Thanks for your comments. I think the problem is not actually with the West Wing itself. It’s with the way people in politics empathise with the characters and try to emulate them. You’re right that a critical understanding of the West Wing doesn’t lead to triangulation, quite the reverse.

But you only need to spend a short period around most triangulators in politics to discover that the West Wing is at the heart of their approach. It’s referred to as justification for triangulation like religious fundamentalists use sacred texts.

So the slightly hyperbolic headline hides my agreement with you!

Peter

Toby told Bartlet in a town hall event at the start of the campaign to tell the truth if he was asked about the farmer’s bill that cost his constituents against the advice of the advisers that were telling him to pander to the farmers and triangulate.
They were quickly fired in the episode.

Sam Seaborn came on to the campaign because Josh came to him and told him that “Bartlet was the real thing”. Josh had been working on the Hoynes campaign for the nomination and was trying to triangulate to get Hoynes the nomination and then the presidency.

Hoynes was the Clinton/Blair/Brown/Cameron of the Democratic primary and he didn’t win.

The guys did triangulate but they ended up getting burned.

As for blaming the West Wing for triangulation, thats not really true. Clinton won in 96 and Blair won in 97. The first series of the WW started in 99.

If anything the West Wing shows why not to triangulate.

In the Californian election in series 4 where the candidate died, the Democrat campaign became about ideas rather than people and policies. They ended up winning in a Republican stronghold. Doesn’t that show exactly the opposite of what you are trying to say here.

I’ve only recently taken a more proactive interest in politics. Perhaps due to the nature of my job, or maybe its just because I increasingly recognise its significance to my life – Who knows.

So, what do I do first – I take steps to learn more about our political parties and understand what their values and politics are so I can decide where to set my stall. Who I believe in and want to support and follow.

It was bloody difficult to do this when everyone is sitting on the fence and saying alot about nothing!

Unless the public can strongly identify with a party’s values and align these with their own beliefs and concerns, then why bother taking that trip down to the poll station to vote.

There’s no motivation.
There’s no feeling of loyalty or connection to a party.
There’s no point if everyone is saying they’ll do the same thing anyway.

This is a major argument I bring up when it comes to debating proportional representation. Let’s embrace it and all just CHILL THE **** OUT!

Tories- you love the free market, so why not just say so?
Labour- you want centralised regulation of markets and believe in Social Justice. Say it and Do it.
Lib Dems- just be whatever it is you are!
(I’ve not bothered with the Greens here as, well, they tend to say what they mean anyway)

Do you see? Now we can have a proper debate about what matters, and no one has to worry about upsetting members of the public who wouldn’t naturally vote for them in the first place, in fact, you might even win over some people who didn’t actually realise what you stood for because of your constant middle ground cosiness!!

Could we resurrect Roy Jenkins (probably the last MP to have any balls- sticking to what he believed in no matter what) please?! Thank you.