West Wing 2×04: In This White House

[Review by Jeremy Grayson]

[Writer: Aaron Sorkin, Peter Parnell & Allison Abner | Director: Ken Olin | Aired: 10/25/2000]

“Don’t call them worthless.” – Ainsley

Every once in a while, I get into an argument with a relative or acquaintance of mine about The West Wing, and why they don’t like it. The reason I’m most commonly given is not that it’s poorly written or acted, but rather, that “it’s too liberal.” (The majority of my relatives and acquaintances fall under the conservative side of the banner, whereas I settle somewhere in the middle.)

Now, I’m certainly not going to say that The West Wing is not overtly a liberal show, because it certainly is. However, I’m a bit perplexed by this reasoning. For a variety of reasons that are simultaneously too vague and complicated to explain here, the majority of television in some way skews toward a liberal perspective. In fact, with the exception of 24, it’s difficult to find a popular 21st-century network drama that doesn’t lean toward the left.

My support of the liberalism on The West Wing is for the way that series executes it. Shows like Friday Night Lights, The Good Wife, and Grey’s Anatomy often feature liberal messages, but they’re usually buried beneath the overall storylines. The West Wing, on the other hand, lays down its weapons right from the start – it’s a show centered on a Democratic President. It knows it’s a liberal show, and it knows the viewers know it. There’s no case to be made for shifty, underhanded messages, because the means for these messages forms the backbone to the show.

The truth is, I don’t believe the complaint fully lies in the show’s portrayal of liberalism. Rather, it comes from the way it portrays conservatism. The opposite party, as we’ve so far seen it on the show, has consisted of little more than paper-thin human targets for our protagonists to aim at, from the naïve right-wing religious pundits in the “Pilot” [1×01] to the hapless Dr. Schlesinger caricature in “The Midterms” [2×03]. Characters like these tend to inspire the most vehemence in conservative viewers, who see them as mockeries of their beliefs.

And it was this vehemence that pushed Sorkin to create Ainsley Hayes, a Republican character who proves to be intelligent, thoughtful, and a worthy addition to the Bartlet Administration. “In This White House” serves as her introductory episode – and, regrettably, it’s nothing short of problematic.

The idea behind Ainsley’s introduction fits easily with the theme of the season – Bartlet’s new, more open-minded policy has inspired him to bring in a member of the opposite party, not in order to be “politically correct”, but because he honestly believes that she would be a strong addition to the administration. Bartlet’s policy may veer on bipartisan, but in hiring her, he aims to show that focusing on the similarities between the two major parties can be more beneficial than focusing on the differences.

The problem with the episode’s execution, however, is that it’s all simply too pat. Every action regarding Ainsley’s interview and subsequent hiring is pointedly punctuated to make us clearly understand how incredibly groundbreaking the idea of a Democratic President hiring a Republican is. And each of these overbaked ideas serves only to undercut the personal aspect of the event, as they’re all set up so ham-handedly and predictably. Sam at first finds the idea of going toe-to-toe with “a leggy blonde Republican” ludicrous… only for her to trounce him on live television. CJ is outraged at the idea of a Republican being hired onto the White House legal counsel… only to soften once Ainsley gives her some applicable legal advice. And Ainsley herself initially rolls her eyes at the idea of working for the administration so often that you expect her pupils to launch into orbit… only to come to the alarming conclusion that the White House is in fact filled with thoughtful and caring people, a fact she unsubtly speechifies over dinner to her two one-note, sarcastic Republican friends. (Incidentally, I don’t think the conservative viewers who complained about the series were particularly happy with the way the non-Ainsley Republicans in this episode were portrayed.)

Buried somewhere beneath the manipulative, ham-fisted writing is a story about how bipartisanship can be a positive if handled correctly, but the message collapses beneath its heavy-handed surface. Even when writing strong Republican characters, Sorkin always seems a little too self-conscious, and his fallacies are particularly evident in this early attempt. (Team Wells would do a far better job of balancing the two parties when the need arose, most notably in “The Supremes” [5×17] and “The Last Hurrah” [7×20].) Even the follow-up to this episode, “And It’s Surely to Their Credit” [2×05], is a marked improvement, equipping itself with a sense of humor in showing the integration of Ainsley into the staff, and avoiding the self-serious execution that bogs down this episode.

Fortunately, “In This White House” is not a complete loss, as the episode’s other running storyline proves to be both emotionally compelling and thematically relevant. President Nimbala, the leader of a small third-world country, is the latest leader to come seeking Bartlet’s assistance, and he certainly has reason. Equatorial Kundu (a fictional African nation, though sadly not very far off from some real ones) is in desperate need of medical aid, and the US is the most reliable candidate to provide it. And Bartlet’s staff is only too determined to break through the barriers set up by the FDA in order to help Nimbala’s country. Unfortunately, as debates and discussions progress, it becomes clear that Kundu is simply too third-world to be helped. Between their relatively brief life expectancies and the fact that most of them haven’t the means to know the specific times they should take their pills, the people of Kundu are simply too far down the worldly ladder to be helped by the US. (Tidily, this continues the theme of “too much power” from “The Midterms” [2×03].)

