Bartlet v. Underwood

There are now two shows that most political operatives of all creeds can agree to love: The West Wing and House of Cards. The shows are separated by over a decade, and I think it is interesting some of the things they have in common and some of the things they don’t. For starters, the main character in each show is a Democrat, but the portrayal moved from positive to negative. However, it’s not just the Democratic Party that is negatively portrayed in House of Cards. It’s the entire practice of politics. In The West Wing, politics was largely a noble pursuit about serving ones country, while in House of Cards politics is a game to be played for personal power.

No one should watch House of Cards and think the presence of a Democratic villain is somehow reflective of the country’s frustration with the Obama administration. In fact, the producers probably had little choice but to make their villain a Democrat. A GOP Frank Underwood would be too over-the top, and the fact that many Republicans can admit this is a sign of how serious the Republican’s image problem really is. It would actually be a sign of improvement if Frank Underwood was a Republican.

But deeper than any message about faith in political parties is the message about our faith in the political process generally. President Bartlet was an admirable man. Even to the Republicans who watched the show. He portrayed public virtues we could all agree were virtues. But now we no longer agree on the virtues or even wonder if they remain in our politics at all. Frank Underwood is the new unifying force in American’s view of politics. If we can’t agree on what is good, we can at least all agree on what is bad.