"The West Wing" As Corrective Civics Lesson

Notes on Instructive Television

Two factors have driven me to the ranks of Amazon Prime and Netflix users. In 1961, Newton Minow, one of the seven Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under President John Kennedy, famously labeled commercial television "a vast wasteland" in a speech before the National Broadcasters Association. More than fifty years later his observation is no less true. More channels are available than ever before but the quality of programming seems only to decrease with quantity. The second factor is my personal need to update myself in the area of cultural literacy. Older nuns speak of "the black out years" of their early religious life when TV and newspapers were often strictly forbidden. Although things were very different in my experience, there still was not much TV and certainly no cocktail party conversation about the latest media.

Wanting to watch something worthwhile and fill the gaps in my cultural literacy, I have been binge watching "The West Wing". Wikipedia reports "The West Wing is an American serial political drama television series created by Aaron Sorkin that was originally broadcast on NBC from September 22, 1999, to May 14, 2006. The series is set primarily in the West Wing of the White House, where the Oval Office and `offices of presidential senior staff are located, during the fictitious Democratic administration of Josiah Bartlet (played by Martin Sheen)."

Some may be commenting, "Poor Hilda, is she really reduced to that?" But I have found that this awarding-winning television series offers a brand of dignity, righteousness and patriotism which makes the current political scene in our country look like the worst of vulgar situation comedies.

Wikipedia also commented:

Despite acclaim for the veracity of the series, Sorkin [creator] believed, "our responsibility is to captivate you for however long we've asked for your attention." Former White House aide Matthew Miller noted that Sorkin "captivates viewers by making the human side of politics more real than life—or at least more real than the picture we get from the news." Miller also noted that by portraying politicians with empathy, the show created a "subversive competitor" to the cynical views of politics in media. In the essay "The West Wing and the West Wing", author Myron Levine agreed, stating that the series "presents an essentially positive view of public service and a healthy corrective to anti-Washington stereotypes and public cynicism.

Dr. Staci L. Beavers, associate professor of political science at California State University, San Marcos, wrote a short essay, "The West Wing as a Pedagogical Tool". She concluded, "While the series' purpose is for-profit entertainment, The West Wing presents great pedagogical potential." The West Wing, in her opinion, gave greater depth to the political process usually espoused only in stilted talking points on shows like Face the Nation and Meet the Press.... In Beavers' opinion, a critical analysis of the show's political views can present a worthwhile learning experience to the view.

Although admirable for other reasons, the later popular political drama series moved into a much darker place presenting totally disillusioning stories of nefarious political motivations and downright evil in "House of Cards." And then came "ABCs "Scandal" where the adjective depraved may be most apt.

So this reviewer highly recommends viewing "The West Wing" as a valuable civics lesson for the uninformed or merely jaded. You may find it restorative in its hopeful reality and in observing the better angels of our nature play their part on behalf of the interests of this democracy and all its people.

They Just Don't Get It

Political Commentary


The Electorate is Angry - Is It Any Wonder


How can political operatives and pundits continue to express their incomprehension of voter angst expressed in the astonishing rise of Donald Trump. Clearly they are not students of history nor, in spite of their professional positions, students of political science. In addition, they make it abundantly clear that they have no awareness of the plight of a diminishing middle class and and the resulting growth of the underclass living in poverty in our country. How can they not see it?

Recently quoted in a New York Time editorial was a Republical insider with roots in the Regan administration who stated, " I have never seen us to thoroughly screwed up." Another party official said, " Maybe we really do need time in the wilderness to figure out what we don't get about our own voters."  Time in the wilderness? How about time on Main Street with people who feel like they are getting nowhere and slogging through increasingly threatening seas?

Here are some statistics which they need to memorize as informative context for any deliberation concerning what has happened to their party and, much more importantly, to our citizens.

In 2012 the mean income of the top 10% of household wealth in the country was $1,318,000.
In 2012 the mean income of the bottom 40% of households was $17,300.

In 2010 1% of the population held 35.4% of all privately held wealth in the US.
The next 19% owned 53.5% of all privately held wealth in the US.
That means that 20% of the population owned 89% of all privately held wealth in the country.
Which in turn means that 11% of the wealth was left for the remaining 80% of the people.

In 1983 the bottom 80% of the population owned 18.7% of the privately held wealth.
In 2010 the bottom 80% held only 11.1%

More information about the top 10%:
The top 10% own 35% of all stock, 64.4% of financial securities, 63.4% of business equity.

In 2010, the bottom 90% of the population owned only 12% of the total investment assets in this country.

So the vast majority of our citizens feel as if they reside in the bottom of the toothpaste tube, having
had all they worked so hard to attain or guarantee slowly but surely squeezed out of their lives.

Next I will report about the changes in real income among the vast majority of citizens since 1980. The bottom line will be that none but the very wealthy have gotten ahead.

Why is Our Public Discourse Lacking in Civility?

Listened to a great discussion about this topic on Albany Public Radio WAMC today, the last in a series focusing this issue. It was terrific and got me thinking. So I just had to leave a comment on their website www.wamc.org. Now I share it with you.

I am so very grateful to all at WAMC for thoughtful presentations concerning current pressing issues in such thorough and thought provoking ways and also for so often providing just plain fun.

Caught snippets of the series on civil discourse and only today was I able to listen to an entire panel discussion. It was a deliciously high level of discourse; an antidote to the prevalence of incivility today. By the time I got my ideas together Joe stopped announcing the telephone number so I lost my chance to add my two cents worth to the Roundtable discussion. So here goes.

As the panelists offered, there is more to this issue than meets the eye. Fear is usually at the root of anger and violence. Insecurity is rampant in the populace. But there are a few other points I would like to raise.

In the introduction to her book “The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and the Golden Age of Journalism” Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote, “…the vitality of democracy…depends on popular knowledge of complex questions.” I would argue that there is very little of this type of knowledge present today. Admittedly, things are more complicated than ever and it is easy to remain unaware of unintended consequences of our acts and policies. However, the deterioration of public education, fewer college programs providing a broad liberal arts education and the mediocre quality of public media in general do not enrich our capacity to understand complex matters. This factor also contributes to low turnout at the polls.

Television programming is such a “vast wasteland” that reality TV has become the norm: the more dysfunctional, violent, and inane the better. Could it be that FOX News deliberately recreates the situation and mentality of reality TV just to match numbers on the agitation barometer? Social media, as I have heard Joe’s guests report, allow people of like mind to communicate so exclusively with one another that they do not ever have to engage in any kind of conversation with those who think differently. This contributes to their bunker mentality. The military image becomes apt when violent response erupts in discourse or, even worse, in shoot outs in our schools.

I have often thought that the trend toward fundamentalism of one kind or another which we have seen emerge all over the world, across nations, cultures and religions, is also the root of political polarization in our government. If so, and if I remember what eventually happened to Senator Joseph McCarthy, this too shall pass.

I am a contemplative nun living with 21 other woman in a monastery so I will close with this point. There is a movement out there in business, organizations, schools, etc., to learn and pursue something called contemplative decision-making. The key words are something like stop, look, talk, listen, reflect in silence, reconsider, talk and listen again. It takes a great deal of time but it works.