As I
watch CBS’s new Fall drama, Madam
Secretary, I am struck with an eerie sense of déjà vu. It takes me back in time to ABC’s short-lived
(2005-2006) drama, Commander in Chief. On air during the early speculations that
Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for the 2008 Presidential
Election, this show seemed to be setting the stage for the possibility that finally
a woman could land in one of the most powerful leadership roles in our country.
And, not long after the show went off the air, the 2008 election unfolded and,
indeed, provided the country with a potential Clinton presidency and, later,
the possibility that the country could have its first female vice president
once Sarah Palin became the unlikely running mate for Republican nominee John
McCain.
Despite
having a great cast (Geena Davis played Mackenzie Allen, the first female
president and Donald Sutherland played her political rival and Speaker of the
House, Nathan Templeton), Commander in
Chief received its fair share of criticism.
The largest complaint was that the show focused more on Allen’s home
life and her gender rather than her presidency and political aptitude. Ironically, in this way the show actually predicted
the upcoming election cycles in a different way – setting the groundwork for
the type of rhetoric that surrounded actual front running female candidates
(e.g. media commentary on physical appearance, familial life, and other
gendered topics).
Nine
years later, as I watch Madam Secretary
I cannot help but draw parallels between this new show and its
predecessor: the most striking of which
is, of course, the connection to Hillary Clinton. Debuting during yet another period of
speculation over whether we could see a Clinton presidency – and not long after
Clinton herself held the political position this program is focused on – Madam Secretary
stars Téa Leoni as
Elizabeth McCord, the U.S. Secretary of State.
Like Davis’s character, McCord lands her position of power after the
sudden death of a male politician leaves the post vacant. Arguably, the program is making no attempt
to dissuade viewers from associating the fictional McCord with the very real
Clinton. With a pilot episode that
focused on the media’s obsession with her fashion sense and a later episode
titled “Another Benghazi,” the connections are not difficult to make. Further, when in a recent episode media
pundits questioned how McCord’s effectiveness as a parent might predict her
effectiveness as a president, I found myself thinking of recent media speculation concerning whether
Clinton’s impending status as a grandmother could alter her political
aspirations and abilities.
There are also parallels between the two fictional shows. McCord is faced with a political rival of
sorts, Russell Jackson, the President’s Chief of Staff (played by Zeljko
Ivanek), who shares similar traits with Sutherland’s Templeton. And as a melodrama – a political melodrama
but a melodrama nonetheless – the family focus that brought about criticism for
Commander in Chief is again present in Madam Secretary. And instead of embracing this aspect of the
show as an attempt to show the multifaceted life of a political figure, I am
betting that eventually this show too will come under attack for this aspect of
its storyline. But, although its early,
I have to say I have relatively high hopes for CBS’s new darling. The show has carefully integrated a
conspiracy theory subplot (capitalizing off the success of House of Cards, perhaps?) that adds a bit of drama to it and allows
it to feel a bit less episodic as the show tackles its political problem of the
week. McCord’s family and colleagues are
interesting and the writing and acting is great across the board from the
supporting character to the main cast.
There is potential here.
The
downside? This show participates in the
larger trend of contemporary television programming that misrepresents the
actual career prospects and realities for women in this country. Yes, Hillary Clinton really was the Secretary
of State so such power positions are, in fact, possible. But consider this statistic: even when Nancy Pelosi was at the helm in
2009, only 17 percent of Congress was female.
Yet, despite this fact, popular culture is presenting a slew of
powerful, female forces of nature dominating the White House on the small
screen at a rate that doesn’t mirror reality:
24’s Allison Taylor (the first
female president of the United States); Scandal’s
Olivia Pope (the political fixer and personal “advisor” to the president), and
the forthcoming State of Affairs
(which will star Katherine Heigl as Charleston Tucker, a CIA Analyst leading up
the President’s Homeland Security Taskforce).
Is it television’s job to act as a perfect reflection of reality? Of course not. Is such a misrepresentation potentially
problematic? Sure. Is there a potential upside to this type of
fantasy and wish fulfillment? Possibly.
I
grew up in the 1980s and while no one ever told me that I couldn’t grow up to
be the president, I don’t think anyone ever directly said that I could. The thought also never crossed my mind. There isn’t a single popular culture
narrative that I can remember from my childhood that would have hinted that that
could be a potential career path or dream.
(Of course, to be fair, my childhood career dreams of being an actress,
soap opera writer, novelist, or teacher probably indicate that a political
career would not have been on my radar even if such representations had been
abundant. And, well, there was Margaret Thatcher
I suppose if I was looking for that kind of non-fiction role model!). So while I may think that these portrayals of
females dominating the White House continue to mask the realities of the U.S.
political landscape, I suppose there is something to be said about the fact
that these fictionalizations even exist today and for the potential impact they
may have for a new generation of youth who will grow up exposed to them (as
well as to the real elections involving actual women unfolding before their eyes). As always, I find myself conflicted when it
comes to the value of such programming and I find myself forming the safe
conclusion that these shows simply reflect the ambiguous relationship that our contemporary
culture has with powerful women and feminism more broadly.
