In The Shadow of Sorkinian Gold

by Andrew Michael Flynn

When good stories are told well, their appeal knows no limits. While the Summer of 2000 was certainly of a different era in television, the mystery as to which characters would survive the shooting in the season one finale cliffhanger (“What Kind Of Day Has It Been”) of The West Wing was a big one that permeated popular culture as few other television entertainments in history have ever been able to. The answer would come in the following two episodes that opened up the second season of the revered Aaron Sorkin political drama, entitled “In The Shadow of Two Gunman, Parts 1 and 2”. These multi-layered chapters of the Emmy-winning series proved to be some of the densest television available at the time, all while serving as an alternate pilot for the show that had some noticeable bumps in its first season that included Sorkin writing out a major character (Dr. Mandy Hampton, the White House Media Director) because “[she] just wasn’t working” (O’Connell, 2020). It is important to note that the explicit bias of making the show’s politics based on the modern Democratic party was a choice by the show’s creator as well, with Sorkin being fully aware that he had to consciously choose (Ingram) in order to get the most out of his storytelling abilities.

The West Wing aired Wednesday nights on NBC between 1999 and 2006, with most of those seasons garnering high ratings and coveted advertisers for the network because of the large and affluent audience that would tune in to the show. There were about five months that separated the end of the first season and the beginning of the second season, although at the time the only social media that existed was limited message boards and short-form online discussions like in America On-Line (AOL) chatrooms. There was no Facebook, Twitter, or TikTok. Even MySpace was still a few years away from entering the social media conversation. Besides this, exposure to the show was during summer reruns at the network’s discretion, but even those were limited because of the 2000 Sydney Olympics coverage by NBC. Suffice it to say, there was a dearth of exposure in comparison to today’s pervasive world of entertainment coverage and overall availability.

From the outset of The West Wing’s second season opener, the ratings increased and the show was a smash hit like few other hour-long dramatic series of the same television era. Never before on network television had a show been so concentrated on the work lives and policy positions of White House employees. It would also a first for having a full-time stand-in President of the United States ever being used as direct subject matter for a drama series. Stories from real-life presidential administrations and political figures were distilled into the fictional narratives of West Wing episodes, such as the parallel where President Reagan was shot at and hit in March 1981 by a would-be assassin and the president (Martin Sheen playing President Bartlet) in the West Wing also getting shot at and hit in the season two opener. “There is so much more to history, however. History tells the stories of our past to help us better understand how we got to the present (Lovejoy, 2022). Along with this, the character of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Lyman (played by Bradley Whitford) was somewhat based on real-life political operative and former Obama Administration White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (Yuan, 2009).

Through the general education lens of history, analyzation of The West Wing becomes richer and a more complete viewing experience. This lens was chosen because it made the show itself was so well-researched based from actual political snippets of real life inside of America’s modern history. Although the show itself works in an alternate United States, the historical lens was an easy decision even though to draw exact parallels in corresponding years of the fictional Bartlet Administration can prove to be somewhat challenging. Considering the aforementioned two episodes of The West Wing highlighted here, the lens is note-perfect.

The West Wing and its producers pull no punches on the political universe they created and curated throughout the seven-season run of the show. The show was built and informed on then-modern day Democratic politics and issues, with the plots and characters viewing their filmed world through this specific worldview (O’Connell, 2020). The calendar years of 1999 through 2006 are when the show aired, so it is important to note that the politics and issues of the Democratic Party of this era are to be considered, even if current-day analogues are somewhat similar (although a couple of decades are more than a sizable chunk of time in American politics, let us be truthful as possible with this notion).

In that era of American politics, the potential of compromise was certainly more acceptable than it was compared to 2022. The West Wing’s Bartlet Administration was mostly comprised of well-intended Democrats and did highlight civic-minded Republicans as well, although the latter were naturally in the backseat most of the time considering the aim of the specific policies mentioned in the show. Creator Aaron Sorkin had a fierce and willing writing staff that would pull political stories from the current ether, as well as recent history, in order to synthesize and distill storylines into the 42-44 minute runtime of each weekly episode. In this, explorations of named communities (such as lower-income, non-White majority, and politically mixed-demographic) were underscored in episodes to both entertain and inform in filmed dramatic form. There was a small running joke in a later season that Democrats as a political party did not specifically care about the nuclear family unit (even though this was not actually ever the case) and favored freedom of the individual and their respective sexual identity, which it could be derived as a social commentary on the struggles within the Democratic Party when it comes to moderates against progressive-minded members (O’Connell).

