The reason I started watching The West Wing was because my roommates hated Dawson’s Creek.
I’ve always been partial to TV shows from the early 2000s. During my freshman year of college, I watched four seasons of One Tree Hill in rapid succession, followed by The Vampire Diaries (which is absolutely classic). In January, I decided to start Dawson’s Creek, and often put it on in the background while my roommates and I did homework. However, our collective hatred of Dawson quickly made the situation untenable.
I started watching The West Wing to replace Dawson’s endlessly whiny narrative. Watching it soon became a part of my nightly routine, a reward for finishing my work and getting through a long day of meetings, classes, and club sports practices. I’m always surprised when an episode ends. Most feel like 30 minutes instead of 45, a testament to the skill of the show’s producers and writers. The quick-paced, witty nature of the show bespeaks an era of television that has long since passed in favor of the convenience of streaming services, whose goal is to produce more content rather than quality content.
More than just being entertaining, the show demonstrates how the government should work. Although decisions are ultimately up to Leo McGarry, the Chief of Staff, and President Josiah Bartlet, the characters work as a team. Missteps are made, but they are solved collectively, often with characters admitting that they made a mistake or that they do not know how to fix something. Final decisions are made based on fact and democratic norms, not the emotional outbursts of a powerful political figure. A standard exists for the president and for his staffers, an expectation of decency and professionalism that feels impossible to even think of in the current era.
Even more importantly, it shows who should truly be in government. Every employee has their flaws. Toby is prideful; Josh, loyal to a fault. Sam is idealistic and C.J. can be overly emotional instead of pragmatic. However, each of the characters has the deep, unrelenting desire to better the United States. A common lament from each of them is their lack of money. They spend hours at the White House fixing crises, writing press releases, and informing the public not for the prestige it brings them, but for the knowledge that their work is meaningful; that it is necessary for the country they love. Their passion is derived from a love of people and country, not from a lust for power. Perhaps that is why the characters are so endearing, despite being political forces and making ethically suspect decisions at times.
The West Wing is many things. But what I have found more than anything is that it is a representation of an era that feels bygone. In what is supposed to be a relatively realistic, enduring political drama, I find nothing that reminds me of the current administration. I wonder what these characters, who I have warmed to so quickly, would think of the greatly increased scope of the presidency today, or the grotesque actions of ICE against US citizens and immigrants.
Television has the power to shape how we think about the world around us. The expectations that The West Wing sets for both the operation of government and the people who are employed by it are ones we should hold our elected officials and unelected bureaucrats accountable to. Just because the show is fictional does not mean aspects of it cannot be a reality. We deserve a government that operates efficiently and in our best interest. We deserve a coalition of public servants whose goal is to better the lives of their constituents, not just for their personal financial gain. We deserve more than what we have, and The West Wing is a stark representation of that fact.