In early March the ABC broadcast a superb episode of The West Wing, the series about the US presidency to which many politically minded Australians have become addicted. Nothing on television better captures the reality of contemporary democratic politics than The West Wing: the unceasing hot-house pressure, the omnipresence of the media, the crucial importance of the political minder. Yet what makes the program so attractive (and perhaps ultimately fictitious) is that, despite their willingness to play the game according to its inescapable rules, no corrosion of character has taken place in any of the players.
To West Wing addicts I need not point out that a presidential election is presently taking place. The Republican candidate, Senator Arnie Vinick, is a wry, supple and charming sceptic, whose conservatism is of the free-market but not the evangelical-Christian kind. His opponent, Congressman Matt Santos, is a Latino, a family man, a believing Catholic, a reservist fighter pilot, a passionate and explosive liberal. In a previous episode, without taking the advice of their minders, they have agreed to a televised debate. In this one we encounter both candidates in the studio. Their minders have established the sort of risk-minimisation rules of engagement that are now standard throughout the democracies of the English-speaking world. Both will begin and end with set-piece speeches. Both will have two minutes to answer questions. Both will have a minute to reply to their opponents' answers. There is then a 20-second rebuttal option available to the moderator. Neither will be allowed to interrupt or question the other directly. Red and yellow lights will be used to signal time. The audience will not be permitted to applaud. And so on. Vinick begins his two-minute presentation, and then pauses for an embarrassingly long time. He suggests a real debate. Santos agrees.