Since The West Wing covered only a short timeframe in the history of American politics, its weight was brought from politics all the way back from the World War 2 era into then-modern day (Heisler, 2018). Shaping episodes of somewhat-skewed modern political universe had to be well-researched and have a solid footing, even if the result was fictionalized for mass consumption. The series is littered with references from actual American history from its inception, and not an episode can be found where there isn’t some historical truth embedded within the dialogue and plot of the show. It could be argued that the more civic-inclined Americans who watched the show ended up with a larger appreciation of it (Littlefield, 2018), when compared to someone who was just moderately tuned in to the show and focuses on what is immediately in their own lives with local impact.

As a fan of the show who has run through the entire series of The West Wing more times than is socially acceptable in good company (it has been my go-to show since Netflix started streaming it in December 2012 [and is currently available on HBOmax]), I prefer to exercise some humility when speaking about the show to others, even though I am usually quite eager to do so. Just like anyone with a specific political opinion, it is crucial to realize that this show was not just made for someone with my similar interests, but honestly a much larger and more complex audience who takes different attributes from the show. Personal admiration toward the show notwithstanding, I try not to let my own perspective get trampled by any passion that I may have about the show, even if the conversation is exciting and with consequence. Helping a new viewer to the show, I would recommend the first two seasons to start including the venerable two-part “In The Shadow of Two Gunmen”, along with a small amount of information about it, allowing them to discover specific things about each episode as I did and still do on repeat viewings. Employing this method allows for the most enjoyment for both the new viewed and myself, allowing for further and exciting conversation about the show, inciting hopefulness and productive outcomes.

The fictional version of the United States inside of The West Wing is mostly informed by the actual country of the United States in the era depicted, that of the years 1999-2006. Like most of the works of the show’s creator, Aaron Sorkin, the civil religion of America runs through each of the characters and plotlines of the show: “That The West Wing is steeped in civil religion is expected, given that its story centers around the White House and that U.S. presidents have always served as pastors-in-chief for the nation” (Littlefield, 2018). For anyone looking to become more conversant in national politics and the issues surrounding the fictional Bartlet Administration of The West Wing, one of the easier jumping-in points is the first two episodes of season two, entitled “In the Shadow of Two Gunmen, Parts I and II”.

These two episodes are a great moment to jump into the show because it reintroduces nearly every major character in their own unique way, each one set against the formulation of the first Bartlet presidential campaign. While Season 1 did a fine job of bringing the audience to know each major West Wing cast member, Sorkin and Company proved doing it this way with these two episodes because he was able to employ the storytelling device of flashbacks, which hone in on a time shift of about three years prior when the presidential campaign of then-Governor of New Hampshire Josiah Bartlet is just getting off the ground in its organizational structure. Sorkin loves “points of friction that add up to something that you can write about” (Rose, THR). Over these two episodes, the major characters are each given a careful amount of featured time so that their respective personal and professional drives are painted with greater color, allowing for new viewers to have multiple things to grab onto and take the ride as far as the series will take them.

Even though it is a fictional presidential administration, the Democratic and Republican politics of the era are discussed and debated at times with abundant fervor, usually leaning in the former’s direction. This heightened degree of political reference may not be for every audience member, as the characters speak quickly and sometimes even over each other, requiring them to need to rewatch the scene. Thank goodness for closed-captioning, too.

On a personal note, watching these specific episodes of The West Wing stirs my creative mind in ways that few other entertainments do. The thickness of the craft level at hand with how Sorkin and his crew built each of the scenes, and layered in thoughtful dialogue and impactful drama has rarely met its match, even after over two decades that the season two episodes have aired and been introduced to the world. They make me want to construct the same kind of storytelling and dialogue: complex, well-drawn, and approachable in multiple fashions.

