I happen to catch re-runs of "The West Wing" (the TV series that ran seven seasons from 1999-2006) every so often. The last episode that I saw was a debate between the two "candidates" for president played by Jimmy Smits and Alan Alda. This episode was written in 2005 and filmed in 2006, and what struck me most is that the debate is 100% accurate to the issues of 2009.
While I do think that Aaron Sorkin created a show with a firm and somewhat visionary grasp of American political issues, I don't think it's possible that he could see into the future four years hence. Unfortunately it's more true that we are debating the EXACT SAME ISSUES today in the real America that we were over four years ago in both the real America and the "West Wing" America.
If you tuned into any political news show right now you would see debates that contest issues including increased oil drilling, alternative energy policies, immigration and border control, gay rights, abortion, the sustainability of social security, and especially a healthcare public option. Yet, these were all issues written into a fictitious debate for a TV show back in 2005, and if you closed your eyes you would swear that the statements were from today.
Both sides were making the exact same points that they are making today. Both sides were using the exact same arguments that they are using today. Both sides had the exact same objections, ideas, proposals, data, and spin that they have today.
The script was so similar to today's rhetoric that this TV show brought a significant and distressing point to light for me: Not only has nothing been resolved, THE CONVERSATION HASN'T EVEN CHANGED! And look back to the real presidential debates even further back in time and judge for yourself. Are they still bickering about saving social security, expanding Medicare, or a woman's right to choose?
Maybe it's just human nature or maybe it's our two party political system that avoids issue resolution. In the recent history of the United States maybe there are really only two seminal moments when policy really underwent drastic change: when FDR dramatically expanded the role of the government and then fifty years later when Ronald Reagan (arguably) reduced the roll of the government. And maybe, just maybe, people can only tolerate or allow dramatic change or resolution every fifty years or so with a war or a crisis thrown in between from time to time.
Just about every politician extols change. It is certainly not a new campaign message. In fact it is probably one of the easiest of campaign messages because, like a weatherman, apparently our political leaders can predict whatever they want without ever having to be right. There's always an approaching cold front to blame, or a prevailing wind that threw off the weather prediction. For politicians the easy scapegoat, the prevailing wind, is always Washington politics.
It is our fault really. This is after all a government for the people by the people. We not only allow our issues to go unresolved, we allow the conversation to stay exactly same. As my father once said, "we hardly even make 'em work for it and we get what we deserve."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sure politicians extol change. Most of us not happy with the status quo! Yes, we have the government we deserve. Most people don't seem connected with the issues and when they do don't feel that voting on them, holding their elected represenatives acountable, is worth their effort.
ReplyDeleteThat's sad. Our government, past and present, seems to prefer a system where once elected you are elected for life. Why else would there be such a sad lack of involvement of the people? Or is it we feel involved but don't believe our opinion counts so we don't speak out, we don't activate, we exist (and complain)?
How do we change that?
Andrew, there are two issues that I focus on that are standing in our way. One is that the American people have developed an enormous sense of entitlement. At best we get half of the half informed voter to cast a ballot once in a while. I'm not sure how to change that.
ReplyDeleteBut the second issue is one that I would love your opinion on. I think that the two party system is at the heart of most of the failures of our government. I have contented that this country needs a third, or even a fourth legitimate party. Since you're a native of a land with a multi-party system so you think that would help us or hurt us?
By the way, a quick check in 18 months after posting this blog: we're still debating the EXACT SAME THINGS.
ReplyDeleteObviously some issues, like the economy, human rights, foreign policy, are ongoing issues. However, it's the pace of change on major and timely issues that bewilders and frustrates.