Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Hawkeye is My President
Like Russell Roberts at Cafe Hayek, I caught a bit of the live presidential debate on The West Wing this weekend, and I'm about ready to slap on a "Vinick '08" button. That's the surprisingly secular Sen. Arnold Vinick, the GOP candidate played by Alan Alda, who actually is the die-hard free-marketeer that the liberals who make shows like The West Wing seem convinced all Republicans really are. Asked how many jobs he'd "create" as president, he fires back: "None," explaining that he'll cut (federal) jobs and leave job creation to the private sector. They couldn't totally resist caricatures—Vinick's secret to development in Africa, as to everything else, is "tax cuts" (though he does go on to explain that he means bloated and corrupt governments are blocking Africa's success), and he inexplicably refuses to agree he'll never "go to war for oil," though here too, adds the excellent point that in a global market, worries about who physically controls oilfields are overblown.
As Radley Balko observes, "It's a sad state of affairs when the most eloquent defense of free markets, private initiative, and limited government uttered by a politician in two decades has come from a fictitious presidential candidate played by an actor with leftist politics." Alas, a Zogby poll shows Vinick trailing by 30 points.
|11.8.05 @ 12:24PM|#
Alas, a Zogby poll shows Vinick trailing by 30
points.
I think the sample is sort of scewed given that people who would
identify with the ficticous Vinick's politics wouldn't be caught
dead watching the Democratic wet-dream that is "The West Wing."
|11.8.05 @ 12:29PM|#
Yet more proof that freedom should be free-after all, there's clearly no demand for it.
|11.8.05 @ 12:30PM|#
Didn't he play the President in Michael Moore's Canadian
Bacon?
IMDB Saaaays...
Yes!
|11.8.05 @ 12:31PM|#
I'm standing behind David Palmer. He only served one term, he could always run for another!
|11.8.05 @ 12:40PM|#
Alan Alda also played the crooked GOP Senator whose name escapes me (Brewster?) in The Aviator. I do think it's interesting in a "nontraditional casting" way that Hollywood rarely hires actual Republicans to play Republican pols. James Woods, anyone?
Windypundit|11.8.05 @ 12:41PM|#
Just don't stand next to David Palmer. That's a good way to get yourself mentioned in the news in a sentence starting "Also killed in the blast were..."
|11.8.05 @ 12:41PM|#
Er . . . Toxic?
Canadian Bacon
(1995)
Directed by
Michael Moore
Writing credits (WGA)
Michael Moore (written by)
|11.8.05 @ 12:45PM|#
Moore made the movie, Candy starred in it.
Windypundit-
Yeah, I know. I'm still hoping it's not true. But, well, we'll
see.
His wife was the coolest villain ever.
Another good way to get yourself killed is to date Jack Bauer.
Teri: Dead. Nina: Dead. Kate: Alive. Claudia: Dead. Audrey: Really
oughta be dead, dammit! Not a good track record.
Jeff P.|11.8.05 @ 12:49PM|#
Here's a list of fictional presidents. The list is very long,
too long in my eyes. Fictional presidents outnumbers the real
presidents by at least 4-to-1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_U.S._Presidents
|11.8.05 @ 12:52PM|#
I don't think the WW writers believe that Republicans are all free market types--rather, I think they WISH they were so we could actually have people to vote for other than right wing religious fanatics. Many of us vote Democratic because the Rupublicans running are even more repugnant in the realm of personal liberties.
Windypundit|11.8.05 @ 12:55PM|#
Jack Bauer always proves how ruthless he can be in the first episode---one time he decapitated a guy in the CTU interrogation room. What do you think it will be this time? I'm betting cannibalism. Any takers?
|11.8.05 @ 1:00PM|#
Windypundit-
Let's see....First he shot his boss with a tranquilizer. Then he
decapitated a witness. Third season he showed a different kind of
resolve when he put down the needle. Last year he tortured a
guy.
I can't see cannibalism (how would it fit?), but I could see him
killing an innocent person. (The guy he decapitated was a bad guy
who'd negotiated a deal for himself, so he wasn't innocent.)
Rich Ard|11.8.05 @ 1:02PM|#
[Dobson]'d have come off as shallowly evil.
Well, only if the part was played well.
alkali|11.8.05 @ 1:03PM|#
I do think it's interesting in a "nontraditional casting"
way that Hollywood rarely hires actual Republicans to play
Republican pols. James Woods, anyone?
I can see Drudge now: "Hollywood portrays Republicans as creepy,
unbalanced"
|11.8.05 @ 1:09PM|#
[Dobson]'d have come off as shallowly evil.
Anyone remember a few months ago when an old article of Dobson's
got linked wherein he wrote about all sorts of things like catching
teh ghey, and that a dad who's nekkid around his sons will keep
them from catching teh ghey?
