One detail about this scene I love is the occasional slip-ups while they both speak, since that's exactly what you expect to happen in a debate like this when they're speaking on the fly.
Just watched this episode for the first time ever.. it was pretty amazing. Just like 30 Rock with their NBC live episode, they did two versions.. one for each coast. It is an absolutely incredible episode with very special (and REAL) performances by Smits and Alda.
Or in the case of a recent debate, interrupt and talk over the other. Thank you to the US for throwing out that sort of ignorance and boorish president.
In hiding from the Empire, he had a crack at local earth politics, cream rises to the top. Must have seemed like a walk in the park after dealing with that c[_]nt Sheev.
That's the beauty of his role as Arnold Vinick, since Vinick was a Republican, and Alan Alda is about as liberal as you can get. He won an Emmy for that performance, his 6th Emmy.
He actually said in an interview recently in regards to the West Wing reunion: “It was hard for me to not jump up and say “YES!” Because I was honestly wishing that we had this character in real life. I see them coming up today and it makes me, mildly to say, ecstatic. I want to live in a world with more Santos.”
@@alexandradaniels6048 We live in a world with more Santos. The problem is getting them into elected seats, where we need them. And to be clear, I don't mean Democrats. I mean political leaders whose only operating mandate, is to work for the people.
@@alexandradaniels6048 Probably correct, but I think we'll only possibly see it more in the state houses, rather than at the National level. Plus side is, I've seen it happen in my own district. Not even an election year, but my State representative came knocking on the doors around my neighborhood to talk with us, ask about any issues we were having or could think of. 42 years old, lived in 3 different states, I haven't ever seen that, even in an election year. She's earned my vote if she continues to run for office just for that alone.
Interesting thing I learned about this episode is that they did the whole thing in a single take, just like any normal debate. Jimmy Smits looks really pleased with himself for nailing that speech because he knew there'd be no do-overs. He had to nail it, and he did.
This isn't a real debate and I know it because I've watched this series over and over. But can we just take a moment and applaud the acting between Smitts and Alda to make it seem otherwise? They draw you in and immerse you so well I almost forget its all scripted television. And bravo to the director of this scene, allowing the two to stumble on their own words as the two argue, adds a piece of reality rarely seen on TV today.
That wasn't really the director. This was 100 percent scripted but was actually performed and aired live in front of an audience. It was basically a live teleplay.
@@jonofpdx I remember reading that and being completely impressed by both actors. The amount of talent it took for them to do that, along with the reactions and exchanges with one another, is a testament to how skilled they both are.
Do yourself a favor, look up the man the democrats are currently trying to use to justify going after removing trump from ballots.....his name was stevens....the confederate vp....a democrat. Convicted of insurrection in a court martial.....imprisoned in a military fort prison....later granted amnesty and held office in the house for several terms as a democrat.....left the house after being elected governor of Georgia as a.....democrat.....died 1870 or so.....still a democrat. Key who wrote the star spangled banner lefties hate so much.....a democrat slave owner.....took seeing slaves hold the banner up with their white counterparts on the ramparts to see them as human and begin to turn his life around....And what are they doing now? "allowing" illegals into their homes.......to work for room and board, no salary...under a democrat government's program......but hey slavery by another name is progressive right dems?
Cmon. I understand why you’re a democrat but using this show as a reason why you’re proud to be a democrat is silly. This is fiction and not representative of the democrats or the republicans. And the democrats in this show are much more moderate than the Dems Of today. If you’re proud to be democrat, I get it, but you should find better reasons than fictional idealized politicians. If I were a democrat I’d point to FDR, JFK, LBJ. One took the country out a depression and won a war to save the world, one managed to handled the Cuban missile crisis and saved the world in the process. And one completed the 100 years long battle for signing civil rights into law and ended segregation and race based discrimination.
I like to think that liberals believe what Dr. King Jr taught us. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Which is why we fight for equal rights for all Americans - regardless of race, education, sex, sexuality. I'm not transgender, but I can and will fight for them to have the same rights that I do.
Republicans always think you have to be gay or transgender to support gay and transgender people. Now when I show support for them and a Republicans asks "What, are you gay?" I'd be like "Not at all, why? Are you interested?" Watch them act as if Jesus himself were looking at them in shame.
It was democrats who started the kkk and it was republicans who ended slavery. Democrats in the south supported segregation and opposed all of the civil rights legislation. But democrats now lie about their long history of racism --- and call the republicans racist. This show is bullshit.
Majeo republicans don't care if somebody is gay. But they also don't want parades down Main Street about it while first graders are being taught about having 2 fathers. You're full of shit.
