I do not think that the White House depiction in the pilot episode of the West Wing is entirely accurate. It reminds me of
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington in the sense that it is an accurate depiction of government in aesthetic, but not in action. Both Mr. Smith and West Wing involve synthesized action created by the hopes and opinions of the writers of what government should be. I believe that, like Mr. Smith, the pilot episode of The West Wing is a bit idealistic, particularly at the end when Jed (Martin Sheen) plays the daddy role to everyone in the office. If presidents were consistently able to be such perfect heroes, the country's problems would be far less significant. The president created in The West Wing reminds me of the hyper-competent sheriffs that are the protagonists in Western films. They basically have no flaws past that of some sort of cutesy quirk, such as running a bicycle into a tree. In addition, I doubt the problems of the White House officials are as juicy and scandalous as the ones the pilot. If so, they cannot be that consistent. The writers had to make it more entertaining, so they added the prostitute subplot. Franklin D Roosevelt (or was it Theodore Roosevelt?) is often considered a successful president because he was very populist in his policies, often mirroring that of the general population's opinion.
It is impossible for a president to fulfill all of the goals presented during campaigning. Candidates holler lofty goals, such as social healthcare and no more foreign energy dependence. One person alone, however cannot fulfill all of these goals. Whenever change must be brought about, it is best to approach it from the bottom up, meaning with the people. If one person is trying to arrange all of these policies, even with multiple degrees and assistance of advisers, he is bound to estimate wrong on some of them. Also, in such a large system as American government, even the president can not make an enormous difference given the system of checks and balances. This is not to imply that checks and balances are wrong, but that changes should be made through an organized, populist movement. We need candidates that reflect the general population, which is almost impossible due to the corporate allocations given during presidential campaigning. Populist candidates such as Al Gore, John Edwards, and Ron Paul have not done well in elections, therefore the incentive for populist support is low.
Photo acquired from tigersweat.com
I agree that it is very similar to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington in many ways, and unless I am remembering incorrectly, I am pretty sure that there is an episode of the West Wing in which they make a parallel to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I agree with you in the sense that the image of the president is like what we think of when we think of a strong father figure – someone who can figure out problems, and fix just about anything. I also agree with what you say about fulfilling campaign promises. It is nearly impossible for one person to do everything promised during campaign time, especially since during political campaigns, candidates are often trying to one up each other, and win the affections of the public. Also, while the check and balance system does have good intentions, it is very hard to get anything done if not everyone in the system is on the same side. When one or two sectors are run by one party, and another by a different one, it surely makes it very difficult to agree on anything. I agree with you for the most part, and really enjoyed reading your blog this week!
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I have never seen Mr. Smith and I can't agree or disagree with you on that part. However, I do agree in what you said about the pilot and how it depicts a very stereotypical image of the president and the white house. Also, another thing I found really interesting in your blog was the fact that you mentioned the consistent problems shown in the pilot. I don' really understand what you mean. I believe the problems in the white house may be scandalous because they only take on problems that are really important, so, for an issue to get to the white house, it must be really "juicy." I also agree that a populist president is the best type that a country could have, but sometimes, I also believe that for the United States, in this moment of economic turmoil, a successful economist is the best choice to lead the executive branch so he/she can take the US out of this depression and bring it back to an era of stability and peace.
ReplyDelete