It was unintenionally hilarious, freaky, and skin-crawlingly weird
all thrown together in a crockpot and simmered for 4-5 hours on
high, or 6-8 hours on low.
|11.8.05 @ 1:16PM|#
You can tell it's fiction because the dems actually have balls and the reps don't bend over for the religious right.
|11.8.05 @ 1:21PM|#
I just realized that the WW writers were actually sending a coded anti-free-marketer message -- "Hawkeye" is an anagram for "Ew, Hayek!"
|11.8.05 @ 1:23PM|#
I don't watch West Wing, but knowing Alan Alda is playing a somewhat libertarian character makes me think the casting was designed to creep people out, like the South Park episode he was in.
|11.8.05 @ 1:50PM|#
Oh dear lord, when I first glanced at that headline I thought it said "Hakluyt is My President."
|11.8.05 @ 1:58PM|#
"My title is doctor, or Mr. Vice President, if you don't
mind."
Of course, that episode begged the question: IS Starbuck a real
blonde?
(Yes, I know, that's not a true indicator.)
|11.8.05 @ 1:59PM|#
My wife and I figured out that any time a mystery movie has Alan Alda in it, he's the killer. He's become typecast as the actor who is always cast against type.
|11.8.05 @ 2:08PM|#
MALCOLM REYNOLDS 08!
Bad idea. He'd appoint Jane as Secretary of Defense and we'd be at
war with EVERYBODY by Thursday.
|11.8.05 @ 2:42PM|#
Maybe ABC should've gotten Loretta Switt to play the "Commander
in Chief."
Frank Burns would be the logical choice for VP...
|11.8.05 @ 2:45PM|#
"Gaius Baltar: Smart, sexy, but who the hell is he talking
to?"
Haha....can't wait 'til January.
|11.8.05 @ 2:51PM|#
Alas, a Zogby poll shows Vinick trailing by 30
points.
Of course the Democrat is going to win. The Republican winning
would mean that they'd have to fire almost every actor they have.
That's not only not the sort of thing you can't hide, it's a
terrible idea when you have actors whose performances are fairly
well liked by the viewers.
Jeff P.|11.8.05 @ 3:00PM|#
Gaius Baltar betrayed humanity for pussy. No doubt he'll get the Clinton voters.
|11.8.05 @ 3:01PM|#
I can't see cannibalism (how would it fit?), but I could see
him killing an innocent person. (The guy he decapitated was a bad
guy who'd negotiated a deal for himself, so he wasn't
innocent.)
He came pretty close when he was about to toss Saunder's daughter
into the infected hotel just to get him to talk.
|11.8.05 @ 3:04PM|#
I do think it's interesting in a "nontraditional casting"
way that Hollywood rarely hires actual Republicans to play
Republican pols.
Because 1) there aren't that many Republican actors and 2) a
Republican actor is less likely to take the satirical or outright
villainous role a Republican politician will usually play in a
movie than has any politicians of a named party.
|11.8.05 @ 3:46PM|#
Eric, in that case I think the SGA should pass a bylaw that says
James Woods gets to play all of them, unless:
1) It's on television, in which case it can be Ron Silver, because
he just really isn't that great an actor, or
2) The character is a serial killer, in which case it can be
Vincent Gallo.
|11.8.05 @ 3:47PM|#
Actually, not only did the horrible, caricaturing Democrats go
out of their way to make Vinnick a sympathetic character by casting
Alda and having him stand up to the forces of evil in the
Republican Party, they made him a liberal Republican from
California who is asked the question "Are you conservative enough
to win the Republican nomination?" They answered the question in
the affirmative, by having him actually win the nomination (there's
some terrible stereotyping of Republicans right there, eh?) And
they made him more sympathetic BY MAKING HIM MORE
LIBERTARIAN.
Also, the "caricature" of him promoting development in Africa by
suggesting tax cuts and bemoaning the development-squashing burden
of taxes is 1) an argument I've seen made on this very site by
actual, non caricature libertarians, and 2) the most convincing
version of that argument I've ever seen.
A little quick on the draw to see yourselves persecuted there,
methinks.
|11.8.05 @ 3:49PM|#
Damn that liberal media for casting a talented actor to play a sympathetic character who comes close to my viewpoint!
|11.8.05 @ 4:06PM|#
Yeah, what a buncha losers those Hollywood libruls are! Created such a despicable character as Vinnick that had avowed progresives saying THEY'D vote for him....
Warren|11.8.05 @ 4:25PM|#
I fucking hate Alan Alda! I HATE HIM! I HATE HIM! I HATE HIM!
