Watching the West Wing in 2026
“My commitment is to strive to be worthy of the example of the great men who have gone before. Presidents walk in giant footsteps. They have magnificent legacies to uphold. I stand here on this day and put my name forth, as one who aspires to their example, who will daily make that sacrifice, who will honor not just the office, but the people that office serves. *Their* President of these United States of America.” — GOP Sen. Arnold Vinick, from The West Wing (written by Aaron Sorkin)
+ + +
I’ve recently returned to the show The West Wing. Generally speaking, it holds up well, mostly because Aaron Sorkin and John Wells are skilled craftsmen and the cast is strong. Sorkin’s writing can sometimes get too cute. I prefer serious Sorkin to goofy Sorkin. But it remains an intelligent, thought-provoking show. Of course, re-watching it now – in 2026 – is a different experience.
John Wells (who remained producer of the show through its seven seasons) has said the show emanated from Aaron Sorkin’s unused plot/story ideas for the film The American President. Because he had limited access to the president, Sorkin spent a lot of time with White House staffers. Sorkin and Wells aimed to create a realistic TV show about the daily lives of the staff; an ultra-qualified, conscientious, brilliant group of public servants dedicated to doing good work. Making a difference. Making the country better for every American. Their daily diligence and devotion to the rule of law offers a stark contrast to the Trump administration, which in many ways is the polar opposite, governing via fear, hatred, dishonesty, and ignorance. Bullying is celebrated. Compassion is mocked. Blind loyalty is essential. Expertise, science, democracy, laws and regulations…don’t matter. You know the drill. It’s not subtle.
Smart, Data-Driven Television About Smart, Data-Driven Work
We must remember that this is a television show. It’s melodramatic. It’s built to entertain, to make a profit, to make studio execs and advertisers happy. But it’s simultaneously produced by a creative team striving to make inspiring, empirical, authentic television, driven by constant input from advisors (from both democratic and republican administrations). They maintained a constant commitment to accuracy and detail. Here’s John Wells discussing the role of political consultants:
In his 2025 book Who Is Government?: The Untold Story of Public Service, Michael Lewis aims to show that the government is composed of very capable, motivated individuals whose work is often unnoticed and/or uncredited. He enlists other writers, including W. Kamau Bell, Geraldine Brooks, Dave Eggers, and Sarah Vowell, to profile these individuals. According to Lewis:
I didn’t set out to write positive stories about the federal government. I got interested in the first place when Trump fired his transition team right after he was elected the first time. And I learned that by law, the Obama administration was required to prepare for the transition and that there were a thousand people waiting to give briefings across the federal government. I thought it would be really cool to take a reader in and the reader would know, because no one showed up for the briefing, the reader knew more than the president did about how the government functioned. And indeed, I could do things like wander into the Energy Department and get the briefing about how the nuclear stockpile was managed and have them say, nobody’s come in to hear this before.
We don’t really know what our own government does. Even very intelligent, educated people. There was the famous government shutdown that lasted for a very long time. And the government furloughed 2/3 of its employees, describing them to themselves as inessential. And while working on the book, I had been struck by the quality of the people I was meeting. I wasn’t writing profiles. I was writing about what they were doing. But I just got kind of shocked by how mission-driven, committed, expert, definitely not lazy, definitely not abusive or fraudulent. I mean, wildly interesting people. And I thought, let’s just pick one of these characters and see how far you can go with it.
What also comes clear in the book is these workers tackle serious, complicated problems the private sector can’t handle. More importantly, he argues, they tackle problems that the private sector simply doesn’t care about. There’s no motivation to do the work if it doesn’t produce a significant profit. Lewis challenges the negative stereotypes of federal workers, calling the hatred of government workers, “the most sinister idea alive in this country right now.” They have each found a project that is their ‘calling’; it’s meaningful and important to them. They dig deep, find the problems, and make things better, and they’re not politicians. They don’t call attention to themselves. They’re not looking for fame or fortune. They just want to find the facts, solve problems, and make the country better.
