The Great West Wing Debate

Those watching The West Wing saw last Sunday the TV debate between Democrat Matt Santos and Republican Arnold Vinick, played respectively by Jimmy Smitts and Alan Alda.

I thought it was great fun for the candidates to drop the normal rules and make more of a loosely-moderated free-for-all. Real presidential candidates are too cautious, but this is TV, and this change made the debate much more fun to watch.

When one of them referred to President Bartlett, it broke reality for me, as I was really looking forward to voting for one of them. I’d pick either of them over George Bush, so the Bartlett reference was a disappointing reminder that I can’t pick either of them for that.

Here’s a few interesting things I noticed:

• In The West Wing alternate universe, the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Iraq war didn’t happen.


• But they are experiencing record high gasoline prices.


• The Enron collapse also happened.


• Santos made a pledge to never start a war for oil, which drew an enthusiastic response from the studio audience. But since the Iraq War isn’t happening in the West Wing universe, I’m not sure what this was in reference to.


• Vinick responding, explaining that oil is a world commodity and that there’s no reason to go to war for it because any country that has it will want to sell it. This is a good retort to the “No Blood for Oil” slogan that the more simple thinking anti-war people like to chant, but it’s still not clear what Santos and Vinick are referring to.

And the winner? People tend to perceive their own guy as the winner of these debates, and I will make no exception: I’d still vote for Arnold Vinick to succeed Bartlett, providing the show with a more relevant forum to explore current events & issues, as well as to provide an example that one can be a Republican without trying to impose a religious-inspired agenda on the whole country.