To be able to give great critical analysis that meets personal and professional goals, taking personal inventory of your strengths and weaknesses is one of the first things that a writer must do. They must take their own temperature, while also surveying their peers as to their own thoughts, intense or mild. Only then can the creative writer begin to grow and attack the things they need to learn, be they better habits or just a different approach altogether. People that write creatively well usually have an organized time to guarantee output at the frequency they see as productive and using of their skills. From there, adequate muscle memory is developed so the creative writer can keep up with their workload and produce all the words onto blank pages that are needed, then then hopefully more after that.

On the back of a moderately good public education in my hometown of Mesa, Arizona, I entered my senior year at Mountain View High School understanding more than a little about a few things that had to with government and public works. Only when The West Wing came on were these two things brought to the front of mind through dramatization and characters drawn well that the scattered Legos in my head really started to click on how the pieces fit together. While a mere televised representation of a presidential administration, and certainly never filling in all the knowledge gaps of what a person can and should absolutely know about this country (and the geopolitical world writ large), The West Wing flexed its most earnest muscles in sharing what it could through filmed entertainment. “Building culture is the purposeful construction of the foundations and beliefs society will stand on. Affirming culture is simply confirming or gratifying those foundations, reasserting the status quo” (Littlefield, 43). Dense as the episodic material is presented, repeat viewings were still necessary to grasp the more heightened political and social concepts that the show portrays.

The more that a person interacts with popular culture, the greater breadth of their understanding of it the world that exists. Attitude towards their interaction is key, since anyone who brings in their poorly conceived notions of what should be or would be is immediately at a disadvantage, handicapping their potential to learn and take in what is offered. A person with a willing and positive attitude, along with having had a quality breakfast that isn’t loaded down with sugar, is ready to interact with the sheer complexities of popular culture and the whole of what’s offered.

Being the ages of 18 through 25 when the show aired, my personal biases and ignorance directly played into acceptable comprehension of The West Wing at times. Perhaps it was because I was a younger person who chose reactionary tactics that sometimes did not feature critical thinking. Nonetheless, only with age and better awareness of the show’s messages and character arcs was I able to enjoy and discover deeper aspects from The West Wing. From there, the show became an integral staple to my personal downtime and writing habits: if I am temporarily looking for inspiration, either a cold shower or an episode of the show usually gets me back to filling up blank pages with a newfound wind at my back.

A person who is searching for context in the world through popular culture is wise to enter with an opened mind and as few preconceived notions as possible. Bringing a critical mind and eye to what is presented to them will only aide them in completing the task of coming away smarter and better educated by the final moment. Watching and enjoying The West Wing and its demonstration of an idealized civil religion from the fictious Bartlet Administration and worldview allows a more complete coherence of larger notions in popular culture and the nuances of the subject they are aiming at.

Creator Aaron Sorkin’s theme of giving oneself to civil service as completely as they can is highlighted, especially in the two “In The Shadow of Two Gunmen” episodes: “Sacrifice is one of the most essential elements in civil religion because it reminds citizens the values they hold dear were fought for at great cost” (Littlefield, 53). Using this, being able to take away the more subtle notes of implications and things not necessarily verbalized from the show continue to stimulate my own work in creative writing and storytelling. The actions of the characters involved are what sticks to the viewer’s mind, even if their intentions were scattered at the outset. And if positivity and good works is the yield, true inspiration can be garnered from these displayed acts.

My analysis of The West Wing’s first pair of Season Two episodes (“In The Shadow of Two Gunmen, Parts I & II) would be different if I had used the social sciences general education lens in a moderately different way, even though the my central points would remain in the same neighborhood. Social sciences study culture and human relationships in order to allow us to arrive at the “understanding of how people live and how to improve our lives” (Lovejoy). Taking this cue and not so much shining the light on these two hours of television through the historical general education lens would have an evaluation more of how the fictitious Bartlet Administration’s characters communicate with the folks they represent and have to with work with in their daily work lives. This is not limited to the American citizens, but more of the other departments within the federal government that President Bartlet, his Chief of Staff Leo McGarry, and other West Wing staffers “bounce ideas off each other and their respective counterparts” (O’Connell) at Defense Department, the State Department, the Secret Service, among others featured in the show. These major federal departments of the government are where incredible power exists, and there’s always a “rat-a-tat-tat exchange of dialogue and ideas” (Sorkin) under sometimes crushing circumstances, especially when everyone is working together in the aftermath of a racially motivated assault of gunfire towards the majority of the cast in The West Wing.