First he totally ruined SA Frontiers by bringing his sub
kindergarten intellect to the show. AND THEN the no-good low-down
god-damned filthy motherfucker has the balls to portray the
greatest human being what ever drew breath, one Richard P Feynman,
on stage and infuse him with his own self befuddlement. FUCK YOU
ALAN - FUCK OFF AND DIE!!!!
Having him play a libertarian type on the pinko 'West Wing' can't
be good. I'm pretty sure I can see where this is going. He will win
the election and then the country will go to hell in a
handbasket.
... god I need a drink
s.m. koppelman|11.8.05 @ 4:37PM|#
Julian? I have a question regarding what you said up there about
the Vinck character's "excellent point that in a global market,
worries about who physically controls oilfields are overblown".
Didn't the 1973 oil crisis have something to do with who physically
controlled a plurality of oilfields?
Wouldn't an embargo by a good-sized bloc of OPEC member states lead
to a substantial price increase? Isn't that how markets work when
suppliers of a good that is poduced at 98% of production capacity
withdraw from the market?
And if the 1970s scenario is less likely now because OPEC member
states have more divergent foreign policies, wouldn't the Vinick
character's hardline stances on immigration and the Mexican border
make the Latin American member states more likely to stand
with the Arab states in the event of another embargo initiative
than they might presently?
|11.8.05 @ 5:05PM|#
S.M Koppelman,
If I learned one thing from high school economics (no really, we
even watched a video on said oil crisis), the real problem, in this
country anyway, was price controls crushing the incentive for
finding and drilling new oil sources. OPEC certainly has the power
to cut off a good share of our oil, and while the world might be a
better place if oil production were safely in the hands of private
enterprise, OPEC WANTS to sell us oil, as Vinich said in the
debate. He also pointed out everyone's favorite foreign-oil fact,
that we import the most from Canada. But even as much as that
suggests a blood-for-oil campaign we could all get behind, that's
not the point.
The point is, if OPEC or whatever entity, private or governmental,
wants to cut us off from their oil, they sure can, but they like
the profits they reap from selling petrol even more than they
dislike. Again, its a situation that is far from ideal, but not as
dire a threat to our economy and national security as some would
suggest.
|11.8.05 @ 5:12PM|#
"I do think it's interesting in a 'nontraditional casting'
way that Hollywood rarely hires actual Republicans to play
Republican pols."
Republican actor is less likely to take the satirical or
outright villainous role a Republican politician will usually play
in a movie than has any politicians of a named party.
Damn that liberal media for casting a talented actor to play a
sympathetic character who comes close to my viewpoint!
If I'm mistaking your reference to someone else's comments, sorry,
but I miss your point, Thoreau. Are you saying that in general, if
a character in a TV show or movie is supposed to be a Republican
politician, the character is not more likely to be
unsympathetic than sympathetic?
|11.8.05 @ 5:14PM|#
OK, Hit and Run really wants me to go by that joke nick. It keeps resetting to it every time I put in "Eric the .5b".
|11.8.05 @ 5:24PM|#
Isn't that how markets work when suppliers of a good that is
poduced at 98% of production capacity withdraw from the
market?
OPEC may be able to cut the US off from their oil, but
they can't cut the US off from everybody's oil. And US demand is
much less than non-OPEC oil supply.
Once the oil gets put on a tanker, it costs no more to go to any
one port in the world than to any other. The OPEC tanker bound for
the US before the boycott gets rerouted to France. The UK tanker
bound for France gets rerouted to the US.
It was the overreaction of the United States that turned the OPEC
boycott from an annoying political statement into an economic
disaster.
|11.8.05 @ 5:30PM|#
Eric-
Just a generic "Damn that liberal media!" joke. That's all.
Clever it is not, I know.
|11.8.05 @ 5:55PM|#
*shrug* I just don't get the reactions I see to a fairly uncontroversial point, Thoreau. No one's willing to say "Actually, Eric, most actors in film and TV are Republicans" or "Eric, you insensitive clod, most Republican politicians portrayed in films and TV are quite sympathetic characters who get their idea presented approvingly", because those are obviously absurd claims that no one would take seriously. But when I invoke the actual facts as part of a to-me unprovocative answer to an question, people start with the sarcastic "Hollywood libruls" bits.
|11.8.05 @ 6:09PM|#
You are worthwess, Awec Bawdwin
You are worthwess, Awec Bawdwin
You are worthwess, Awec Bawdwin
|11.8.05 @ 6:23PM|#
I wasn't responding to you, Eric. I was just having fun.
The most disappointing moment in all of 24 (leaving aside the
second half of season 4 and Kim with the cougar) was the one and
only time that they mentioned David Palmer's party affiliation.
It's not that I expected him to be a third party candidate or
anything like that. But, still, they created this awesome
character, and to suddenly affiliate him with a real party was just
disappointing. Know what I mean? It was a blemish on the character,
associating him with a dishonorable institution (and that would be
true regardless of which party it was).
