The month preceding a U.S. presidential election has long been known for being a divisive whirlwind of public discourse and debate. With all the various conflicts troubling the country, this October might prove itself to be the poster child for complicated election Octobers.
One of the premiere indicators for what is coming was the first presidential debate on Tuesday, Sept. 29. While I could go into the details – and the popular opinion surrounding it – frankly, I would prefer not to. Debates are designed to be a hallmark of the democratic system. They are a chance for empathetic and educated representatives to make their perspectives known and better understand their opponents. When debates fail to be an intellectual and emotional exercise, the citizens who watch in good faith are let down.
Lucky for me, whether Tuesday’s debate was an intellectual exercise for an informed electorate or a devaluation and mockery of the democratic system, is not the point of this column. This is not a review of the first presidential debate. This is a review of season 7, episode 7 of “The West Wing,” titled “The Debate.”
“The West Wing,” created by playwright Aaron Sorkin, is a seven-season drama which premiered on NBC in 1999. The show centered around a fictional liberal president, “Jed Bartlet,” and his close circle of staffers. Amid the end of the Clinton presidency and the entirety of the Bush presidency, “The West Wing” offered viewers a hopeful and idealistic version of the American political system.
Each week, “The West Wing” would explore modern socio-political conflicts with intoxicating optimism. No matter how dark the topic or twisted the contagonist, each problem could be solved with an impassioned and educated soliloquy from one of the many billed leads.
The formula was effective, garnering 26 Emmy Awards over its seven seasons. Over time, however, “The West Wing” lost its initial ratings and settled into a loyal fanbase. After creator Aaron Sorkin infamously left after season four, the final three seasons were charged with making as much money as possible, with the smallest budgets possible.
To tackle this challenge, showrunner John Wells, who previously worked on “ER,” set out to experiment with a series of projects that challenged and stretched the format of the show. One of these experiments came in the form of a live episode titled “The Debate.”
In season seven, the Bartlet presidency is coming to an end. Many White House staffers have left the administration to join one of the two candidates running to be Bartlet’s successor. The Democratic nominee is a young representative from Texas, “Matthew Santos,” played by Jimmy Smits. The Republican nominee is a seasoned conservative moderate senator from California, “Arnold Vinick,” played by Alan Alda.
Both guest stars were accomplished stage and screen actors with combined decades of experience. Laurence O’Donnell, Al Gore staffer and MSNBC commentator, was a writer for “The West Wing” at the time and wanted to take advantage of the two actors’ skillsets. He set out to write a complete 60-minute debate episode that would be performed live without breaks twice: once for the west coast, once for the east coast.
The result was a vibrant and grounded exchange between two intelligent representatives of their political ideologies. Vinick and Santos enter the debate with a rough Lincoln/Douglas format. In his opening remarks, however, Republican nominee Vinick asks Santos if he’d be willing to drop the format and have a productive conversation one-to-one.
Over the first six seasons, Bartlet is known for being a moderate intellectual. As a Catholic democrat, he can position himself in a position of power over both the religious right and ideological left. Even though Vinick is a republican, he positions himself as the natural successor to Bartlet: an intelligent and empathetic California republican.
At the top of the debate, Vinick knows he would win a normal debate easily. The olive branch he extends to Santos is an element of his campaign strategy to “win all 50 states.” He believes if he can unite the country in support of him, he will accomplish more as president.
Santos agrees to the terms, and the two candidates have a fierce debate. They discuss healthcare, climate change, African debt relief, nuclear power, job creation and immigration all in an open forum. The candidates debate with little moderation and handle it with class. They make their cases with integrity and listen to their opponent closely. The episode undoubtedly has the iconic musicality the show is known for, and the live presentation makes the craftsmanship even more effective.
“The Debate” did well among critics and fans. With just under 10 million viewers, the episode did not quite replicate an actual U.S. presidential debate (which tend to hover around 80 million viewers), but the audiences who did watch it saw “The Debate” as a fictional model for what a real debate could be.
The unbridled optimism of “The West Wing” was so impactful, many of the writers behind the show went on to inspire the Democratic Party through the 2010s. Laurence O’Donnell became a powerful political operative, and Aaron Sorkin is rumored to have written several speeches for Barack Obama during his first campaign.
Just as “The Debate” made an impact in the real world, the world of the show was also stricken. The episodes following didn’t spend long determining a winner of the debate. The characters generally agreed that the debate between Vinick and Santos was a win for America. “The West Wing” is about the power of intellectualism and empathy. Rarely do characters compromise their values in “The West Wing,” and when they do, they don’t revel in it.
The writers of “The West Wing” know that peace is not found in compromise. Instead, it is found when all parties involved do their research and argue their positions with passion. They wait their turn to speak and take their moment to present a version of the world which is better and more equitable for all. Many fans of “The West Wing” don’t align exactly with the Bartlet administration. He is too liberal for modern republicans and too moderate for modern democrats. They still watch because that isn’t the point. The point is to be open to grow and believe that the democratic system works.
“The Debate” shows what political discourse should be: compassionate, generous, educated and fiercely uncompromising.
Maybe next time.
Leave a Reply