The West Wing is over. Thank god. That, at least, is the thesis of my article in the July/August issue of The American Prospect, which argues that the show chronicled and reinforced a particularly pathetic moment in the liberal perspective. It's a show, too, that despite enjoying (I would guess) widespread acclaim in the blogosphere, was totally antithetical to the sort of pugilistic, partisan politics we generate. Anyway, I'm pretty happy with the piece, and I encourage you folks to read it.
Update: Over at Cato, Gene Healy argues that the show was too wide-eyed and naive towards politics in general. "It managed — in 21st century America — to be markedly less cynical than Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." True enough. Of course, being a Democrat with an affection for politics, I liked its deification of civil service, particularly in an era when politics -- which should be an honorable profession -- is so maligned. The less respect the public holds for the political sphere, the worse folks it'll attract, and the more cyclical its descent will become.
So it's fine, in my eyes, to play make believe with politics, but you can't pretend that the whole sector is an enlightened pillow fight. Instead, you have to stick to a core group of unrealistic characters wandering through, and interacting with, a fairly realistic political realm. The West Wing's spread its warm and fuzzies too wide -- it would have been better off setting its characters to war against the political establishment rather than pretending that the whole place was composed of similarly virtuous stuff. Or, to put it another way, read my piece.