These themes are central to the West Wing. While there’s more of a political component, you see similarly conscientious, focused individuals tirelessly striving to solve complicated issues, reflecting on the legality (and ethics) of every move. You see the heartbreaking sadness of war; when soldiers die the president and his staff feel the brutal weight of military decisions and the resulting, painful ripple effects through regions, communities, and families. The complexities of foreign policy are not ignored, nor is diplomacy immediately dismissed as too soft or weak. You see President Bartlett get angry when Americans are killed. His initial instinct is revenge, and there’s heated debate about the value of a “proportional response” to foreign aggression. (If they don’t care about civilian casualties, why should we?) Yet there is always a return to reasonable dialogue, to pragmatism, to broader historical and global context. They take a collective breath and strive to find the best decision (and in government ‘best decision’ never means ‘perfect decision’). There is a sunny, hopeful idealism to most of Sorkin’s writing. But he strives to balance this against the gray ubiquity of compromise, the brutality of history, and the discouraging mud of realism.
Compassion Is Not Weakness. Loyalty Is Not Always Good.
“The president likes smart people who disagree with him. He wants to hear from you. He’s asking you to serve. And everything else is crap.” – Chief of Staff Leo McGarry
+ + +
When is loyalty bad? There are countless examples. I’m guessing you’ve seen it. I certainly have. There’s a quote that says, “Loyalty itself isn’t the mistake – giving it to the wrong people is the mistake.” There’s pointed power in this idea. Why would you stay loyal to someone who continues to hurt you, who shows little remorse, who strives to normalize dishonesty, hate, and destructive aggression? Leo McGarry tells Aynsely Hayes that President Barlett wants her specifically because she is not loyal to the same ideology. She’s intelligent and experienced, and she has a different point of view. While Mr. Trump insists on a kind of extreme, mindless loyalty that is divorced from any critical thought or candor, the fictional President Bartlett insists on hearing from ‘smart people who disagree with him’. Why? Because the loyalty is to the American people – finding the best answers for the country, for most Americans. This goal is far more intricate and arduous than the simple Trump rule: do everything I say or else. Never question, never disagree.
The desire to do beneficial work, to make the world a better place, to serve the community, to empower the disadvantaged, to openly address privilege, to shine a spotlight on complex arguments (where both sides have valid, data-driven points); this mindset is dismissed instantaneously as “woke” or “radical left” by millions of Americans. Team Trump has done an excellent job of demonizing education, intellect, compassion, honesty, and integrity. All democrats are weak, out-of-touch, terrible people.
Yet these are some of the fundamental principles with which I’m raising my son. Of course you don’t back down from a fight – it can be a bloody, cruel world – but you lead with love, intelligence, and empathy. I’ve never been scared of MAGA’s loud, enraged posturing. I’ve heard it all (or most of it) before. However, now that they inhabit positions of national, public, political power, I am definitely scared of their collective ignorance, fear, and seething hatred. This is where the real, lasting destruction germinates (as we’re witnessing).
Also, isn’t this completely obvious? The political impact of MAGA is clearly seen in this simple fact: trying to be an informed, conscientious person is now under attack. Raising your kids the right way is somehow weak and unacceptable. The moral and ethical foundation has been rocked and many of us feel it every day. This dissonance is continually re-established, as media outlets normalize and legitimize the same MAGA crap. I’m aware that many of the mechanisms behind these changes (which have recently become more public and obvious) have existed in the dark for a long time. They’re purposefully hidden. Most billionaires don’t care about the country. Corporations are NOT people even if the law says they are (and if corporations are ‘people’, they are psychotic people). In many ways the only difference is that more of us are now acutely aware of the destructive and vile powers behind closed doors. So one question (of many) is: can we do anything to make a lasting change?
The undeniable truth: this can’t only be about greed and profits and getting rich. With the impact of MAGA, that might sound absurd in 2026. But the fact is, if we’re going to be okay as a planet, the most constructive and sensible agenda cannot be about corporate greed and demonizing/hating minorities, distracting technology and manipulative media and toxic markets. There must be another set of priorities. By definition, this is not a liberal or conservative viewpoint. It is science-based fact.
Let’s celebrate work for the common, global good. While life is rarely as poetic or clever or perfectly structured as a Sorkin script (there’s a lot of raw, chaotic, exhausted ugliness too), I’ll stay committed to said endeavor. Sorkin called the West Wing a “love letter to public service.” It’s enlivening and comforting to re-read this letter in the era of MAGA, even as we all know it’s hopelessly romantic. “Hopeless romanticism” – tempered by all the facts – could be a useful blueprint for a better life for you and yours, and for the planet. Love to all, hg
