I spent several hours this week reading What’s Next: A Backstage Pass to The West Wing—Its Cast and Crew, and Its Enduring Legacy of Service (2024) by Melissa Fitzgerald and Mary McCormack. As most of you know, The West Wing is a politically-oriented television drama set in the White House which ran on NBC for seven seasons from 1999-2006.*
Created by famed screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, The West Wing included a primary ensemble cast without any particular “star” and a secondary cast of regulars who, while typically playing minor roles, were often seen as background even when not part of the main storyline.
The show became famous for its “walk and talks.” “Winding in and out of hallways and offices,” the co-authors write, “passing the baton from this character to that, and then to another… and another, Aaron and his director endowed the ‘world’ of the show with a whirlwind feel. This stop-and-go-go-go choreography had the added benefit of showing off [the] breathtaking set, which actual West Wing staffers would later marvel ‘looked better than the real thing.’”
Even as Martin Sheen (President Jed Bartlet) and Rob Lowe (Deputy Communications Director Sam Seaborn) brought a bit of star-power to the show, Sorkin and the other creators, writers, and directors focused on the work of the overall White House staff rather than just the goings-on of the president. This had the effect of establishing a somewhat egalitarian feel among the characters on the show.
And, largely due to Sheen’s buoyant and loving personality, the behind-the-scenes moments told in What’s Next reveal a cast and crew that worked together with a similar sincerity of purpose and egalitarian spirit. This is an engaging and creative book written by two who played relatively minor characters on the actual show; that played outsize roles as members of a West Wing Family of co-workers and friends.
The other unique feature of What’s Next is its emphasis on service. The introductions of cast members include the manner in which each of them uses their fame as a platform to promote good. A dozen pages at the back of the book summarize the organizations each of them supports including The Wounded Warrior Project, the Susan G. Komen project fighting breast cancer, Everybody Dance LA!—a leading provider of high-quality, low cost dance instruction in the city’s impacted, underserved communities. All Rise is dedicated to reforming the justice system by treating instead of punishing those with mental health disorders and substance abuse problems. The Trevor Project supports the LGBTQ+ community. Others include The National Association for the Deaf, Food on Foot, Save the Children, Alzheimer’s Association, When We All Vote, and more.
Just as The West Wing culture created for the show reflects the culture on the set, so too did the fictional story reflect the very real cast and crew in their commitment to service.
The most important part of this story for me, though, is the manner in which the award-winning television series portrayed an idealistic liberal presidential administration staffed with caring individuals dedicated to public service; a spirit personified by Martin Sheen’s portrayal of President Jed Bartlet. “This West Wing’s POTUS,” our co-authors write, “would constitute a blend of attributes from a trio of twentieth-century presidents. The inspirational vision and rhetoric of JFK… mixed with the outsize heart and abiding religious faith of Jimmy Carter… underscored by Bill Clinton’s relentless intellect, savvy, and charm.”
“What Martin loved about the Bartlet character,” Fitzgerald and McCormack write, “is that he shone through as a true public servant, rather than a predictable careerist politician. He also appreciated that woven into the script was a celebration of public service in a broader sense, and that the show’s central focus was to illuminate the people who serve, unknown and unnamed, in the federal government.”
In many ways Jed Bartlet mirrored the passions of his portrayer Martin Sheen. From the very beginning, Martin “asked if he could be a Catholic… and if he could be a graduate of Notre Dame.”
This is clearly not a politically balanced show, nor did it ever pretend to be. The Democratic administration of Jed Bartlet is presented through a liberal lens while a handful of Republican characters give only brief voice to moderately conservative political views.
Whether or not you lean towards The West Wing’s political orientation, it is clear that its characters are, for the most part, morally sound and “highly competent people” who, as Aaron Sorkin writes, “wake up, every morning wanting to do good.”
Critics of the show included those who believed that the idealistic characters on the show exist nowhere in the real world. My reaction to this is, “Why not?”
During its run on NBC, The West Wing was also criticized by conservatives who objected to the glorification of thoroughly sanitized liberal values. These criticisms have merit when expressed in the context of a show that ran during the final year-and-a-half of the Clinton administration and for most of the George W. Bush administration.
As I watch this show today, however, I realize that while the liberal values of that era are part of today’s political landscape, the political right of that era has gone missing. It occurred to me while reading and watching, that reminding ourselves of this might just begin to help get out of the mess we are in.
As Aaron Sorkin said recently, “On the show, Republicans were the opposition, they were reasonable, the Republicans that they dealt with.” To make the show today, he says, “it would be implausible [to portray] the Republican Party [of today as] reasonable.”
Many of the episodes of Season 1 remind us of this dramatic transformation of the Republican Party. Here are some examples.
While conservatives at the turn of the century argued that allowing gays to serve in the military would be disruptive to troop readiness and morale, The West Wing’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—Black, barrel-chested Percy Fitzwallace, played by John Amos—reminds these Republicans that he agrees with them, agreeing that gays would indeed disrupt the cohesion of a military unit. He also reminds them that, 50 years earlier, the very same arguments were made about racially integrating the military and “the unit got over it.” This was a rational argument a quarter-century ago, while today the MAGA crowd openly questions the very nature of sexual orientation and gender identity. It is one thing to consider the ramifications of learning new things about the nature of humanity while it is totally another to deny what science and personal observation has taught us.