It may go without necessary acknowledgement, but using history as the lens to analyze other aspects of one’s life is usually a smart way to go. In this, patterns and behaviors can be better understood and will pop to the surface. This can lead to self-improvement on a mentally holistic level to say the very least. For example, I am able to view my personal gambling problem that I had from ages 20-22 as one of sheer immaturity and financial desperation, not having set myself up for success in either forum during the previous years leading up to the issue. Attacking the understanding of my gambling problem from a social sciences lens, it would be accurate to say that I was not associating with the more positive of friends and compatriots. If I was, you would not find me face-down in a casino parking lot after having spent 14 hours playing Blackjack in the Summer of 2003. Not the best of times, that much can be personally confirmed. But that is just a brief analysis with the majority of the problems I had then are best aimed towards dealing with it creative storytelling through effective narratives so those dark paths do not get walked down again.

Critically analyzing popular culture can only help when interacting with people that do not share the same viewpoints or cultures as I do. Take my cousin Ben: he is a single dad with two daughters younger than 11 years old. I have known him my entire life and love him like a brother. But we currently cannot get together in agreeing on anything except the fact that we do not agree on anything. What exists now is a great tension between the two of us, a very sad thing, however we are both grown adults who each make our own decisions. With regard, I choose to have empathy for him, as his anger towards his ex-wife, along with the enveloping nature of the current Republican Party becoming more than enough of his reason for even getting up in the morning. So while he uses his personal political beliefs to completely fuel his rage and lack of understanding of most issues, the distance that has grown between us has been unfortunate to say the least. But I get it: the current political culture in the United States is one of extremes and definitely not a time of moderation regardless where you look. I will treasure the day that he calls me up and says that his recent behavior has been that of a horse’s backside. But I will not hold my breath, especially in this final month of yet another harrowing election season here in America.

###

Works Cited

Heisler, S. (2018, July 20). The West Wing: “In the Shadow of Two Gunmen, Parts I and II”. The A.V. Club. Retrieved September 11, 2022, from https://www.avclub.com/the-west-wing-in-the-shadow-of-two-gunmen-parts-i-an-1798165150

Ingram, C. (n.d.). Implicit Bias vs Explicit Bias What’s the difference (SCS-100, IDS-400, 401,402, 403, 404)(CC). YouTube. Retrieved September 11, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbPaPjWO8as

O’Connell, M. (2020, September 22). ‘West Wing’ Uncensored: Aaron Sorkin, Rob Lowe, more look back on early fears, long hours, contract battles and the real reason for those departures. The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved September 11, 2022, from https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/west-wing-uncensored-aaron-sorkin-703010/

Littlefield, C., de los Santos, T., Rear, P. G., & Janssen, S. (2018). Patriotism and a Free Press: A Content Analysis of Civil Religion in Aaron Sorkin’s The West Wing and The Newsroom. Journal of Media and Religion, 17(2), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348423.2018.1531624

Lovejoy, R. (n.d.). IDS-404. “The Four General Education Lenses”. Retrieved September 11, 2022, from https://learn.snhu.edu/d2l/lor/viewer/viewFile.d2lfile/1081483/23936,-1/

Rose, L. (2021). ‘What I Look For Is Interesting Points Of Friction’. The Hollywood Reporter, 427(39), 3–4.

Sorkin, A. (2000, October 4). The West Wing. In the Shadow of Two Gunmen: Part I. Episode, Los Angeles, California; NBC.

Sorkin, A. (2000, October 4). The West Wing. In the Shadow of Two Gunmen: Part II. Episode, Los Angeles, California; NBC.

Yuan, J. (2009, February 13). Bradley Whitford on playing Rahm Emanuel – Vulture. Intelligencer. Retrieved September 11, 2022, from https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2009/02/bradley_whitford_on_playing_ra.html

###