sanders Briahna Joy Gray wrote an impressive, exhaustive thread about some of the ‘highlights’ of the show’s treatment of race and gender in the first season, beginning here:
I love The West Wing. Of course I do. I’m a white, middle-class lefty type sat in the centre of the echo chamber it’s screening in. This is a show by champagne socialists, for champagne socialists. And it’s backed up by the ratings. An article in Media Life from 2001, bluntly titled Rich Are Different. They Watch ‘West Wing’ reveals:
“The West Wing is the only primetime show on television whose viewers’ average household income is above $70,000.”
$70k in 2001 would be $100k today. Looks like iluvbutts247 was right.
Writer Eli Attie reminds us that “the goal of The West Wing was to entertain people first, second, third, fourth, and fifth.” Of course it was, it was a television show.
So what’s wrong with The West Wing? Its so-called progressive creators, and its so-called progressive audience. It’s a really good, snappy, and yes, profoundly limited show. Let it become your new problematic fave, or not — just don’t let your politics become ‘sitting at home, watching’.