It’s not easy to watch as Josh and Toby are stonewalled at their every attempt to send aid to Kundu. But even more difficult to view is Nimbala himself. As he implies to the staffers in his own broken English, Nimbala is not a begging man, and it hurts him to solicit assistance from another country. We also get the sense of the clear bond he has to his people – even after civil war (reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide) breaks out in his country, he still believes he can reason with those responsible, ands help his country through this most difficult time.

This glint of idealistic thinking parallels Nimbala with another President we’ve come to know. And indeed, the drama of this story is especially potent because of the similarities between Nimbala and Bartlet. Nimbala’s attitude – that if he pushes hard enough, he can right even the most insuperable of his country’s issues – alludes to Bartlet’s adoptive policy in Season Two, and his uneasiness at asking for assistance mirrors Bartlet’s staunchness in the face of peril. Perhaps most subtly, Nimbala is shown to be concerned about what his father would think of his pleading for help – hinting at Bartlet’s own personal father issues, which are brought to the forefront in “Two Cathedrals” [2×22].

Bartlet and Nimbala are similar men, but they come from very different backgrounds, as evidenced by the final scene of the episode. The news that Nimbala was executed by a group of his own people is heartbreaking, and it leaves Bartlet in distress, despite the fact that he all but knew it would happen. He and his administration could only sit by with their hands tied as they watched another President try and ultimately fail to help his country, despite the best of intentions. Idealistic thinking, though admirable in many respects, is not an objective suited for everyone. Bartlet recognizes this, and on top of being saddened by the death of a man who shared his ideals, he is given just the faintest bit of doubt about his new policy.

Between this moving, thoughtful story about Nimbala and the heavy-handed, self-conscious story about Ainsley, “In This White House” is a decidedly mixed bag. Its relevance to the season’s themes pushes it into above-average territory, but just barely. Above all, we can find merit even in the episode’s faults, which serve as a cautionary tale – try to end up pleasing both the reds and the blues, and you may just end up with a whole lot of purple prose.


Minor Pros/Cons (+/-)

+ Josh and Toby reacting to Sam’s on-air debate with Ainsley.
+ CJ clucking at Sam. (Between this and Donna in “20 Hours in LA” [1×16], the White House women certainly know their way around a chicken impression.)
+ There is an elephant in Gail’s fishbowl, alluding to the Republican angle of this episode. Oh, you awesome Gail, you.
+ CJ screaming where there are people.
+ Leo banging on his door while Margaret stands right on the other side.
+ Ainsley, despite her better nature, accepting a Scotch with Leo.

– Godfrey: “Sam, this one might know something.” Ouch.
– Leo: “You go, girl.” Double ouch.
– Sam’s insecurity around the women in the White House is initially funny, but quickly grows tiring.


* CJ is deeply concerned when she accidentally leaks covert information to a reporter, only to finally learn that she has nothing to worry about. This quietly sets up a major facet of her arc the season, in which she will go to great lengths to preserve her position in the White House, often too concerned to see the big picture for herself.
* In the teaser, Sam makes a brief reference to a politician named “Stackhouse”. This could easily refer to Senator Howard Stackhouse, the obstinate official who plays important roles in “The Stackhouse Filibuster” [2×17] and “The Red Mass” [4×04].



17 thoughts on “West Wing 2×04: In This White House”

  1. [Note: Boscalyn posted this comment on August 14, 2015.]

    The failed attempts at bipartisanship drag the episode down, but the real problem with the Ainsley Hayes storyline is that every five minutes we’re treated to a scene that sounds something like this:

    JOSH: Haha! Sam, you lost a debate TO A GIRL!!! That’s incredibly funny!

    SAM: I don’t think that’s funny.

    TOBY: I think that’s incredibly funny.

    SAM: Why?

    TOBY: You see, Sam, you are a man and Ainsley Hayes is a woman, so if you lost to Ainsley Hayes, who is a woman, in a debate, you must be a complete idiot.

    SAM: Oh, now I get it. That makes perfect sense.

    DONNA: No it doesn’t. When you lose debates to Toby or Josh, it doesn’t mean that you’re a scatterbrained imbecile, it just means their arguments were better than yours. So why can’t Ainsley have made a superior argument?

    AARON SORKIN: Let me tell you why you’re wrong, Donna. First of all, you’re a woman, which means you can’t have any understanding of political issues any more serious than what color your next manicure is going to be. Second of all, Ainsley Hayes can’t have any understanding of political issues any more serious than what color her next manicure is going to be, because she’s a woman and women are stupid. Since women lack the intellectual capability to win their own arguments, the only way she could win a political debate with a member of the superior sex like Sam is if that man was mentally handicapped. Thirdly, does anyone know where I can buy a bong? I’m asking for a friend.

    BOSCALYN (BRANDISHING GLOCK AND DRESSED IN FULL GUERRILLA GIRL REGALIA): Aaron Sorkin, I can’t tell if the misogyny in this episode is an intentionally out-of-character but still out-of-character attempt to make an obvious and uninteresting point about sexism or a reflection of your own misogyny. This has made me so hysterical that I feel a sudden urge to shoot you.


