What the Television We Watch Can Tell Us About Our Politics: West Wing versus House of Cards
In 1999, NBC premiered Aaron Sorkin’s new series The West Wing, a television show that follows the life of fictional President Josiah Bartlet and his staff. It was two years before 9/11, and television audiences were enamored by Sorkin’s portrayal of a “utopian” White House. Premiering shortly after the Clinton impeachment, The West Wing debuted during a partisan political climate that split the American electorate. Sorkin’s goal was to humanize the executive branch and combat the cynical beliefs viewers had of politics. He created relatable characters and a President without moral ambiguity, giving audiences an alternative view of public service than what was they saw on the daily news. This optimistic approach definitely became more apparent as the Clinton presidency came to a close and the presidency of George W. Bush began.
Most of The West Wing’s run coincided with the Bush presidency. The turmoil of the Bush years allowed Sorkin to create a “perfect” president. Bush was already vilified in the wake of the contentious 2000 presidential election, and his post-9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq didn’t help his image. Sorkin’s Bartlet served as a foil for George Bush . President Bartlet is an academic but also a devout Catholic. He is morally against abortion but believes in a woman’s right to choose. In one memorable episode, a radio host who opposes Bartlet’s views on gay rights refuses to stand when the president walks into the room Bartlet gives a stoic impromptu response, pointing out contradictions of everyday life in The Bible. He had the political views people liked and the moral beliefs people preferred. The closest President Bartlet ever got to a scandal was his multiple sclerosis cover-up. He never cheated on his wife. He never took military action unless it was warranted. He was against torture. He was the opposite of what audiences had seen in their own government, both current and past.
People enjoyed The West Wing for its optimistic approach to American politics, but the Bush years didn’t move people away from a pessimistic approach to the political system. The Obama campaign introduced a candidate with mantras like “Yes We Can”, “Hope”, and “Change”, but once Barack Obama became president nothing really changed in politics. Money still had a hold of candidates, the American people are divided as ever, and we are still entangled in two of the longest military engagements in American history. No one used “Change” in 2012 when speaking in favor of Obama because change hasn’t really happened. Instead, Republicans attempted to make controversies out of the Affordable Care Act and Benghazi while Democrats reiterated Romney’s 47 percent gaffe at a $2,000-a-plate dinner.
The day after November 6, 2012 felt like a lackluster one night stand: so many promises, okay with the result, and left with a bad taste in your mouth. Americans have soured not just on the presidential elections, but on gubernatorial and congressional elections as well. Money has never had such an impact on the electoral process; even candidates in small congressional districts spend well over a million dollars. Super PACs dominate every race in the country, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling declaring that money is now political speech. Views of American politics are at an all-time low. Two months later after the election, Netflix introduced their new series House of Cards.
House of Cards is the opposite of everything Aaron Sorkin envisioned on The West Wing. Showrunner Beau Willimon introduced viewers to Frank Underwood, a congressman from South Carolina and the House minority whip. After being passed over for Secretary of State, Frank schemes to manipulate the people who passed him over and ruin their political lives. No dedicated public servant, Frank is a character that understands the political system and uses it to his advantage. If Josiah Bartlet is a foil for President Bush, then Frank Underwood is a foil for Josiah Bartlet. He recognizes that money and power are the lifeblood of politics. He uses other politicians’ shortcomings to convince (or coerce) them into serving his purposes. After finding out a fellow congressman covered up a police arrest for drunk driving that possibly involved prostitution, Frank uses that information to convince the congressman to become his political lackey.
Willimon isn’t the first to create a television show about the pessimistic side of politics. However, he is the first to take the concept of the anti-hero, prominent in television series like the Sopranos, Breaking Bad, and Mad Men, and introduce it to American politics. Similar to Josiah Bartlet, viewers identify with Frank Underwood. They quote him and cheer for his success. However, most people wouldn’t want Frank as their representative, if only because so many politicians are already just like him. Storylines on House of Cards aren’t that farfetched. An episode revolving around the government using technology to spy on the public doesn’t seem that hard to believe after the Snowden revelations. When Frank convinces a wealthy businessman to take down a political opponent, it echos our broken campaign finance system.