@@MrJamberee the Republican party supported classical liberalism, however it became the Dems who became liberals later on. So you condemn dems for past deeds and praise Republicans. Still same song and dance today or have you come to the middle ground and realize everything shifts continuously?
I loved this episode. Both characters portrayed their characters in such a reasonable manner. When you strip away political extremism, and the influence of the media and the uneducated, you see two well thought out platforms that both deserve to be heard. I am a Conservative and really enjoyed the Santos character. I wish more politicians were like the Santos and Vinnick characters.
While conservatism/liberalism can be two diametrically opposing viewpoints, the point of a democracy is finding a compromise somewhere in the middle of both. No one side will obtain completely what they want, but concessions are made that both parties can live with. Sadly, that just doesn't happen all that much in the real world, especially in modern times. The Democratic party, in my view, is the more moderate party because it has a wider spectrum of members between "conservative" democrat and progressive/liberal, whereas the Republican party goes farther and farther to the right to appease the more extreme side of their voting bloc. That is, the Democrats basically have to make concessions within their own party to secure total support in their ranks while Republicans tend to vote lockstep with each other much more easily.
This is probably my favourite quote from the whole series, because it's so true, and I like to quote it because it's still happening. People still want to label people as liberals (or the preferred term in my country of Australia, "lefties") as though it's an insult, the worst thing you could be. But "lefties" have pushed this world forward while all that conservative have done is hold it back.
@@prometheustv6558Oh you mean Marx, who sided with the Union against slavery? Or the entire liberal North? Or any of the thousands of counter-secessionists from the Confederacy that joined back with the Union?
Dmitri Petrov - here is the continuum that you are not told about from Fox and hate radio: we start with corporate Democrats -> liberals -> progressives -> democratic socialists>communists. So, you showed your ignorance and/or bubble of knowledge fed to you from the rightwing media and made a mistake here. Why can't Doc be proud to be a liberal? Im proud to be a democratic socialist but I know the difference between my ideology and a communist - its a big difference. Many scholars will tell you we really have no "left" in USA - whatever. Indeed there are precious few of us despite what you have been force fed. As you know, the Rightwing has a spectrum as well, right? The GOP has purged the party of liberal Republicans (see NY's Lindsay and many other fine statesmen in our history) so your spectrum starts still with centrists (with very little difference from corporate Dems) all the way to the neocons and so forth until the sad bunch of nationalists/neo-nazis. Trump is none of the above. Con-men grifters have no ideology, simply drunk on power and money to feed their sad self images/narcissism. They are mentally ill, but that for another day.
@GeometryDashGaming The Hell it isn't. What people should not be proud of is being a member of a racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-science, anti-education, anti-environmentalist, anti-caring, obstructionist, anti-liberty, anti-peace, lying, hypocritical group like the current Republican (and I say current as in the last 50 years) party; A party being led by a con-man that doesn't even understand the basic principles of government or even being a decent human being. I pick up the Liberal tag and wear it like a beacon of hope that we don't (once again) devolve into Jim Crow and McCarthyism. I pick it up and invite people to inclusivity instead of segregation and gated communities where only the very wealthy are allowed decent housing and medical care. I pick it up and stand in defiance of every single thing the modern Republican party stands for.
@@Akihito007 The irony is that Sorkin probably made the most bipartisan portrayal of political figures in any major piece of political media. The fact that you think someone standing up for their principles makes them garbage clearly indicates that you've never done the same.
@@Strategic_Reformer The FACT that you actually believe the dribble that you just wrote makes me think you're snorting more cocaine that Sorkin did when he was writing that God awful show with his absolute IGNORANCE of actual American history and Biblical knowledge. His drek should have been titled, "Conservative Strawmen: The Show".
@@Akihito007 oooh we got a snowflake on our hands! I'll try not to trigger you by saying I like European beer, don't eat beef, am a liberal, gun loving atheist and have watched both Fox AND CNN! EDUCATION! EMPATHY! INDIVIDUALITY! Turn away child, Avert your eyes from such horrors! Your meager brain can't handle the concept that not everything in life is absolute or belongs to an extreme!
One thing that was so great about "West wing" (and "Newsroom" as well) was that it portrayed a great version of Republicans. There were so many reasonable, intelligent and caring Republicans in that series. "Where are they now"? (M. Santos)
Yeah, because the writers of this show made the republican give the democrat a perfect setup and then suddenly go silent. It happens again and again in this show. Have you not noticed the only time republicans aren't portrayed as cynical people who don't even believe in what they preach is when they agree with democrats? The writers simply couldn't imagine someone could truly disagree with the liberal position.