    AARON SORKIN (SNORTING COKE OFF LEO’S BACK): How many strong female characters do I have to write before you feminists stop attacking me? Two? Three?


    DONNA: I like your nails. They’re very purple and very pointy.

    BOSCALYN (STILL FIRING): Thanks, I did them myself. Also, what was with that scene in “The Crackpots and These Women” where you call attention to all the female secondary characters? At best it feels like a tacked-on speech to justify the episode’s title, but at worst it feels like a cynical attempt to point out how diverse your female characters are to preemptively silence feminist criticism of the show. Also, why would Leo say that Mandy going head-to-head with Toby is an example of her extraordinary tenacity and feminist anger rather than a day-to-day reality of her job?

    TOBY: Who?

    BOSCALYN: Mandy Hampton.

    TOBY: Who?

    BOSCALYN: You know, the Moira Kelly character from Season 1, Mandy Hampton.

    TOBY: Who?

    BOSCALYN: You know, the Moira Kelly character from Season 1, Ma–

    JOSH: I know you two are characters in an Aaron Sorkin show, which means you live and die by the rule of three, but I need you two to stop now. You see, if you say Mandy Hampton three times–


    Enter PRESIDENT BARTLET, wearing a PINSTRIPED FEDORA. Everyone stands, except JOSH, who is on the ground in the fetal position having traumatic flashbacks of Season 1.

    EVERYONE (EXCEPT JOSH): Good morning Mr. President.

    BARTLET: Good morning everyone. I’ve just been told that if you mix Diet Coca-Cola with this new candy called “Mentos,” you can make a real hullabaloo!

    He pulls out a BOTTLE OF DIET COKE and a TUBE OF MENTOS.

    BARTLET: Let’s find out!

    Cut to that scene from Independence Day where the White House blows up.



  2. [Note: Zarnium posted this comment on August 14, 2015.]

    Heh heh.

    Yeah, I agree. Ainsley is a character who was rarely handled well, and those awkward “she’s a GIRL! Ha ha!” moments never really go away. It’s made even worse by the fact that “being befuddled by women” is practically Sam’s entire reason for being.

    There are a few female characters who come in later who are handled a lot better, though.


  3. [Note: Jeremy G. posted this comment on August 14, 2015.]

    I actually comment on Sorkin’s writing of women in my review of the next episode (which also, as you may guess, prominently features Ainsley).

    The main problem is that although most of the West Wing women are better written than the women in his other work, the strengths of most of the female characters are defined through the “women in a man’s world” approach, and repeatedly spelled out to that effect. Although CJ and Donna benefit well, characters like Ainsley, Amy, and Abbey are all variations of the same feminist theme. (The latter two are still given good arcs, though.)

    Compare that to the post-Sorkin seasons, which introduce characters like Kate, Annabeth, and Louise. None of them are especially complex, but they’re all well-defined and differing in their personalities, and they manage to be strong characters without unsubtly coming off as “strong female characters”.


  4. [Note: unkinhead posted this comment on December 29, 2015.]

    Normally find feminist critique to be…well..a little ridiculous in it’s accusations. But I totally understand the complaints for this particular episode of television. I think there’s a way to say “You got beat by a girl” and it not be sexist (because physical competition is a thing and so is genetics). That being said, it was pretty jarringly discriminatory for being said by supposedly open-minded people in regards to a purely intellectual debate, as if CJ Cregg doesn’t exist.

    But yeah this episode heavily patronizes the right.


  5. [Note: Freudian Vampire posted this comment on December 29, 2015.]

    What I want to know is why Boscalyn is depicting cokeheads and drug users so negatively. That’s discrimination.


  6. [Note: Jeremy G. posted this comment on December 29, 2015.]

    Well, I’m not upset. And I’m not a sexist.

    Now stop arguing. You’re beginning to sound like a girl.


  7. I already commented in this thread despite not seeing the episode. That doesn’t sound like me at all.

    For sure the “you got beat by a girl” stuff was not great but I kind of took that as the characters being sexist, not the show so it didn’t bother me that much.

    And just living in the world we do now I’m not remotely taken aback or found it unrealistic how big a deal it was portrayed that they accepted a Republican into the staff, or how all the Republicans thought that the Democratic white house was smug and do-gooders who don’t care about their freedoms. That’s really how things seem to be now especially, where the people on either side just don’t see the others as “like them”. Democrats think Republicans are selfish monsters and Republicans think Democrats are smug self-righteous know-it-alls and people can be 100% pre-judged by their political leanings.

    Now maybe this wasn’t true to the same degree back when the episode aired, but both the conversation surrounding bringing Ainslie into the staff or the conversation with Ainslie’s friends about the white house staffers didn’t feel out of place or self-congratulatory to me, it really felt like how those conversations would go if something like this were to occur. It didn’t feel heavy handed, it felt like a realistic portrait of how these things would be received.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s