At the end of the day, no one actually wants a real-life Frank Underwood. Yeah, the idea is interesting and everyone loves a good manipulation story, but Frank Underwood is terrifying. His obsession with power puts everyone close to him at risk, including the electorate. The American people might be pessimistic about politics, but if they could have Josiah Bartlet they think they would vote for him in a heartbeat, but they probably wouldn’t. Knowing that Aaron Sorkin’s utopia is unrealistic, the best political figures are those that want to change the system from working within, not take advantage of it like Frank Underwood. Optimistic versus pessimistic approaches to politics are intriguing – especially from the vantage point of my couch – but what we really need is realism. This is why the fictional political figure we all need in the current political climate is Parks and Recreation’s Leslie Knope.
Angie Hoxie is a content writer living in Brooklyn, New York. She went to Eastern Michigan University where she studied Political Science, Women’s Studies, and a growing Netflix queue. She can turn any conversation about the Real Housewives into an argument about gender and heteronormativity. She is caught up with the Kardashians. Her goal in life is to make fetch happen.
I enjoyed this comparison and reflection on these two shows. My own favorite is a Danish show about a fictional female Prime Minister called Borgen, shown on basic cable channel Link TV. It’s right between these two, centered around a heroine with the best moral compass, who is nonetheless doomed to fail often by circumstances beyond her control. The courage and tenacity with which she makes necessary compromises is inspiring.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Makes sense!
LikeLike
waoh!!
LikeLike
Unfortunately, you have to have two polar opposites to watch on television. That makes for interesting TV and story lines. The reality is that no one would watch a show about what really goes on in our government because it would be boring (take watching C-Span for example). The reality is that there is a lot of nothing getting done and constituents are left wondering “What in the heck am I paying for?” in the end.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Love your article and the subject. I think maybe we do want a Frank Underwood in office. Obama is seen as weak and ineffective. Like your comparison of Bartlet vs. Clinton there’s a desire for a President like Underwood who is a stone-cold killer. He may be a bad guy, but he knows what he’s doing and he’s our bad guy.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Just like a moan and commented:
Very good comparison.
LikeLike
great comparison!
LikeLike
We compromise until we forget our principles and then we have moved to the point of no return. We are damned and then reborn and then damned again. The circle of life is filled with damns.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But we can prevent this from happening ourselves. Don’t lose the forest for the trees
LikeLike
This is an interesting piece! What we consume says a lot about us. Thanks for sharing.
LikeLike
What does it say about me that I haven’t watched either show, but blog about the real political climate from a centerist, almost libertarian, viewpoint?
LikeLike
Congratulations on being Freshly Pressed.
LikeLike
Well said (and you stole my thunder 🙂 )! After hearing so much buzz about Scandal I watched four or five episodes, but the moral repugnance and despicable characters and all lack of any redeeming value repulsed and revolted me. I recently watched the first episode of How To Get Away With Murder, all while thinking, “Gee, this reminds of Scandal.” Watching the second episode, I noticed it was another show by Rhimes, and turned it off (forever) ten minutes in.
Friends have described Breaking Bad and gone into its “justification” for chemistry teaching becoming a meth dealer… but I don’t buy a bit of it. Hello,… meth dealer! Major scourge of society. Nothing justifies that, and surely a chemistry teacher could find other ways to leverage his ability.
Increasingly I ask the question, “When did our ‘heroes’ become such raging asshats?”
LikeLike
When I read your post, I just remembered the TV show Scandal. The thoughts on Breaking Bad came to mind, and Orange is the New Black and Revenge and….the list goes on. It’s ironic how we dislike the real things happening around us, but we find entertainment in watching these shows. Great read. Thanks for sharing!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oops… clicked the wrong “Reply” link… my comment above is a reply to this comment.
LikeLike
Great read….and I don’t even watch much tv anymore. And I’m ….Canadian. Do you have access to any Canadian tv shows? Nothing to do with politics but we’ve had ….Little Mosque on the Prairie (national comedy series), This is Wonderland (ran for several years on life stories and situations involving the justice system and legal aid lawyers plus their clients), etc.
And did you know that Calgary, a prairie city in the heart of Canada’s oil-gas industry and beef-producing Alberta, of nearly 1.3 million locals and Canada’s fastest growing city, has a Muslim, East Indian mayor….
Look north, to Canada who seems so insignificant to the U.S. (and unfortunately we’re experiencing voter apathy too).
LikeLike
Reblogged this on samantiks.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Imax World Of Max's Blog.
LikeLike
“…Optimistic versus pessimistic approaches to politics are intriguing – especially from the vantage point of my couch – but what we really need is realism…”
Agreed.
All TV shows are (a) silly (b) the furthest thing from a truthful reflection of reality (c) made by propagandists or people brainwashed by propaganda themselves.
