Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Do you find the current political climate to be openly volatile? Does your blood boil the second you turn on the news or browse through social media because of the unrelenting slough of incompetence and vitriol coming from the current Administration? Do you scream into your pillow in the futile hope that answers will come to you between gulps of air? Do you long for the halcyon days of George W. Bush’s presidential buffoonery? Bill Clinton’s sex scandals? Barack Obama’s calm and reassuring demeanor in the face of ridiculous amounts of adversity?

Well, I don’t know what to do about all of those feelings I’m you’re having, but I can recommend a podcast about The West Wing! Will it stop the relentless onslaught of anxiety? No. But it will kill an hour of your day while you listen to an engaging discussion about a fictional idealized behind-the-scenes world of politics!

Okay, that’s a gross oversimplification. Here’s the over-explanation.


The West Wing Weekly is a podcast hosted by musician and composer Hrishikesh “Hrishi” Hirway, also the host of Song Exploder, and actor Joshua Malina, currently of the television program Scandal. The purpose of the podcast? To talk about the much beloved West Wing, created by Aaron Sorkin. Week by week, episode by episode, the two recap and analyze the show giving it equal parts praise and critique with some added trivia and real-world examples of the government dealings presented in Sorkin’s fictional White House. Unlike many podcasts devoted purely to talking about a favorite tv show long since cancelled, Malina’s involvement lends the podcast the advantageous position of first-hand access to the actors, writers, directors, and consultants. A friend and frequent player in Sorkin’s tv shows and movies (i.e. Sports Night, The American President, A Few Good Men), Malina also joined the West Wing cast in Season 4 as Will Bailey and stayed until the series’ end.

The dynamic between Hirway and Malina is the real draw of the podcast. Where Malina hasn’t watched an episode since it first aired (17 years ago), Hirway has gone through multiple rewatchings. Where Hirway presents a sunnier, perhaps more optimistic look at Sorkin’s idealized political world, Malina – by his own admission – leans towards a contrarian approach to his analysis. Their outlooks, however, aren’t set in stone. The two frequently change their attitude towards characters, storylines, and dialogue depending on how well conceived the episode ends upon rewatch or how well the other can argue in favor or opposition.

Aaron Sorkin - The West Wing Weekly Twitter photo

Josh Malina, Hrishi Hirway, and Aaron Sorkin

The open discussion and dissection of each episode allows for some poignant and thoughtful moments to emerge. Malina and Hirway analyze The West Wing through a post-9/11 lens with the additional political strife of current and past presidential administrations informing their scrutiny. Their modern-day assessment also takes the show to task for the underlying sexism frequently portrayed by the majority of male characters as well as the unearned victories of complex arguments with no equivalent heft given to the person on the “wrong” side. The most current episode posted as of the writing of this article was “17 People” from Season 2, which originally aired 5 months before 9/11, so it’ll be interesting to see how and if their analysis changes once Season 3 begins. “Isaac and Ishmael” is a nostalgic favorite of mine, but as a response to the terrorist attack on America and its non-canonical placement in the show, there’s definitely aspects of the episode (and the show in general) that haven’t aged well. I’m also looking forward to the day when Malina’s Will Bailey shows up and how he and Hirway navigate their criticism of the episodes. Not that they’d be any less critical, but I can’t imagine it’s easy to take your own performance to task or critique the performance of a friend while they’re sitting across from you.

