October 1, 2003

For those who have been watching the West Wing, I have a thought on the plot progression. I have been thinking about it over the summer (off and on) and puzzled over the idea of why they would have had the President face a giant crisis and invoke a constitutional chain of command. In the show, the President took the high road and turned over the presidency to deal with his own crisis and put the country above his own personal needs.

Then it dawned on me. In the show, President Bartlett's cool headed, literate, and highly moral approach to the job gave way to a little glimpse of the anti-Bartlett. The anti-Bartlett bombs almost indiscriminately and obviously sees violence as a solution. The country sees that taking the high road with regards to the Presidency is not always in our best interest (though in the show, the Republican successor is not completely evil).

Where have we seen all this before. The show mimics the Florida recount when Al Gore put the country above his own personal needs. Or he did the math and didn't think he could win. Either way, he demonstrated restraint--restraint in the face of an opposition who pulled out every big gun, including violating their own principles regarding state's rights to do so.

And what kind of crisis did we endure? 9-11. And the response to it? Bomb everything in site. Invade Afghanistan and then watch as the Taliban returns. Then what? Invade Iraq (who the VP is still claiming was involved in 9-11: despite every intelligence report) and now see the problems with those assumptions about violence. And during all of this, the administration uses the cover of a major crisis to pursue a radical agenda. Anti-abortion, anti-environmental, anti-labor, worker safety, etc.

So, the show gave us a glimpse of a president in the midst of a nightmare--a nightmare that includes a right wing president. In the show, the people wake up to the resolution of the nightmare gone. Unfortunately, we wake up with this administration.

No comments: