Transcripts For CSPAN2 The 20240703

And the white house. My name is Katherine Kramer brownell. I am an associate professor of history at Purdue University ity. I am a historian of modern american politics and. I have written extensively about the relation ship between the presidency and Popular Culture. Include my new book, which i will shamelessly plug because of this ongoing, which is called 24 7 cable television. The fragmenting of america from watergate to fox news. The book explores the political strategy behind the president ial embrace of programs like mtv news. And so im just thrilled to be moderating this conversation, which looks at the other side of the equation, how television has portrayed the american presidency and the impact that this has had on Civic Knowledge and engagement. To dig into these questions, i am thrilled to introduce my panelist who are incredibly distant distinguished in their careers their full bios are in program. So i will just give a brief to my left. We have gautham rao, who is an associate professor of history at American University. He is editor in chief of law and history review, which is a leading journal of legal history and author of National Duties custom houses and the making of the american state. He is now at work at a new project which uses the west as a lens into american history. And were going to hear more about that today. Next to him, we have eric lesser, who is a senior counsel at wilmerhale, a leading law Firm Previously was a fourth term member of the massachusetts state senate. And and an Obama White House aide. He has worked for seven sessions as a consultant. The hit hbo series veep, and then have trevor parrygiles, who is a professor in the department of communication and the associate dean, Faculty Affairs and research at the college of arts and humanities in the university of maryland. He is the Award Winning author and editor of four books, including the prime time presidency, the west wing and u. S. National ism. So lets dig in. And to start, im wondering if each of you could talk the unique perspective that you have on Popular Culture in Popular Television, entertainment and the white house. And just in general overview of how you have studied or experience the relationship between the two gautham, do you want to start . Yes, thank you. Its a pleasure to be here today. So i come at this from american devotional perspective, someone whos trained, as an early american historian, but it was really due to my students at American University who i kept making jokes about the west wing. And one day ill teach a class about the west wing and they said, you really should. And i and i was stunned to find that there was a great deal interest among the student body about it, because, lets face it, are a lot younger than i am. And so once i got into it that way, i started really digging into some of the differences between real presidency and to be president see. And what i found was especially on the show, that i specialized on in my work that the west wing, there was a great deal of interest in the writers rooms about what was going on in the world around them. But the challenge was how to package that in an entertaining way for a mass audience. And so thats really been what been focusing on bridging the gap really between those worlds. Trevor, youve youve written extensively about the west wing as well. How did you come to that topic . Oh, well, i was a fan when i was. Ive always been in the relationship between rhetoric, politics and Popular Culture. And so, you know, manna from heaven. In 1998, 1999, when the west wing began. We hadnt really seen an extensive treatment of the presidency on Popular Culture, on television, in way before. And so it was pretty amazing. Since then, become very interested in the larger array of programing on television and in film, specifically in the postcold war era and how weve wrestled with what daniel calls the age of fracture that came after the end of the cold. How Popular Culture comes into provide a set of meanings and understandings about the american presidency and what that what those are telling us. Moreover how they lead us in particular ways to understand the presidency has a specific and powerful institution in American Life. And so thats what looking at now fascinating. And eric, how did you come to serve as a consultant for food . Well. Well, kevin, thanks so much for having me. And thank you to the White House Historical association. Im a big fan and its a great honor to come down here. This does my feeling that dc is about a month ahead of massachusetts terms of weather. So its much nicer, warmer here than it is for where i am. But i am not im not an academic. Im not a researcher. So i really feel humbled to be up on stage with all of you i got wrapped up in this because i was political nerd in high school and love the wing. And i grew up as part of, i think, a generation, especially of those of us who kind of came of age with the Obamacare Campaign in 2008, ive really looking at jed bartlet as our first president. And then and then then, of course, president obama after that. And the perspective i really have here is i was a fan of the show and motivated in part to get into politics from the ideals the show. I worked as a staffer on president ial campaigns which or may not be where the veep influences come in and then worked as a staffer in the white house and then ran for office myself. I was in the state senate in massachusetts for four terms, so then saw the perspective as a candidate, which may or may also be drawn or inspire some veep. And i was oh, i know. Well get into it in a little bit more detail, but i was basically i had wrapped up my time at the white house and i was back in massachusetts and my phone rang. A woman whos, a friend of mine who i know is going to be speaking on a later panel, me, her dad called and said, you know, there was a program getting put together by hbo. Armando iannucci is is creating it. He had done the thick of it and in the loop in the uk was creating this comedy about american politics for hbo what id be interested in, kind of helping out with the accuracy and some of the consulting on the scripts. And it seemed like a great side job to do. I was in law school, so i said yes and that was shortly after the pilot. Fascinating. So each of you have studied this question about the relationship between art and life or experienced it in different ways. So what do you see as the relationship between art and life . Do they mimic one another. I guess ill jump in on that. Thats for the theater. But i, you know, least on the west wing, there is, a great deal of mimicry and those of us who got experience politics in the nineties, i think it was so recognizable, especially in the early seasons, that the show was trying to give us the same that we were seeing with with bill and Newt Gingrich and sort this this battle and scandals everywhere. Right. Hearings, that kind of thing. But, of course, you know, in the aaron sorkin world where the art part kicked in really was that it was going to be a little kinder and gentler. It wasnt to go on all day and night like cnn at that point. And it was going to have a generally happier ending than it had in in the nineties for the clintons. So i do think there was there was a great deal of mimicry. It would be interesting to hear to hear erics perspective as well on this about whether that instinct remains sort of intact moving forward, because obviously the world changes and and politics changes. But certainly from from the perspective i was looking at, there was a great deal of mimicking reality. Yeah, i would say kind of just to go down the line here, i mean, from my perspective, it literally did, you know, art literally did mimic life. I had the sort of privilege of having been on the ground floor of the Obama Campaign from the very earliest phases. And it really is uncanny in certain respects how similar some of the plotlines and especially of later season west wing is to the to the 2008 Obama Campaign. And i wasnt unique in that regard. There a lot of us who were staff members, younger volunteers on the on the campaign in 2007 2000 who kind of lived and breathed the wing and loved every episode and really viewed, again the ideals it represented as really an aspiration in politics. The flip side of that is veep was very much also a little bit of mimicking and poking fun at that. The life of a staff and the life of being a staffer in dc and, you know, im sure well get into this as the conversation goes on, but very much something that became a little bit of a parlor game amongst and people in dc as well which veep character. This person are they a dan are they a jonah . Is this an amy and that became almost like a like a shorthand and a catchphrase around town for describing people if you called. And so this is really a dan character. They kind of know what theyre talking about or this is really an amy character. So honestly, the lines started to be do start to become a little bit blurred. And i think that thats part of what made this show so, so and has given them such lasting the effect that they had on the culture and vice versa, the responsiveness, the plots and the and the storylines had to the culture as they changed around them. Yeah. When we first met eric or when i first met eric, i thought, is he a dan . Where is he saying . I definitely, definitely. Sam yeah. Well, thats the vision we all want. I found that im less interested in whether or not art mimics life as i am. The moments when the artists and the Popular Culture texts go off in wildly different directions, sometimes into the realm of the implausible. So im thinking here of a show called designated survivor that Kiefer Sutherland thing it imagines this world where, you know the secretary of housing and development is the designated survivor and everybody gets blown up. Okay, so the whole show is premised upon hopefully implausible, right . But more later in that show is the situation room. I dont know if youve if seen the program, but the situation room is this amazing facility with huge screens and maps and a lot of Electronic Arts and its this vast, huge space. And we all know the situation room, as we saw on veep, is much smaller, contained environment. And so those moments of implausibility strike me as often very, very in the ways in which Popular Culture is asking us to think the presidency. And sometimes complicated and implausible ways, the extent to which the 25th amendment surfaces a plot device in, Popular Culture programing is way beyond again, hopefully what actually in real life and and im also finding myself very interested in president ial vulnerability in Popular Culture. Text so we had a string of films not to jump on the panel coming later, but we had a string of films where terrorists take over the white house and the president is saved by some secret Service Agent or fbi guy. Gerard butler or whatever. And, you know, its its like, wow, whats driving these plots . How is the presidency positioned in those particular narratives . So, you know, less about mimicking life and more about how is it really pushing our understandings of political meaning and the presidency as an institute . Well, its such a great question about. Accuracy and so what are these shows an accurate portrayal of politics . Weve mentioned that they allude to certain ideas or certain types of characters, but how is accurate . How is accuracy measured . How is it measured by creators . How is it thought about by audiences and how is it thought about by scholars . When were looking at these programs, i mean, i think i want to respond to something trevor said there first before it getting to this point, because i think that fantastic element that that imagine it an element that we see on these shows we can look back at it and say well thats ridiculous. Right. That that the situation room would be this this thing or we know its Something Else, but i think that its very necessary to distinguish to go back to the reality versus art question, its really necessary to distinguish the art from the reality because otherwise no ones going to watch it, right . If its just literally whats on the news. Well, theres a reason youve changed the channel or chosen Something Else to watch. Right . And so i think you need some element of that. The question is, of course, when the fantastic gets so wild, whats that telling us about what we really want in our leaders . But in of the realism question one of the knocks on the west wing, theres an entire cottage industry, west wing haters out there. One need only use a Search Engine and youll find them quickly on the internet. But the big knock on the west wing is that its ruined politics, that it has poisoned peoples minds to expect that the great of American Life can be solved with a great speech with jed bartlet standing up and saying, ill tell you how is the reality on the show is that they lose more often than they win, though. And and so part the show is about i think sort of realizing the limits of president ial power. And so i think thats something i try to emphasize in my work a little bit, that this is not just about the presidency being able to do all the great speakers and orators and all that, although it might be why people into politics perhaps is that a bad thing . Im not sure. But certainly i think its its more realistic in that sense than its given credit for typically. Yeah, i would say to kind of to kind of jump on that and challenge that thats that argument about about the west wing. I actually think the wing was a was a sober show in the sense that jed bartlet the way i interpreted him he was certainly an idealist. An idealist. But part of what made the show compelling is he was also pragmatic . And it showed the wrestling with the staff over issues and questions and the other big break and, i mean, the the experts, the academics who know this better than me. But i think one of the things that was very pathbreaking about west wing was the role it had depicting the staff historically shows about president s was, you know, one one person, usually one man out in front is the hero who saves everything. And that was how a lot of people had consumed history. The west wing was one of these one of the first shows that tried to go behind the scenes of that and show the team that supports leader. I thought that that was that was important and inspiring to people who might not be the elected official themself all of us but are doing their part. You know, you know, to support the mission across the board. So, you know, i think that the show actually really really motivated a lot of a lot of good participation in government and in politics and. It was interesting to see how the storyline. You know changed as the times change with these with these other shows, veep and others. And you know to the point about accurate see the consumers of these shows and the audiences are sophisticated, especially for, you know, an hbo audience. Its a sophisticated viewer. And it was not lost on the writers and on the producers that the consumers of these shows follow the news. So i would actually say theyre not documentaries and theyre not supposed to be documentaries and theyre not supposed. But theres a difference between something thats realistic and something thats factual. It has to follow a plot, it has to follow. In our story arc, theres a comedy element that has to keep people engaged. And so in that way, its maybe a little more honest than the way the news sometimes politics, which presents things as as as as maybe one side or the other, but the at least what i could say for veep is a lot of time and effort was put into making it feel realistic. I mentioned tammy haddad. I was involved for seven seasons. I needed mcbride. I was another consultant who i know has been very engaged and active at the White House Historical association for a long time. Jeremy bash, who had worked at the cia and at the pentagon and had worked in the Clinton House and in congress, was also an adviser. So there was a big team of people supporting that, and it was important to, the writers and to the creators to give it that feel of realism, because the consumer wanted that, but the people consuming the content wanted that. Well, thats exactly the point, right . Theres a feel of realism. The shows wont work unless they have that feel of realism. And they in the way that, you know, presumably csi new orleans or wherever they are this month, has to have a certain realistic feel to them or else audiences arent going to buy them. I get i think thats right where i worry that often academics are preoccupied with teasing out or somehow charting the accuracy versus the the fantastical and gautham. I think youre absolutely right. You know those those little moments of 25th amendment are useful plot devices. Mike concern is that they tell that this is somehow how the presidency works. Its the paradox of the realism, right . Because they need to have a certain realism in order for the narrative to work. But that realism sets up a whole lot of expectations. And then audiences extrapolate out from the realistic to fantastical, assuming that that somehow is realistic. So, you know, thats thats where i get a little, little nervous, i guess, especially in this era of theories and, you know, conspiracy rhetorics, where i think sometimes were too primed to believe the fantastical and its too easy sometimes. Thats just my take. Well, that gets into the question of gotham. Youre teaching a course and it uses the west wing. What are the pros cons of using these types of programs as sources as a way perhaps engage students . But how you how do you dissect them and how do you encourage your students to consider them . Yeah, its a great question and a real challenge. Now, the advantages, of course, you tell students this is a class about tv, theres a very good chance youre going have a lot of students and. A substantial waiting list, which i which the class always does, is always folds. And its always a great crowd. And the disadvantages just want to watch tv. So you have to force them to read things. But i think the, the, the way we do it in the class and that i try to do it in the book project is to say, is to go back to what was sort of gesturing towards about meaning what is it we might find a nice plot line about jed bartlet riding a bicycle into a tree and thats funny. And you know, hes a klutz president and all this stuff. But, you know, what does tell us about humanizing the president in that moment . Why is it important to the show to do that in the late nineties . What is going on in the moment that that people might need to see the president in this way or want to see the president in this way and its a way to use the show to into this of social history and cultural history of an era which for these students, again, remember, these are 1890 year old. Now have no clue what really. It was like at that point. And so you use it effectively to evoke a sensibility which cant really just get from a text. And i think thats a thats a Real Advantage of being able to do this thing, do it, do this way. Yeah, i would say i actually think that these shows, i cant speak for all of them and certainly not all of but but i you know, certainly west wing and veep, i think already are. And be viewed as very important historical tools and tools for understanding the culture with the appropriate context them as as just described. I mean if you just take a look at veep as an example, you know it began in the early seasons as more of an office comedy, you know, and in a kind of a slapstick satire of like a bunch of people working in an office together. And it kind of took a darker turn as the as the as the seasons. And it followed the progression of what was happening and current around it. I think that that will be a powerful tool 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now for helping understand the period of 2011 to 2021. Right. What was going on in the country and in the world during that period. Same the west wing, you know, it began it began in the late nineties and it went through 911. It went through the early 2000. As you think about what was happening in the world and in Popular Culture around it, id actually i itd be hard pressed to think of other works of art that are better descriptions of what was going on in politics than than those words. I theyre going to be very important tools already are. Yeah how do you how did the shows transition from president ial administrations. Because both of them began under one under clinton. And then you saw the transition into that george w administration. And then, of course, with veep begins under obama and you see the transition to the trump presidency. How did that broader context can you talk a little bit more about how the shows navigated real politics and real life president ial transition as well . Well, ill defer to trevor and count them on on west wing. But what can say on veep is that, you know, the again it was driven by the consumer. It was driven by the viewer and peoples view about politics and their attitude, frankly, their patience for consuming, you know, one sort of dark comedy about politics, change as the Politics Around the country change. And that was clearly reflected in in the seasons of veep, you know, pretty, pretty warm. And after. And so, you know, i think that the the shows order to maintain their engagement level have to build off of whats happening in the news but they do have to be an escape from whats happening in the news because if people are feeling exhausted and stressed by real life politics as its playing out, theyre not going to want to relive that that that that kind of anxiety when theyre on the couch relaxing, you know, after a day of work. So, you know, the challenge, i think for any the other piece of this is the way iphones and social media have consumption of news so much more intimate and intense. I think going to change how these shows created in the future because in the 1990s it was a very passive way. People consume politics. They watched the evening news, you know, they watched some level of cable news. Now people are its so suffuses everything people are doing all day long because of phones and social media. Are people going to have the same level of desire to consume that, you know, when theyre when theyre in their recreation . I dont i dont know. They will see. I think the west wing changed a lot less of Current Events and, things happening in the world, and more because of creative and internal dynamics in the production of the show. So sorkin leaves in the force after the Fourth Season and the show. Some say. The show jumps a shark and some say it really goes downhill. I actually find the whole kidnaping of the youngest daughter. Spoiler alert, by the way, the whole kidnaping of the youngest daughter and the the speaker, the 25th amendment thing, all of that was was really a low point for the west wing. I actually think the latter two seasons, six and seven, where theres the campaign, the santos, mcgarry campaign is you get it gets its footing again. And i find those one of the best depictions campaigning as campaign actually happens in Popular Culture because you dont see much of the sort of internal workings extended over a long period of narrative time that you do with the santos mcgarry campaign. The one other point i would make is that i think there is a slight change in gender politics with regard to the west wing. So when when originally conceived the show was supposed to be about the staff, right . And then the president sort of overtook everything probably because of martin sheens abilities and talent, but also because in that staff and they they faced a real problem because of all the staff was all white and they added dooley hill later and lets face it, he wasnt a prominent staff guy. He was the body man for the president. So, you know, but it was window dressing. Similarly, the staff was largely male. The the women involved were mostly supporting characters that shifts quite a bit in the second half of the season when c. J. Takes over as the as the chief of staff. And i think that it may a response to the evolving gender that were happening in the early 2000. But thats speculation. Dont know that for sure. But i would that to be somewhat the case. I think i would add one nuanced caveat to what trevor just west greg battle which is that i do think after 911 that the writers on the show and sorkin in particular were were very concerned about about portraying a kind of slap sticky funny show about west wing staffers was when people were in a gravely mood and and the show has a great deal more to say about terrorism and national and safety in those seasons. Immediately after 911. And theres a kind of very controversial episode which they would short. Sorkin on the fly really called isaac and ishmael, right. Which tries is in the aftermath of 911 to try to to sort of explain why why they hate us. So to speak. And and critics panned it from the beginning. And now when i, i poll my students every class, whos your favorite character . Its always c. J. Whos your whats your least favorite episodes . Always, isaac. Ishmael. Because it doesnt stand up very well over time. But there was a sensibility that they had to Say Something and and do something. Yeah. Yeah. And i think it is. I mean, not to overdo it, but the comparison with west wing and 911 happening in the middle of that and veep and trump happening in the middle of that are are interesting parallels because theres clearly a shift the tone and in the audience in both and its part of the reason why you know its its of an open question how these how these shows are going to play out in the coming years. Do you think that they could or be remade . Should . West we see a lot of remakes happening now, especially of shows from the 1990s. Do you think that west wing could be remade and would it look like veep . No, im going to right on record. Leave it alone. Let it exist. Let us have our nostalgia. Yeah, and leave it alone. Hollywood it is, is i think trapped in a an unfortunate remake cycle. And this really became clear to me when in 2013 they released a remake, a horrible movie from the eighties called red dawn. And i it it it amazed me because i wondered what was going on in these film producers studios that. They said, hey, i loved red dawn and patrick swayze. The in the cuban lets remake that. You know, i just i dont understand it so leave it alone let it stay where it is. I like red dawn. Oh, come on. The new one or the original . The original. Well, you know, as someone writing a book about the west wing as a as a historical vehicle, i mean a short remake may not be a terrible idea for my own purposes. No, i think i think trevor is absolutely right that its not it wouldnt work again because weve been talking about that time moves on and our cultural expectations of what we want to see portrayed moves on. And so, you know, the moment has passed and we, you know, we would expect very Different Things and think even the cast knows this. So theres a running joke among among the few of them that youll see on on twitter, will theyll say, where, where are you . Im busy on the west wing remake, as you know, because i dont think its going to happen. So what do you think the road ahead then is for president ial television and kind of this this relationship between the presidency and the white house and Popular Television entertainment, especially given that, as weve talked about, as american politics itself has become more of a that is wearing many people. So what might the road ahead be for this form of entertainment. I was struck by the president character in the which is this Netflix Limited Series and its fascinating how every now and then these creative folks will come up with a president who looks oddly like the current president so and they didnt do this as much with trump because he was so he was so. I dont know what right. But but the president in the diplomat is an interesting of take on joe biden. You know hes older significantly older than more most of the president s one season Popular Culture. Similarly i know one of those films that had terrorists invading the white house had jamie playing the and in that movie it occurred to me they were clearly riffing on barack obama with that depiction about the future. I im concerned that is perpetually an attempt be the next west wing. And i certainly worry shows trying to be the next veep because veep really does kind of stand alone, uniquely on a in on into in itself. And so the shows that try to be the next west wing though they worry me as well and so i dont know its interesting because one very, very big show that we havent talked about is house of cards right. And and you think about the sort of trilogy of like west wing house of veep. You know, each is kind of, you know, west wing, they would say, is what we hope. Politics, you know, house of cards is what were afraid it is. And veep is what it actually is. But i did not think that up. But its been said lot. But i think i think that were going to be in a cycle back towards idealistic depictions because i mean, my instinct is just that for recreation people and when people want to release, which is what tv is and what entertainment they want, something thats going to make them feel good about the country and about where were heading. And maybe thats hopelessly naive on my part, but i think that the cycle will kind of wash itself out and the next round will be kind of high idealism again and shows a kind of aim to a higher calling. I also theres a tendency for these shows to look backwards as well. Youre right. I absolutely agree, this aspirational notion. But weve got the white house plumbers. We have this renewed interest in watergate, which is just strange to me. And unlike eric, i remember watergate when it happening and im finding great gaslit on showtime or starz or whatever that was on was about martha mitchell. You know, theres this kind of attempt to look back and so will we see for instance, as time passes, some nostalgia for the eighties period. And are we going to see more reagan series or something along those lines . I dont know. House of cards is and in keeping with our theme for lunch, house of cards was much better a british miniseries than it was an american one. Ill just throw that out. Discuss. Right. Well they jump in very quickly. I, i, i do think theres a twofold. Theres a tension. So because on the one hand, as we all have shown by nodding our heads, someone mentions a show we all watch this stuff and theres a market for it right. On the other hand, as eric can probably to in these white houses these days, social media professionals are so good at what they do that that space between us as an audience and the white house as a distant object is collapsing and you can be inside the press room if you want to write just on your phone. And so i think the challenge is, is growing terms of portraying these shows in the future. So theres a reason that i its going to be really hard to match to veep in the west wing because its significantly harder now. Excellent. Well, i want open it up if there are any questions from the audience and there is a microphone that will be around here. If you could wait for that before asking your question would be terrific. Thank you. Great panel. Id like to follow up on the gender point that trevor raised. I remember watching the west wing and thinking, yes, this is where i hope it is. And then watching commander in chief with gina davis and being afraid that thats the way it was. And im sort of curious, do you think that portrayal of a possible woman in the house has gone from the implausible to Something Else . I mean, how would you track the development of that particular genre. Yeah, lily, i know, i know. I see. I see you there. You know, i am concerned because i dont know that theres a good model, have good models of Popular Culture president s. There you can go online and google best fictional president s and theyll give you a list. And jed bartlet usually wanted to selina meyer never makes it very high. Moreover, all of the women who are depicted as president s in Popular Culture do not typically rank very high. And in i think thats because of the way theyre narratively constructed. So women commander in chief is a great example. Shes not a partizan. They are depoliticized. Bartlet you always knew he was a democrat, he was a proud democrat. He wore his liberalism on sleeve. That was great. Even if you were a republican, presumably you could empathize or at least appreciate the character, right . But when you create these sort of vacuous, non partizan characters and then put them into partizan situations and then subject them all of these sexist bromides, right . And all of these sexist donald sutherland, remember is no prince in in commander in chief. I think youre youre creating a situation where its very difficult to envision applause. All female president , unfortunately, and i mean that unfortunately in ways that it may have to wait until we actually have one. And then the are the writers and the show showrunners and the creators can envision what that might actually be. Yeah, ill challenge that a little bit i mean, you know, obviously in veep the star is a female and the antagonist not a protege in this. But i think just to the point we were saying earlier about the cycle of the sort of next wave of this being those aspirational shows, i think youre to see a wave of shows that will come up that will depict more gender and racial integration and diversity in how washington is depicted. I think theyre going be popular because of what we were discussing about. I think people want to see an aspiration and they want to see a change you know, west wing was was very aspirational on a kind of policy level and a kind of procedural for how we hope a white house operates and how we hope the values president brings. But it was not particularly aspirational in terms of diversity of the cast or both gender diversity, racial diversity, as trevor pointed out. So thats a big piece of unfinished work in the space. And i think that thats where going to see the next the next round of creations, you know, go towards. The other. Go ahead, microphone up front, please. And. Good. You mentioned the making sure that the politics are kind of integrated, that, you know, this vacuous partizan is the other the other aspect. And because its the business i work in is religious elements. Again, the west wing again, i think hit that wonderful middle ground where it was able to portray, you know, catholicism, judaism in particular, both in both critical, but also in respectful ways. Do you feel that it was that a kind of a moment in time that we maybe we wont get because i know that many other religion does not often play into a lot of fictional portrayals of the white house as it did so well in the west wing. Is there again, is that something that we may see in the future, that you know, would handle it quite the same way that west wing did . Or is it largely going to be kind of avoided as a third rail . You know, i dont im sure like with a comedy show, youre definitely going to try and probably avoid a little bit more than even like a dramatic show or maybe not. But anyway, im curious about the role of religion because that was a very unique thread that ran through west wing that i think was that that did very well with it. So just curious what you think the future holds with that that . I do think is a generational issue with the west wing and that when, you know, again, a product the nineties where Political Consultants in the nineties were reflect it in the best wisdom of of their predecessors. Right. And who were schooled in the problem of catholicism for john f kennedy, for instance. Right. How do you square being a devout catholic and being president . Is the are you going to take orders from the pope or from the people . And we see this in the first season of the west wing, where where they try to negotiate this through jed bartlets character . I dont think again, generationally thinking. I dont think its as pressing a concern today for for people than it was back then that reflects the shifting social history over time. But you know, who knows we talked about how Current Events can really push sensibilities one direction or the other and forced shows to adapt so if there is a religious moment that we see in the immediate future where people really it becomes a touchpoint point, again, i can definitely see it returning in in the same way im. Hard pressed though, as im sitting here spinning through the you know filmography of our program griffey of president s on film and television. I think you might be right. I think its a third rail thing because. I cant think of a president whos in fiction right now, who meaningfully engaged with religion the same way that jed bartlett did. I really cant. Yeah, i mean, the designated survivors are connected. No, i mean, weve skirted. You know, there were there were some there were, you know, abortion references and veep. There was it is real power. There are some israelpalestine references, but yeah. No, not not remotely like. What jed bartlet. And its an interesting question. Yeah. My instinct is, is that those those questions are what would be hard for a generalized audience to to to feel either to laugh at or but a good point its to veeps credit, though, they did at least put her sometimes in religious settings. Im thinking of that hat in england in the danny ware episode where she that hat giving a eulogy. I think its a eulogy. Yeah. Yeah. And then the the she gives a eulogy in iowa later on in the series to, a congressman who was passed away. So at least they put her in religious settings they even make some kind of humor out of the church setting. Yeah. In the danny y episode and again there there are references throughout the differences sins in episodes zero especially to the to the big flashpoints in our in our Current Events that touch on religion but but theyre yeah. Dont have that same substantive engagement with it that you had in where the president has a dialog with god. You know or or youre or an episode title. Isaac and ishmael. Yeah, right. Right. Question over that im so old that by 9 00 im in bed asleep. So ive missed watching a lot of the television. Youre talking mostly about ongoing programs but i remember the humorous skits about president sullivan meters parody of jfk when jfk had a press conference and he sounded more like teddy. But over the years, i remember these goofy little skits with, gerald ford falling down right, etc. And im wondering if i know of any that are that lighthearted anymore. And im wondering if politics has become so polarized and toxic that people hesitate becaf reaction can be so limbic. Showtime had a series on. It was an animated show making, fun of trump. I mean, they for that went for several seasons too i think and then saturday night live i dont think has given up on parodies. You know, alec baldwin, alec baldwin prior to shooting on director to shoot sorry you know got quite a bit of mileage off of his impersonations of trump certainly yeah. Although that first bedtime his best mind to. That question over there. That thank you i also the eight episodes of the diplomat and i guess i question is there something we can do to influence some of these shows in a more productive way . The diplomat it has some good points. It really does. The way they put Keri Russells character, i really dont think a woman in politics with spewing profanity almost every moment, being rude people at her is not someone that would think young. And thats not the kind of woman we see in politics. And that doesnt take away from the that have been in politics have been very effective and very influential. And i felt her was being was saying in order to get things done and to you have to act like this. I thought it was terrible the way they portrayed the president i mean it an opportunity to portray what the president role could be in a much more light. I think madam secretary that was an episode ran for a long time. It showed the characters flaws, but it showed the wholeness of each them. What they learned in life had ethics. They got through all the political warfares with the productive way of problem solving. And it wasnt a front. Two individuals that are involved in politics and i guess i question we have an opportunity through these to give more accuracy. And yet its like historical where you have in a historical fiction novel, you give truth and. The fiction is just that you dont have the dialog of all these people that can be hollywood is, but you could really do something to teach, to give people something to emulate, strive toward, and i guess although youre saying the pendulum may swing, will it if we dont take a step forward, she was also inordinately concerned with clothing. I mean, it was just like on. Yeah. And the and the executive producer of that show is a woman. The executive producer of the show was a woman. Anyway, sorry. I know, i know. I think its a very kind of critique and observation. It kind of brings up, i think, a point thats kind of suffused the whole conversation, which is to what do these shows have an obligation to push Public Opinion and push the culture in different directions. And to what degree are they reflecting the biases and the stereotypes, the and and the kind of culture as it exists and, you know, i think its a important question to ask is if a show was created that had the depict the more depictions as youre describing, would there an audience to consume it . I think there would be, which is which is part of what were saying, where i think the next wave of this will go. But its its its its clear that there is that theres is a case out there thats consuming this content and and is enjoying it and is and is pushing those algorithms up for netflix to put it in front of people. So i think its i think its an important and important question because there is no doubt and i can say as a former staffer, someone whos worked on campaigns and it impacts the culture of the people in politics and the assumptions people bring to roles, it really does not even in a particularly subtle ways, you know, the young people that are trying to get into politics or who are on campaigns are watching these shows and watching this content and theyre internalizing it. Their supervisors are voters are so its an important question for our culture moving forward. And i think that the panel has really effectively shown how their Business Decisions that studios are making in of thinking about the audience and how they structure it. And having written a book about hollywood and politics, i can tell you that the bottom line is always what matters when. It comes to hollywood and their political statements. But im wondering, do studios, do they think about the impact that they may have on Civic Knowledge or it just about the bottom line in and these shows and the writers rooms. Right and in conversations about episodes that youve been involved in or have studied, i think there is great theres fear of crossing lines and i think those lines have to do with what i consider to be the really emergency or dire situations in real life that that might be tackling in real time. You dont want to go too far in one direction or the other, but i think its its asking a lot of production crews and showrunners to be able to to think about Civic Knowledge