Other than the hosts, the guests who’ve come on the podcast to talk about The West Wing are a veritable who’s who of Sorkin players, activists, and government officials. Listening to cast members like Bradley Whitford (Josh Lyman), Emily Proctor (Ainsley Hayes), Dule Hill (Charlie Young), Richard Schiff (Toby Ziegler), Janel Moloney (Donna Moss), and Rob Lowe (Sam Seaborn) reveal character motives and behind-the-scenes anecdotes are thrilling to people like me who love those kinds of stories. I’m one of those featurette-watching, commentary-listening types so knowing that Moloney and Whitford played it like Josh and Donna were already in love from the word go makes me happy. Or learning that Dule Hill tap dances to pass the time on set and worked out how to tap along to Yo-Yo Ma’s cello during filming on “Noel” is ridiculously heartwarming. Or that Shonda Rhimes named Malina’s character on Scandal after a character mentioned briefly and early in the first season and was never mentioned again or featured on screen shows just how deep the fandom can go.

attends "Hamilton" Broadway Opening Night at Richard Rodgers Theatre on August 6, 2015 in New York City.

The reach and influence of The West Wing on the world of politics and pop culture shouldn’t be underestimated as evidenced by the amount of love and reverie many of the guests have displayed when they talk about how important the show was personally and professionally. Hearing speech writers, political commentators, NASA engineers, rabbis, crew members, and ambassadors praise and question the machinations of an episode or the subject matter therein offers a new avenue of perspective through which to enjoy or engage with the show. You want more proof? Look no further than the rap created by noted fanboy, Lin-Manuel Miranda (Hamilton: An American Musical, Moana), for the podcast. Miranda, according to Richard Schiff, stated that there would be no Hamilton without The West Wing. The musical is peppered with references and the cast and crew, knowing his love for the show, played the opening theme at the curtain call of his last Broadway performance. Hell, they even did a walk-and-talk style version of “Cabinet Battle #1” when the cast visited the White House.


I told you it was an over-explanation, right?

So, yes, you should totally be listening to this podcast. If you’re a fan of The West Wing, you’ll love the discussion. And if you’re new to the show, you can follow along with Hirway and Malina episode by episode since all seven seasons are now on Netflix. It’s definitely worth your time and a necessity for your health in these trying times. Trust me, I’m an archivist.



What’s next?


[Author’s Note]: This article was written a while ago and has been edited for the purposes of keeping up-to-date on the current political climate.


I’ve been watching a lot of The West Wing lately. You can probably guess the reason. It’s a comforting show to me, a balm for my anxiety and the ever present empty pit of rage in my stomach. Sadly, the show angers me as well upon rewatch, just not for the reasons you’d think. I miss the fast-paced environment of a White House that never existed. I miss the friendly camaraderie of men and women brought to life beautifully by talented actors. I miss the lofty ideals and passion of a staff dedicated to a United States with a relatively informed populace. If you haven’t guessed, the agitation comes from the fact that The West Wing isn’t real. It’s the product of one man’s imagination that tapped into a need for a governing body to display equal amounts of dedication, determination, and selflessness. It’s an alternate reality that’s painful to watch at times, but I continue to watch because it’s that idealized vision of politics that prevents me from completely succumbing to absolute depression. The kernels of hope and emulation are there as the next generation discovers the show and ponders whether President Bartlet’s America could actually exist.Sorkin on set of West Wing

While there are many and varied critiques of Aaron Sorkin’s work, regardless of how you feel about him, it’s very easy to spot an Aaron Sorkin-created television show. The man has so many ticks and quirks associated with his various projects that there are a multitude of parodies easily found on YouTube. Hell, the man’s even parodied himself on his own shows and on others. Your most basic sign that it’s a Sorkin-joint is that the “action” all takes place behind the scenes. Sports Night, The West Wing, The American President, Moneyball, The Social Network, Studio 60, and The Newsroom are all about the moments leading up to or following an event. Usually it’s something important. One of the easier quirks to spot in this behind-the-scenes world is the “walk-and-talk,” which is fairly self-explanatory. Though walk-and-talks are not an exclusive quirk of Sorkin’s (it’s movie-making 101 to have your character exposit dialogue while moving), he’s definitely become the writer most associated with the trope since every movie or television show since Sports Night has included it.

Coupled with the walk-and-talk is a rhythmic banter between characters often dubbed “Sorkinese” since actors who’ve worked on a Sorkin project have stated that the dialogue is so precise that any changes practically have to be run by him so he can hear how it sounds. And within the banter, whilst doing the walk-and-talk, is an encyclopedic knowledge – by virtually every character – of literature, politics, pop culture (to a degree), and history. If a stanza from Emily Dickinson can hammer a point home, you bet your ass there’s going to be a character who either has an English Lit degree or reads Dickinson for fun so they can throw a line in there and create a profound moment. Pretty much all of The Newsroom’s first season was about quoting or referencing Don Quixote.

West Wing CastWhat this all adds up to, and tends to be the reason people don’t particularly care for Sorkin, is a pretentiously idealized world where every profession is a noble one and all those involved have more passion in their little finger than you’ve ever displayed over the most important event in your life! Unless they’re the “villain” and then they’re just the worst type of person. The easiest example of this is The West Wing. During Sorkin’s four years writing the show, it wasn’t uncommon for a character – any character – to make a passionate speech or a profound statement about the importance of their work in government, the necessity of doing right by the American people, or the almost divine calling that is the office of the President and serving under him.

There was also the occasional history lesson or the quoting of scripture that cemented the show as one of the smartest hours of television during its early seasons. The later seasons were okay after Sorkin left, Season 7 was definitely good television, but Season 5 and half of 6 are hard to get through if you’re a fan of Sorkin’s style and the characters, which I am. The point, though, is that the world of The West Wing was populated by people with passion for their job, who saw what they did as a call to serve their country. Even their “enemies,” both Republican and Democrat, where never entirely vilified, but shown to have just as much passion and a need to do what they thought was best for their constituents. Sorkin essentially elevated government and its employees to a degree that’s nearly laughable when we compare it to how our perception of government has changed within the last decade. Most especially within the last two months.studio60cast

The same attempt was made, less successfully, with Studio 60 on The Sunset Strip where Sorkin attempted to elevate comedy and it’s purpose in American culture. There’s a scene where Tom Jeter (Nate Corddry) is showing his blue collar parents around the theater where Studio 60 is filmed while giving them the history of the theater and its entertainment pedigree. All of this is done in service to highlighting the “culture wars” through Tom’s conservative parents, specifically his father who doesn’t care much for his son’s cushy, “elitist” job of playing in front of a camera while his other son is fighting in Afghanistan. Because…comedy!

As much as I do adore this show, it got really heavy-handed with it’s agenda, more so than most Sorkin shows, which alienated a lot of its audience. It also didn’t help that 30 Rock came out at the same time, on the same network, and was genuinely funny. Sorkin’s writing can be funny, but his humor often comes out of dramatic situations. He’s not exactly a joke writer. But what Sorkin was getting at, I think, is that there is a need for smart television, that the audience doesn’t have to have things dumbed down for them in order for a program to succeed. And comedy, even a variety show, can facilitate ideas or effectively satirize the world we live in. The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Key & Peele, The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver prove that comedy can steer the political and social conversation through the medium of comedy.

The Newsroom, like Studio 60, like The West Wing, is what Sorkin envisions journalism should be; that journalists and news anchors should strive for something more than puff pieces and partisan politics. The opening theme of The Newsroom is a montage of photographs showcasing the history of broadcast journalism from Edward R. Morrow to Walter Cronkite to Dan Rather. Respected and trusted anchors that people turned to for their nightly news. The entire crux of the first episode is MacKenzie Hale’s (played by Emily Mortimer) plea that they can do better, that they are better.

The-NewsroomAnd while some critics may decry Sorkin’s idealistic portrayal of politics, comedy, or journalism, I think what’s important about these worlds he creates is that the characters are imperfect. You’d be hard-pressed to find a character in any of these shows or movies who isn’t fundamentally flawed in some way. Granted, many of these flaws are gendered since a lot of the women seem to have relationship issues and the men are cursed with arrogance and an overabundance or lack of machismo, but they’re still flawed. And yet they yearn for something more. The characters are the ones who create their idealized worlds because they want it to be that way, but it remains unattainable. The West Wing showed it time and time again. No matter how good their intentions, no matter how noble the cause, someone always gets left out, someone always feels betrayed. The Newsroom follows the same model. You can want to be better, you can want to change the world because of some call to destiny, but the world around you won’t shift overnight because you deem it so. You have to change it little by little and fight because you know you have to and it’s the right thing to do.

