Infinite Monkeys

FYI - Patricia Heaton was on the West Wing during the last two seasons.

She was? Not according to IMDB.

To expand on that: I take your point, I just think both Aaron Sorkin and the West Wing aren't good examples of it. While Sorkin is a self-admitted progressive, and portraying a progressive democratic presidential administration is automatically going to lend itself to a perception of strong bias, I think there are numerous examples (as far back as season one) of attempts to present both the perspective of Republicans as well as the weaknesses of Democrats:

1. In seasons one and two, the chief of staff successfully encourages the president to hire a center-right Republican lawyer based on her merits, and the character is played consistently sympathetically (and often able to give voice to accurate Republican positions) throughout her term on the show.

2. Throughout the show, and particularly during Sorkin's term, the West Wing staffers are constantly portrayed as valuing expansion of the Democratic party over their principles.

3. Lefty Alan Alda's portrayal of Giuliani-esque Republican Arnold Vinick is, again, consistently sympathetic. Until actor John Spencer died during the series's last season, the writers and producers intended for Vinick to win the election.

4. In additon to Heaton, moderate Republican Kristin Chenowith was a featured actress on the show. Chenowith was Sorkin's ex-girlfriend and the inspiration for the character of Harriet Hayes on his next series, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.

5. The military is almost without exception treated with respect, and many (if not most) of the foreign policy positions on The West Wing were more typically Republican than Democratic.

I think that's probably enough examples for a throw-away line.

Oops, my bad. It was Patricia Richardson. I always get those sitcom moms confused. I was even seeing Heaton in my head when I imagined those episodes.

My apologies. I still think Sorkin and tWW are bad examples of unbending Hollywood liberalism, for the reasons I detail in my previous comment.

Ok. I should have said "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip," or "Rosie's seat on 'The View'," or ... well you get the picture. But I will still defend the honor of that throw-away line about The West Wing.

It is hard to deny that, overall, The West Wing specialized in unflattering caricatures of conservative princples (and, I know, this is a libertarian blog ... humor me). The show's pilot featured an evangelical Christian conservative who used a blatant anti-Semitic remark that rolled off his tongue as easily as "Of course I'll have another beer" rolls off mine. And when the preachy Prez. Bartlet confronted him in the climax, the Christian could not even say which commandment prohibits adultery. Patently absurd.

In general, The West Wing celebrated government solutions to all problems -- and characterized conservative/libertarian positions as heartless (at best). More often, non-liberals were not people of principle, but in league with evil-doing, well-monied special interests. To call The West Wing anything but a liberal valentine to the way Democrats wished the Clinton years to actually be is nuts.

And, of course, the show ended with a liberal Mexican American congressman running against a liberal, pro-choice Republican -- both men vying to replace a very liberal, pious, moral and Nobel Prize-winning president.

The bones you through to the show's supposed fairness toward right-leaning thought and politics do not impress me -- nor wipe away the obvious ideological message of the entire series. And the nod to Sorkin's girlfriend is hardly impressive, especially if that actress was the inspiration for Harriet Hayes on Sunset Strip. The way Sorkin wrote that Christian character for the show set the unintentional comedy scale off the charts. She was the least believable character on a network show since Alf.

Here ends rant.

libertarian blog?

Am I not among libertarians? Or does RobbL shout so loud it just seems that way?

I think David's comment on the "Radicals for Capitalism" post probably answers that question better than I could.