The West Wing has had nothing short of a religious viewership since its debut in 1999, with sharp writing and enjoyable policy debates. The show has also managed to narrow its audience somewhat through its rather liberal tint, established when President Josiah Bartlet (Martin Sheen) ripped into the sacred cows of the religious right in his first appearance. In the following weeks, Sheen’s character released wonderful waves of vituperative language on a number of issues, most notably when he demolished a Bible-thumping Dr. Laura semblable who was at the White House for a radio talk-show host reception. “My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it OK to call the police?” Sheen asked. Tirades such as these have been increasingly rare, but every episode still has a wealth of biting, witty dialogue.
The show has been a popular and critical success, topping the weekly Nielsen ratings several times and winning 17 Emmys (nine in 2000 and eight this year). All this in a country where the rules for success in popular culture, as drafted by People Magazine Editor Dick Stolley are “Young is better than old; pretty is better than ugly … and anything is better than politics.” However, the political aspects of the show only make it more dear to the hearts of most viewers and perhaps have reinvigorated the idea that maybe, just maybe the people in charge at the White House have their hearts in the right place. The show has been accused, of course, of being nothing more than a mouthpiece for the “extremely liberal” views of its creator and of portraying conservatives as idiots, fools and unscrupulous cheats.
What is it about this show that attracts such a large audience, only a portion of which consist of die-hard liberals? Word-addicts may find their greatest fondness is for the show’s writing, the apotheosis of the sort of rapid-fire banter and heated exchange Aaron Sorkin developed in A Few Good Men and Sports Night. But there are so many other reasons to love the show: The characters are well-crafted, the issues tackled are vital and artfully handled, and very few shows are as skillful at dealing with a variety of narrative structures. The show is stunning in its range of tones and moods, bringing off light-hearted comedy and high tragedy equally well, often within the same episode.
And with “ripped from the headlines” and reality TV so popular, The West Wing is truly amazing in its ability to mirror and even predict real-life events. Just this week, according to Jake Tapper of Salon.com, speculation is running high on Capitol Hill that Rep. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.) will “support the Republican leadership’s bill in exchange for a promise that his fellow Illinois colleague, Speaker Hastert, won’t actively campaign against him during Blagojevich’s gubernatorial bid next year,” a bargain that was eerily similar to one featured in the Oct. 31 episode.
A listing of all the political and social issues the show has dealt with would include practically every major debate and subject touched on by politicians, ranging from the use of sampling in the national census to the proper way to deal with a forest fire. But for every weighty discussion of international crises or solemn reflection on the nature of addiction, there is C.J. lip-synching to Ronny Jordan’s “The Jackal,” or Donna receiving her underwear in the mail from a nationally syndicated columnist. These little flashes of humor, breaking through even its most somber moments, are what make this show so endearing.
The West Wing, as has been said before, is a legitimate phenomenon. That a complex, solidly political and admittedly partisan hour-long drama could succeed in the midst of these simple-minded, apathetic, sitcom-oriented times is a testament to the skill of Aaron Sorkin and the incredibly talented cast and crew he has assembled. It is quite enough to make the show’s legions of fans ask, “What is next?”
