THE WEST WING

American political drama television series (1999-2006)

The West Wing was (and still is) is a phenomenon. It is very obviously in a class all of its own. It was hugely popular with the American public, and garnered a following the world over. It is among my sister's all-time favorites. She had, in fact, been talking about it for a long time but was unsure if I would also like it, given the fact that it revolves around politics. We finally got to start watching it (the first season of 22 episodes) together about two weeks ago - and I loved it from the word go. We finished watching the first season last night. I am planning on watching the remaining six seasons during my next vacation in South Africa.

The story is set in the West Wing of the White House, where the Oval Office and the offices of the president's senior staff are located. The period covered is that of the fictitious Democratic administration of Josiah ("Jed") Bartlet, portrayed by actor Martin Sheen.

Based on the first series, here are some of my impressions.

Purely at the narrative level, it is a darn good story, and very well told at that. It is intelligent and fast-paced, and features interesting, likable, colorful and believable characters. There is plenty of human interest and humor. Besides all the positives you can put your finger on, there remains the elusive (but nonetheless real) X-factor: pure genius.

The question inevitably arises: how true-to-life are the events depicted? There is widespread agreement among those in the know (former employees in the West Wing) that the set is very accurate and the nature of the events authentic.

Even though the immediate narrative is political - American politics in particular - the issues that are raised are timeless. It is these issues that captured my interest right from the start and have kept me watching.

For me, The West Wing is a parable of leadership: good leadership, or the good leader, if you will. Here is what I've noted in the fictitious president's leadership style, and the interactions of and with his staff.

*  The president practices what I term "collaborative decision-making of independent minds". He consults widely, listens to divergent opinions, even those of people he doesn't like or who don't like him, and then makes up his own mind. After all, the buck stops with him.

* The president encourages the free expression and exchange of opinions, including unpopular ones.

* There is no fearful bowing and scraping around the president. Rather, there is an easy, relaxed but respectful interaction with him, based on a relationship of trust.

* The president doesn't gossip. He gathers and disseminates intelligence and information, but not through gossip.

* The president's staff have their inevitable slip-ups, but these are seen in context and forgiven. They are not being kept a score of and repayment exacted for later. 

To me, President Bartlet is everything a true leader should be. However, I think he represents the ideal, which is seldom realized in practice, especially at that level. The picture painted of the dynamics around the events is an idealistic one, and the scenario thereby created possible but highly unlikely. I think the chances that things will come together in real life like they do in The West Wing are very slim - so slim, in fact, as to be virtually nonexistent.

It is often said that cream rises to the top. My question is: the top of what? In the same vein, the expression "the cream of the crop" is often heard. I think we need to balance the latter with another expression - "slim pickings". Thinking of contemporary American politics: if a buffoon and caricature like Donald Trump can rise to the political top, it indicates to me that the system that produced him is seriously limited and limiting. Rather than talking about the cream of the crop, I think we need to change that to 'the cream of the crap'. 

Politics is theater, but generally bad theater. The West Wing is brilliant theater, featuring (mostly) sensible people and (mostly) sensible leadership. Common sense not being common, however, it is statistically and realistically (and viscerally) so improbable to have governance this good as to render it virtually impossible (think: infinite monkey theorem). If the series makes Americans nostalgic for the past, it is most likely an idealized, romanticized past, one that never really existed.

The West Wing shows what governance could be like - but, alas, probably never will.