Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Aaargh! I'm So Forgetful!

I was certain I was going to wrap up something from "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" in my talk about A Proportional Response. I had it toted up in my notes, all ready for placement ...

And then, boom. Forgot. Left out. Again.

It can't be just because I'm nearing my mid-50s, can it? I mean, sure, I forgot my wallet when I went to work last week. Twice. I end up going back to the grocery store because I don't get everything I meant to get. I thought the cats had taken my car keys and hid them someplace, when I had actually put them in a suitcase before a trip. But no, there's no pattern or anything.

Anyhoo ... I wanted to go back to some background information about President Bartlet that we learned in "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc". When Josh goes to hire Mandy (and Daisy, who then disappears, never to be seen again) he relates some biographical information about Jed; that he's a Nobel Laureate in Economics, he was a three-term Congressman and a two-term governor (we learn from Bartlet himself elsewhere in the episode that it was New Hampshire where he served as Congressman and governor).

Interesting fact about that economics Nobel ... that's not one of the original Nobel prizes established by Alfred Nobel. The prizes for physics, chemistry, literature, peace, and medicine are the ones created by Nobel's will in 1895, and first granted in 1901. There is a prize in economics awarded "in honor" of Alfred Nobel, but that was established in 1969 by Sweden's national bank. True, it is awarded under the auspices of the Nobel Foundation, and can be considered part of the Nobel Prize family ... but there are those who look askance at that particular award. Not least of which, the Nobel family themselves, who are not in favor of the economics award and are on record as asking the Foundation to stop awarding it. It's also seen as favoring mainstream free-market economic theories, instead of honoring new ways of thinking about economics or breaking ground in any way, so the award itself isn't very well regarded in certain fields of economics.

So, okay. Calling Bartlet a "Nobel Laureate in Economics" is technically correct, but it kind of creates more answers than questions. He is a well-regarded economist, okay? Which makes him an interesting choice for President in the first place, but in this universe they have Presidential elections in 1998, 2002 and 2006, so maybe the rules are different there.

In addition, we see CJ make a remark about the President's jokes really knocking them dead at the Whiffenpoof dinners. The Whiffenpoofs are a social club at Yale, so CJ's comment seems to imply Bartlet attended Yale at some point. I don't think there's ever any indication that this was the case - we will find out he did his undergraduate work at Notre Dame, and earned graduate degrees at the London School of Economics. No Yale, though.

---------- 

I also intended to draw a parallel from the world of A Proportional Response to the world of President Donald Trump. The entire notion of responding in a proportional way - as Bartlet puts it, "they hit an airplane, we hit a transmitter - they hit a barracks, we hit two transmitters" - was kind of reflected in Trump's first use of military force, sending cruise missiles to attack an airbase in response to Syria's use of chemical weapons on civilians.

The comparison is almost too apt. The target is Syria in both cases, fictional and actual. The talk of doing just what the enemy expects is spot on, as reports indicate the Syrians moved most aircraft and other equipment away from the targeted airbase before the American missiles hit. Now, we have no idea how President Trump might have reacted originally as far as what kind of attack scenarios he might have considered - the fact he lamented the deaths of "beautiful, innocent babies" in the chemical attacks might indicate he would have favored a much stronger retaliatory strike. But in the end, 50-some cruise missiles were sent to blow up areas around a runway, a runway which was back in use a day or so later.

It's crazy, isn't it, to consider that a work of television fiction from 1999 would still resonate down the years, to an actual use of military force now in 2017? Trust me, this isn't the first The West Wing story that we're going to see reflected in a current administration.

No comments:

Post a Comment