in the same way that might hear looking back on it, i always tell the students, you have to be careful about confusing. Chris historical coincidence with what actually is theyre trying to do their intentions and so yeah im not im a little wary of of seeing that awareness of Civic Knowledge compared to danger zones. So yeah, i think its important to always remind them and it goes back to like an old dialog. I know that there had been studies done and researched on that, you know, x percent of people millennials were getting their news from the daily show, you know, and now and now even still the, you know, the comedy shows in the sort of satire gets a lot more consumption. The actual news, although the actual news has plenty of issues, too. So we shouldnt pretend like that is depicting in a completely, you know, unbiased way either. But putting that aside, think it is important to make clear, you know, and you know, and certainly this was clear in veep. It is not a documentary. It is not the news it and and i do think that the consumers of veep were were savvy enough to to know that and understand that. And the creators of veep i think were earnest about having it be again real ish. But presenting it as fact and and, and i think sometimes we put a little bit too much we put a little bit too much pressure on on, on the creative world to try to carry these broader issues about lack of civics education, you know, a decline in in, you know, how history is taught, you know, issues with, you know, broader access to to news and changes in the news landscape more generally that have contributed to all these issues. We kind of dump all of this on top of hollywood. We say you have to create a show that completely accurately depicts, you know, how a white house works and nobodys going to watch that show because its going to be boring. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. So it has to be interesting. So i think, you know, sometimes we have to just kind of take it all with a grain of salt and acknowledge, you know, its good tv and it and it and it can teach some good some decent lessons along the and some cautionary lessons. Excellent. We may have time for one more question. Okay. In the back. Great panel, again, thank you. Im curious what you think the next were you were talking about the next generation of shows dont you think it might be Something Like a combination of true detective and west wing and i mean is you know, i was listening to the creator of true detective talk about what he was envisioning and was saying, how many shows have you seen . Two cops riding around, talking or writing together . Well, theres been a million of them, so he was trying to do something deliberately different. When it comes to american history, every book ive ever read of political history, the united states, the staff for the ones are always much more interesting as real people that most americans dont know. And so then you learn about their rivalries they go over decades and theyre much more dynamic, complex people. And in the united states, a 2023, its so hard to govern a country of this size showing that type of human component would kind of be a win win win. It would both be edifying in terms of the knowledge it takes. The citizen would learn how hard it is to govern, but then you get that human component. I think there is an appetite for we all know were all each individually complex people. And so thats kind of the draw of true detective as, you saw these debates taking place and so and it would also show, you know, im a big believer in that the staff are still is the success of the west wing, notwithstanding staffer what drives policy is success and the process. So we would bring greater appreciation them and so hows for a tv show pitch. I think i love the. Im sorry. No, no, please. I just think theres unique problem in. The comparison and the problem is the percentage of the president and the ways in which narratives about anything to do with the presidency ultimately gets swallowed up into the character and persona of the individual occupying, the office. Thats a broader cultural phenomenon. I think its something that the literary critic dana nelson has identified as president ial ism, the sense that we have converted the presidency into this unitary institution of around which our democracy is based. Right. So i love your thought of of a show depicting a political staff doing all that work. Thats what the west wing was supposed to be. And then the show got swallowed up by the president ial character and so i think there is something unique to shows about the presidency that is distinct from, say, a couple of detectives walking through missouri trying to solve a crime or wherever they are. And i think, for example, thats a reason why shows about congress have historically not done as well in house of cards. I mean, theres a lot of reasons, but part of it is that that thats also a very powerful narrative tool and sort of storytelling to one person. Their story, the audience can build a connection with that person doesnt mean it cant happen. But theres been several attempts that shows about congress and and they havent they havent caught on the way the president ial ones have at house of cards jumped the shark when he became president or vice president. I dont know if people saw this show chair on netflix, but until that point, i never imagine anyone can make an academic faculty meeting interesting and they managed to do it, so who knows . But i do think the c. J. Character in west wing might be the answer to your question if if you were to take a captivated single part a staff and make it almost like a bi a vehicle for that persons bi biography that could be sturdy enough to hold up a show. But the dialog part gets tough because, you know sorkin basically diluted it with rapid fire, right . Making it as widespread. The walk and talks and all that stuff. So it would be tough to hold as just dialog. Well, i want to think the white Historical Association for putting together this amazing and to thank our panelist for a really terrific and engaging, insightful conversation about television, entertainment and the presidency. Thank you all. And i believe we are off to lunch. Thank