The Don Quixote metaphor is appropriate because many of Sorkin’s characters could be described as quixotic. But that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I’d argue that Sorkin’s idealism is necessary for viewing audiences. If we see ourselves in the characters on television and in movies, if we find common ground, why can’t we also find what we’re missing? It’s not hard toHouse Bartlett identify with a character who desires an idyllic President because, deep down, we probably want the same thing. The same is true of our news anchors. We gravitate towards like-minded reporters, but don’t we wish for someone capable of delivering the news without the nagging suspicion that they’re leading us towards their politics? Shouldn’t we instead want someone with the desire to make us a more informed population?

The downside, and there’s always a downside, is disappointment when something or someone doesn’t live up to your standards. We definitely see that happening a lot these days, but Sorkin still leaves us with the tools capable of weathering such disappointments. Yes, you’re going to get kicked down a lot and you may not get exactly what you want, but hoping and striving for something better, even if it seems unobtainable, is just as noble. We may bend, we may even break, but we eventually shake it off, put ourselves together and start over. Maybe we’re a little wiser, a bit more cynical, but even an iota of idealism is enough to keep us moving forward and asking, “What’s next?”

By the end of this week the United States will have sworn in a fascist, narcissist demagogue as the next President. Despite overwhelming evidence that our political system was compromised, my country and its elected representatives will allow this farce of a human being to take the highest seat of power where his ego will likely swell and consume the swamp he’s so eager to flood.

So unless there’s some master plan to begin the impeachment process the second after he’s taken the oath of office, I’d just assume the rest of us prepare for the fight ahead because the next four years are gonna be a doozy.


If you’re feeling overwhelmed by the current state of national and international politics, know that you’re not alone. In fact, you’re part of the exclusive group known as Everybody. We’re scared and we’re angry, but we’re also unapologetic in our desires for equality, representation, and compassion. If human decency must be the battleground, then we’ll make sure the fight is hard-won. We will not turn the other cheek. We will not “give him a chance.” We will not “get over it.” If Putin’s pumpkin puppet expects capitulation, then he’s in for a rude awakening.

We will not comply.

Easy to write, I know. It’s equally as easy to say. It’s the execution, the action, that requires the will and the energy necessary. Some have been fighting their whole lives while the rest of us have only now caught up. Weariness coupled with vigorous outrage ebb and flow depending on the day, the hour, the tweet. We question our place among the multitude. We stutter trying to find the right words. We stumble in our attempts to walk in the shadows of icons. But we keep walking. We pick each other up and offer comfort and understanding. There will never be an equity to our pain and suffering, but in this moment, at this point in history, we know one truth to be extremely self-evident:

We will not comply.

There’s a long and time-honored tradition of civil disobedience that is characteristic to more than just the United States. Revolutions have been built on the backs of people willing to stand up when everyone says, “sit down.” And if anything can be spun as positive coming out of the tangerine troll’s inauguration it’s that we are renewed in our intentions, reinvigorated in spirit, and determined as all hell to rock the fucking boat.

In five days the world will watch a racist, misogynist, homophobic, Islamophobic, narcissist, bully swear on a Bible that he will protect and defend the United States and its Constitution. He will do neither. Those watching, however, will also notice that the thin crowd of paid participants will be dwarfed the following day by the Women’s March on DC and its sister protests within the United States and around the world. And in the days to follow there will be swells of people marching again and again while others call on their representatives to do their job and serve. We will push. We will pull. We will question. We will cry and shout and scream. We will create.

But we will not comply.