Women in the White House: The Fantasy/Wish-Fulfillment Provided by Television Shows like Madam Secretary

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.