Esquire recently ran a short piece about a Ted Cruz ad depicting an HRC strategy session.  The overall tone of the article is a mild, but real, demonstration of the recently discovered smug tone of liberalism in the US:

Have you ever wondered what Hillary Clinton’s campaign would be like as a script written by a drunk, stoned, blindfolded, and sedated Aaron Sorkin?

The piece is playful and, clearly, smart, because whatever you think of Aaron Sorkin, he’s wicked smart.  But  the message is clear:  Drunk, stoned, blindfolded, sedated == “[four] ways of saying the same thing” == Stupid.

The article warns that the spot is an “agonizing two minutes and thirty seconds” that you will never get back – but you really should watch it.  Stay with it, too – don’t start mocking the first awkward note and miss the rest.

In the meantime, a synopsis:  “HRC’s” bossy Chief of Staff, an ambiguously ethnic hottie in a tight pant suit, directs the meeting:  “What have you got.”  The staff, all men who walk on PC eggshells but still manage to say stupid things that annoy HRC, proclaim that Trump is a gift to the campaign.  Walking through slides (on a slide projector) they detail facts that you would typically see in an anti-Trump spot.  Then they announce that should Trump win, HRC is as good as elected.  Chief of Staff, marching back and forth in the dimly lit room, asks what’s the problem?

Well, it turns out there’s a candidate who could be a threat – he’s tough, honest, seasoned, etc.  It’s Ted Cruz, of course.  (They slide a manila folder to HRC and when she opens it, light comes from the folder, like a shot of opening the bible in Left Behind or other religious themed movies.)

The spot is lacking in subtlety or filmic craft and it does take a lot of easy shots.  I think most political ads are pretty poorly produced these days, so I’m not sure why that’s the thing Esquire jumps on.  (Also, I admit that I’m intrigued and baffled by the slide projector.  Usually, conservative messaging embraces the past by invoking its tropes and design cues.  Conversely, they usually use tech and signs of modernization to make the opposition look distant and menacing – I was surprised that they didn’t have fake HRC looking at her Blackberry, especially since the actress kept that expression on her face throughout the spot.  So, what’s up with the slide projector aside from better lighting, being more ominous of old-time conspiracy and evil-planning?)

The real point is that this spot, as blunt as it is, fits perfectly with post-West Wing portrayals of the Oval Office on TV today and those portrayals may help us understand why we’re seeing certain baffling candidates get votes.

Over the last decade, we’ve seen dramatizations of the Presidency that are absurd.  I’m thinking mostly about 24, Scandal, and House of Cards.  I’ve watched some or all of these shows with varying degrees of attention and enjoyment.  (24 is perfect for the elliptical, Scandal was binge-watching, Sunday cooking heaven, and House of Cards is all about waiting for Spacey and Wright together or alone in a scene.)   In each of these shows, the office of the President is depicted in soap opera style:  a backdrop to melodrama.  In today’s TV world, the oval office has multiple televisions running cable news with POTUS and cabinet members watching, spouses and employees storming in to interrupt important meetings, and advice and consultations are lines out of action films:  “Mr President, we can’t be seen as weak! You must push the button!” “You’re right, I’m the President of the United States, damnit.  Do it.” (My favorite is “The threat is growing exponentially, Madame President!  We must act now.”  Exponential rates of anything help TV writers get things done in the alloted 42 minutes per episode.)

These TV depictions of the Presidency are enjoyed by all brows of people.   (Scandal and House of Cards are critical darlings or guilty pleasures of educated folks who watch HBO and speak in hushed tones about The Wire).  They aren’t completely fanciful, either.  The Stark Report tells us that Presidents do, in fact, have time and inclination to do tawdry things in hallowed places.

So everything that seems silly in the Cruz ad (except for that damn slide projector) fits perfectly into the reality of politics all over our TV landscape – across all education levels.  Sure, it’s slightly less sophisticated than what Shonda Rhimes has given us.  But is it fundamentally different in its portrayal or understanding of how politics work?  Not in the least.

So why blog this?  It helps me answer the riddle of how people can look at Trump and think he has the intelligence, temperament, or skills to be President.  In Michael Lewis’s depiction of the daily life of the (Obama) Presidency or episodes of The West Wing, Trump’s bullying, blustering style and complete unfamiliarity with policy makes no sense at all.  But in the world of 24, Scandal, and House of Cards, Trump would crush it.  Even Ben Carson could credibly navigate that world.

In addition to no longer respecting the office itself, we no longer respect or understand its complexities.