Sure, it was scripted – but these days, what real political debate isn’t? Sure, it was cheesy at times – but nowhere near as ridiculous as Dubya’s mixup between Saddam and Osama in the real debate. And sure, it was fiction that bordered on the completely, utterly unrealistic. But the live debate episode between West Wing fictional presidential candidates Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda) and Matthew Santos (Jimmy Smits) was so much better than the real thing, I nearly cried. After a couple of seasons of genuine suckage after Aaron Sorkin’s departure, the show is starting to regain its legs.
The candidates threw out the debate rules and went after each other on issues including gun control, healthcare, education, immigration and even the word “liberal”. Why can’t real political debates be like that?
After all, politicians have essentially been actors for years. And I’m not just talking about Reagan or Schwarzenegger. Most of them are reading off rehearsed scripts, playing a part, saying their lines. So why don’t their lines ever sound so good in real life?
Now, the show has an obvious liberal bias, with Martin Sheen having played the fictional Democratic President Josiah Bartlett for the last 6 seasons. The show’s audience is over 75% Democrat, and its cast includes some of the most outspoken liberal actors in Hollywood. An online poll on the show’s site as to who won the fake debate is running 65% for Santos. In fact, an independent poll – yes, a real pollster actually ran a poll about fictional candidates, in a bizarre twist – surveyed an equal number of Democrats and Republicans and found that 59% favour Santos. It’s virtually pre-ordained that Smits is going to emerge the winner.
But Alda’s character is fighting a serious campaign. They’ve scripted Senator Vinick as a centrist, pro-choice Republican from California, with just enough centrist appeal that he could – theoretically – win the television presidency. An anti-Bush, in other words. And I must admit, if it were a real debate, he would have nearly wiped the floor with Matthew Santos… despite the fact that there were clearly lines he – presumably a Democrat in real life – nearly choked on while having to speak. Hell, I figure I’d be a Democrat if I were American, and even I woulda voted for him.
Wouldn’t it be gutsy of the show’s producers if they wrote a Vinick victory and let the Republicans take office on the show? Of course, it would be a Democrat’s funhouse version of the Republican party… but it would sure be more interesting than the assumed outcome. I’d love to see them try.
And you know what else would be really neat? If this debate inspired some real political debates to follow a similar format, allowing candidates to actually debate issues for a change. I’m willing to bet a lot more people would watch – and consequently, a lot more people would vote.
Update: I admit, I was curious about the fact that the debate was going to air twice – once on the east coast and once on the west. So I tuned into NBC Seattle and was rather shocked to notice that, though the script was nearly identical, the actors’ tones had changed dramatically. In debate #2, Santos seemed to be the clear winner, scoring definitive points over Vinick on nearly every issue. I wonder if the actors were coached in the interim to make a pre-determined Santos victory seem more plausible? At any rate, it’s amazing how the same lines could have such a different effect when spoken with slightly different pauses, tones and facial expressions. Food for thought.
Latest Comments