The West Wing dealt regularly with the role of the media in politics, especially as seen through the lens of White House Press Secretary CJ Cregg—played by Allison Janney. Hers was a political job and she did her best to make the White House look good. Today the MAGA crowd blasts the “lame-stream” media for being a bastion of liberalism operating in support of the “deep state.” It is one thing to claim that the mainstream media holds some bias while it is totally another to make accusations like this. It is simply not rational.
In another issue we continue to wrestle with today, The West Wing’s very first episode addressed immigration through the storyline of refugees fleeing Cuba on make-shift rafts. While someone suggests that deploying the National Guard might be necessary, the overall message is that these refugees are risking everything, including their lives, to find some small measure of opportunity in the United States. Today, the MAGA crowd openly supports—or at least looks the other way at—the rounding up and deportation of individuals without the faintest hint of due process. It is one thing to be concerned about establishing an orderly, safe, and just immigration policy. It is flat out wrong, however, to deny immigrants their humanity. While immigration is certainly a political issue, it is first, and foremost, a moral one.
Over the years, I’ve struggled to engage my Trump-supporting friends in discussions about what is happening in our world. I believe things may have gone better if I had approached this from a moral perspective instead of a political one. When someone takes a position that is clearly wrong on its surface, it does no good whatsoever to engage that person in a political debate. Of course, the down side on this one is being seen as intolerant to opposing points of view. However, there are many examples in our history of political debates morphing into questions of morality. Slavery is just wrong.
Since re-watching The West Wing’s first season, I’ve begun to think that every issue we discuss today should first be examined as a moral question. That is, “What is the right and wrong of this one?” This is not always going to lead to a clear answer but it seems to me a good first question to ask.
Examining issues through their treatment on The West Wing certainly gives preference to the liberal point of view but it also consistently portrays the nature of the debate from both sides. These include the funding of public broadcasting, gun control, social security, health care, free trade, international relations, and oh so much more.
In Season 1 Episode 3, President Bartlet is challenged with how to respond to a Syrian attack that downed a plane carrying a friend of his. He originally says with all due anger, “I’m going to blow them off the face of the earth with the fury of God’s own thunder.” After his advisers talk him down, Bartlet then agrees to the proportional response of attacking a military base and their intelligence headquarters but not before asking, “What is the virtue of a proportional response?”
Season 1 Episode 14 is focused upon the death penalty. The Catholic Jed Bartlet is asked to commute the sentence of a murderer who is scheduled to be executed. While consulting with a Rabbi, a Priest, a Quaker, and several members of his staff, we are dramatically presented with the wide range of feelings that surround this issue.
A guest character answers Bartlet simply, “Because the state shouldn’t kill people.”
CJ Cregg claims to be indifferent to the death penalty; simply not caring whether this criminal be executed or not… until she learns that the killer’s mother is named Sophia.
In one wonderful scene, Bartlet seeks out the view of his personal aide Charlie Young, a twenty-something Black man whose police officer mother was recently shot and killed in the line of duty. Bartlet asks Charlie if he would like to see the killer executed and Charlie says, “I wouldn’t want to see him executed, Mr. President.” A brief pause during a close-up of Charlie’s face makes it appear that he’s going to speak of forgiveness. But then we get this, “I wouldn’t want to see him executed, Mr. President. I’d want to do it myself.” Boom!
Many of the actors on the show continue to hold onto the persona— and the politics—of the character they portrayed. In a recent interview, Richard Schiff asks how his character, White House Director of Communications Toby Ziegler, would feel today about climate change. “Toby,” he says, “would scream: ‘What in the hell is the end-game strategy of those denying and preventing action? What is going on in their brains?’”
In another interview, Bradley Whitford—who played Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Lyman—expressed a view I have tried to share here. “[A] very close friend… once said, ‘Politics is the way you create your moral vision’ It’s not culture. It’s actually politics that is the execution of your moral values.”
Much of the energy generated in the White House during Season 1 of The West Wing has resulted in few political victories. By Episode 19, there is a sense of growing failure. In a scene famous with Wingnuts—The West Wing “fan club” —bodyman Charlie Young is responsible for waking the president after only a few hours of sleep. The very groggy Bartlet answers the phone and doesn’t appear to be fully awake. Then Charlie says, “Sir, It wasn’t a nightmare. You really are the president.”
As Season 1 closes, we see that the White House is going to start arguing more forcefully in defense of their idealized liberal agenda rather than playing politics to win re-election. It’s time to govern with that liberal moral compass pointing the way. I watched the 22 episodes of Season 1 this week. That’s 22 episodes times 42 minutes which is 924 minutes or over 15 hours… with only 92 hours to go.
So, if you’re a little down about how things have been going lately, I think it would serve as good medicine to read this book and watch this show. And, is it really unrealistic to think we could ever reach the point where our public servants and political leaders are decent, intelligent, compassionate, hardworking, and moral people?
At the very least, The West Wing’s political and moral compass points us in the direction we should be heading.
* Streaming on Max, I signed up for the $9.99 a month plan which includes a few ads. This actually helped recreate the original experience as the show was produced with advertising segments in mind. Fortunately, the total amount of ads on Max only about six minutes dished out about a minute or so at a time. If my math is correct, the original 42 minute episodes would have included 18 minutes of interruptions in the hour-long network time slot.