Funniest political moment on 24? Season 3, when Palmer's GOP
opponent suddenly lost the endorsement of major labor unions.
Awesomest political moment on 24? Season 2 finale, when Palmer
rebuked the Cabinet for removing him from office, and then told the
American people to go to work or school despite what had just
happened. It was much more inspirational than "If you don't go
shopping the terrorists will win." Too bad that Mandy put the
kibbosh on his efforts to return things to normal.
|11.8.05 @ 8:15PM|#
Speaking of Natty Bumpo, Quincy Adams cheated Andy Jackson out
of his first election, and the wizards here in Sinincincinnati
STILL named a nearby hill, MT. Adams, jerking the honor away from a
woman by the name, Ida, whoever the hell she was. (Now we'll never
know.) The whole affair still burns me up.
Moving on.
Alan Alda reminds me of Jane Fonda which makes me ask where the
hell is the fart-powered bus tour for peace Jane promised? That was
just to hype her book, wasn't it.
It ain't easy separating reality from book tour hype is it?
|11.8.05 @ 10:01PM|#
I wasn't responding to you, Eric. I was just having
fun.
I'm sorry for ragging on you, then, Thoreau. I mistakenly grouped
you with other respondents.
|11.8.05 @ 10:33PM|#
Eric the .5b,
If I read a comment about the Vinnik character in particular into a
remark intended to comment just on the casting of Republicans as a
whole, well, my bad.
James Anderson Merritt|11.9.05 @ 12:00PM|#
Akira said, "given that people who would identify with the
ficticous Vinick's politics wouldn't be caught dead watching the
Democratic wet-dream that is 'The West Wing.'"
What are you talking about? "West Wing" is the show my wife and I
love to hate! That is to say, we never miss it, we get caught up in
the character interchanges and plot twists, but we gag in unison
whenever the Bartletistas get their liberal way by riding roughshod
over the Constitution.
The fact that Akira may be right in general may also go to explain
why politics has become such a polarized bloodsport, in recent
years. Nobody tries to walk in the other guy's moccasins anymore,
much less watch the other guy's TV show.
"West Wing's" Bartlet was the kind of Democratic President that
Democrats who were disgusted with Clinton's misbehavior wanted in
the Oval Office: a liberal with integrity, brains, and an ability
to "keep it in his pants." He was a flawed, but basically good man,
whom even (principled) Republicans could respect, and with whom
they could work.
Senator Vinick is the kind of Republican that Democrats (and
probably a great many GOP who can't stand the fundies) wish would
get the GOP nomination: also a mostly principled, basically good
guy, who (like liberal democrats believe of themselves) wants the
best for America but merely disagrees with the liberal Democrats
about "how to get there." Interestingly enough, we are seeing that
the West Wing liberals seem to like best those Republicans who have
a strong libertarian streak. Congressman Santos asks, "where are
the liberal Republicans, sir?" Although the implication is that
Vinick doesn't qualify, from where I sit, he IS the liberal
Republican -- so close to libertarian that his election might
precipitate the implosion of the Libertarian party and any
significant libertarian movement outside the GOP.
I have waited for years, for "The West Wing" to give us anything
close to a real Libertarian. With Emily Procter's Ainsley Hayes
character (whom I am still convinced was modeled after Virginia
Postrel), they came very close indeed, but she didn't last. Now,
with Arnold Vinick, they appear to be taking another shot (though I
am also troubled by his refusal to pledge not to go to war over oil
-- is he in the Intelligence or Foreign Relations committees, and
does he know something that we and Santos do not about what's
coming?).
On the other hand, the real GOP candidates, including GWB, did a
pretty good job of talking libertarian talk in the past several
elections, and we see how that worked out for America. Perhaps
Vinick will eventually stand revealed as a poseur. You can bet I'll
keep watching, just to see.
|11.9.05 @ 12:40PM|#
"Nobody tries to walk in the other guy's moccasins anymore, much
less watch the other guy's TV show."
Hi!
I'd also like to point out that John Goodman's Speaker/Acting
President character was presented as quite sympathetic, and made to
be the "good guy" being lectured at by the intolerant (and oddly
tall) Jimmy Carter-standin in the episode about the former
president's funeral.
In addition, it was a Republican staffer and a Republican Senator
who shut down the character-assassinating Republican who attempted
to smear Leo, the Chief of Staff character, as a dangerous
drunk.
|11.9.05 @ 2:35PM|#
On the other hand, the real GOP candidates, including GWB,
did a pretty good job of talking libertarian talk in the past
several elections,
I'm sorry, but anyone who paid attention to GWB's 2000 campaign or
watched that election's debates knew he wasn't for small
government.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245