MAY 9, 2019 – I think the producers of The West Wing should do an encore called, IMPEACHIM’. The show would mimic what’s unfolding today—mostly on CNN—but provide depth and context.
The first season would feature the president behaving within a full range of what people of taste would find distasteful.
Some of the infractions would be stylistic not substantive—though many viewers would decide that bad style can become a matter of bad substance. These form-over-substance offenses would be designed to split viewers, much as the current occupant’s “style” offends many voters irredeemably but is excused, tolerated or supported by many others.
Other offenses would be technically criminal but divorced from the exercise of power or prerogative. An example would be perjury with regard to the question, “Did you have sex with the White House intern?” Again—just as in history—many viewers would “demand” impeachment, while others would steadfastly oppose it.
A third line of misbehavior would be more serious, with far-reaching negative ramifications for the Republic, such as unrestrained authoritarianism. These offenses—and the reaction in Congress—would be central to the series . . . for the second season.
Back in the first season, however, the script would introduce the bell-ringer: a fourth category of offense (and cover-up), horrific in its nature and reach—let’s say, murder. Apart from the president, a close political advisor, and the actual trigger-puller, only the viewers would know anything about the crime—and until the third season, they would not become eyewitnesses or be privy to anything but circumstantial evidence. Neither reporters nor Congressional investigators would know anything about it, except they’d almost learn of it just as some unrelated, big-butt event is about to break into the headlines.
Of course, throughout the show Congressional investigations and investigative reporting, along with Court maneuverings, would create the tension central to any good film. For added stress a host of domestic and international crises would arise.
Unlike CNN, MSNBC, WAPO and NYT (I’ve omitted FoxWhiteHouseNews, which ignores even the possibility of presidential wrong-doing), IMPEACHIM’ would give detailed attention to what’s going on behind the scenes. The show would cover (a) calls, tweets, email and “town hall” questions by constituents pushing for or against impeachment; (b) pressure from donors, lobbyists, Congressional spouses and families—also pro and con; (c) conflicting advise among political consultants; (d) heartfelt debates among lawyers, appellate judges, and academics as to the long-term ramifications of impeachment or restraint; and (e) conflicting priorities—Congressional investigation and White House push-back, on the one hand, and on the other, constituency pressure to address real policy issues . . . all blown to smithereens when a rogue National Security Advisor hiding behind his moustache and eyebrows single-handedly creates an international crisis requiring a bi-partisan, multi-lateral response to avoid global conflagration.
Having seen how brilliant The West Wing was written, acted and directed, I have no doubt that IMPEACHIM’ could be equally riveting.
© 2019 Eric Nilsson