TV shows are basically a socially acceptable form of glue sniffing followed by hallucinating a false reality. TV is a giant glue dispenser with a nozzle connected to every living room in the country.
Reality (philosophy) is much more satisfying and rewarding.
LikeLike
politics on TV is all false and far away from the realty. Mariano Di Vaio’s jewels exclusively on my blog are true and you can buy. Also, on Monday a new brand for you.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on andyp63.
LikeLike
I love House of Cards! But I’m a fan of Aaron Sorkin as well (specifically The Newsroom)! How about the British “The Thick of It” ? Btw. there will be a student conference this october in Munich (if there are any undergrads or grad students checking out the comment section ^^) and the topic is American populat culture and its relationship with politics (Pop goes Politics – http://travelingfolk.com/2014/07/12/432/ ) 🙂
LikeLike
The comparison is interesting at the very least. Thanks for this piece
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Big Blue Dot Y'all and commented:
Fascinating to me.
LikeLike
Brilliant post. I adore TWW and HOC. Both excellent viewing regardless of the actual politics they promote. TWW paved the way for the grittier HOC don’t you think? At the core of these series is an absolute respect for the power of Washington. Fascinating.
Here in Australia we all tolerate Canberra, regardless of what party holds power. That doesn’t make good tv!!
LikeLike
Great write-up on both shows. West Wing is one of my favourite series, if only for the wonderfully optimistic escape it offers in contrast to today’s political reality. That’s the sad thing though, we now have to turn to fiction to find the leaders we want.
LikeLike
So how does a political comedy about how the government is self-serving and ruled by a bureaucracy fit in? I’m thinking mainly Yes Minister here. It’s cynical and biting but also funny. I don’t know if we’ve ever had a show like that in the US; not that I know of.
LikeLike
Congratulations on making freshly pressed. I like House of Cards. I watched both seasons and look forward to seeing a third. I didn’t watch much of West Wing when it was aired on NBC. I will try to watch it on Netflix so I can make comparisons. Your post has given me a new perspective.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on rhymit61.
LikeLike
Fantastic points and thought-provoking article. Love it!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on brunetteva8's Blog.
LikeLike
Great article. I’d also like to add that I actually love House Of Cards.
LikeLike
true article
LikeLike
Very interesting ideas here. I’m currently re-watching The West Wing, planning to move on to House of Cards on my daughter’s suggestions. Great post.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Apps Lotus's Blog.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Wisdom, Knowledge and Truth and commented:
Waiting for House of Cards’ next season
LikeLike
house of cards taught me all I need to know about politics!
LikeLike
Asalamoalekom
LikeLike
Interesting read!!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Georgia Watchdog Macon Aware Citizens and commented:
Are TV politicians and the real ones that different after all?
LikeLike
Reblogged this on anselmmw and commented:
Politics
LikeLike
Great post– it makes me wonder, what do we, as viewers, learn from these shows? As much as our political preferences inform our viewing preferences, I wonder if the opposite is true. Have The West Wing and House of Cards changed what viewers believe to be right and wrong in politics? With House of Cards especially, the characters can at time seem outlandish, and yet, we still think they’re believable.
Thanks for a great post, and for getting us all thinking!
LikeLike
You should watch Veep it’s a funny but interesting show about a Vice President who also wants to be president some day (of course). Wonderful post.
LikeLike
Who cares, welcome to corporate America, where basically 3 companies control everything we see. Allow that to sink in while we are brain washed to believe that our country is perfect. Oligopolies are supposed to be illegal, but not for TV propaganda.
LikeLike
“At the end of the day, no one actually wants a real-life Frank Underwood.” The strongest line of the piece. Good write up.
LikeLike
I so miss not only Jed Bartlett, but the integrity he helped many of us believe was still possible in elected public service. Kind of sad that our collective imagination cannot think beyond the current gaggle of self-serving folks who dominate national politics.
(On a technical note, each time the verb “convince” is used in this article it is not used correctly. You convince another THAT something is true [untrue, fun, awful…] but you persuade someone TO DO something. Convince: fact. Persuade: action.) (The curse of having the surname English!)
Thanks for the excellent piece!
LikeLike
The most beautiful series!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on jenann0522.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on amhoxie and commented:
My post for Unfettered Equality on July 7, 2014.
LikeLike
This breakthrough opens the doors for controlling different viruses equivalent to HIV, preserving them inactive, from spreading and inflicting signs.
LikeLike