In 2016 when Hillary Clinton's Republican Opponent (whoever that ends up being) throws that word "liberal" at her. I hope she uses this same speech that Santos gave to Vinick about liberals. It will definitely score a lot of points for her!
@@kathrynwillsey9259 Nah, no hacking, stupid people just fell for Putin's Facebook disinformation campaign and middle ground people like me didn't realize how much Trump would embolden the tinfoil hat brigade, so Trump was able to squeak by in a few key states while still losing the total vote. Trump had 3 million fewer votes that Hillary, then 7 million fewer than Biden. You wanna see why, go look at the history of Libertarian vote totals - 1-1.5 million year in and year out, a hard spike to 4 million in 2016 from people who couldn't bring themselves to vote for either the crook or the con artist, and then a plummet back to 1 million as those same middle grounders voted Biden, the most neutral seeming candidate in the last two decades, out of fear of Trump and the tinfoil hats.
One thing that really blew me away with this debate is that for the most part, each candidate actually waits to let the other finish talking before they bring up their points. They actually try to listen and understand the other argument before trying to counter-argue. That's really rare in public speaking these days, when everyone is just trying to shout-out their desired 20-second soundbites.
I just avoid the labels. Socialize human needs like healthcare, food, clean environment, and progress the economy in other goods through good old capitalist competition. Any socialist wants some capitalism, otherwise entertainment would be shitty, but I'd be hard pressed to find a capitalist who doesn't want publicly funded roads and public education. Shades of grey for life, homie.
we have been a Social Democracy for some time now. i think the comeaway from this is..one single system, in pure form, cannot balance itself in terms of practicality and fairness.
My guy, by your own definition most conservatives arent capitalists, yet they wave that banner. Look at our infrastructure for proof. Our bridges, our dams, etc. I realize you said this 7 years ago and I'm not personally attacking you, but my how far we've fallen. Betsy DeVos, in response to public education. Everything has been politicized to the point where we have to undermine public institutions because public institutions are "socialist" and thus must be undermined for the pure purpose of agitating liberals. We can't even have a pandemic without the sitting POTUS downplaying it *on the record* and pretending it was to prevent panic instead of stepping up and being a leader.
"otherwise entertainment would be shitty" what? There's probably an argument to be made for capitalism, but publically funded entertainment gave us Mister Rogers, Sesame Street and Doctor Who, among other things.
Healthcare isn't a need. Humanity went millenia without it and didn't go extinct. Food is a need, yet functions in a market. I don't want publicly funded roads or education, since privately funded versions are superior in quality and/or price. The government monopolizing a service isn't proof it's needed for that service to be available, nor proof it is better at it. The government's only legitimate role is prosecuting and preventing aggressive violence, and adjudicating dispute.
That question about kitty that they gave him was disgusting and he gave a good politician answer. I agree with him that there shouldn’t be a death penalty because it’s not a deterrent.
mind if i join you guys? i'm an old school, New Deal Liberal, but i also know, like anything, it must evolve with times we couldn't have predicted, but its still a very Liberal position.
It is crazy to see how the word Liberal is used in 2019 vs what it meant when you posted in 2013. I am not a big fan of how our country has changed in that time.
The camera quality actually makes it look like a real presidential debate. Hell, I bet that if you watch this on TH-cam TV, you could fool somebody into thinking it's real.
Same here. The GOP on the other hand keeps getting crazier as time goes by. Arnold Vinick would be too liberal for today's GOP. In fact, he would be viewed as a Barry Goldwater or Nixon conservative (someone who is socially liberal, rejects the KKK and Nazis, and is an actual fiscal conservative). In fact, the West Wing creators even said his character was based off of Barry Goldwater. If the GOP keep going with direction of Donald Trump/Ted Cruz and/or Mitch McConnell/Lindsey Graham and/or Marjorie Taylor Greene/Lauren Boebert, they are going to continue to lose election after election. If they go in the direction of John McCain and George HW Bush let alone Lincoln or Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt, then they might stand a chance and be back to a respectable party. Right now, it is run by entitled, asinine, hypocritical and corrupt sociopaths. The current GOP is no longer a political party but a criminal organization at a high level and it needs to be obliterated.
Nixon vetoed the bill, which was introduced by Senator Muskie. The veto was overridden by Congress. Nixon: “Legislation which would continue our efforts to raise water quality, but which would do so through extreme and needless over-spending, does not serve the public interest”
You mean the Republicans are pro-slavery and supported by the KKK? Sadly I agree, we've all seen how much neo-confederate racism there is in the MAGA cult.
Vicnick says in some african countries 30% tax and 20% on everything you buy(it might be shocker to americans ect but not us).. we always had that in 'Norway.. 37% tax and 25% on everything you buy :) despite this, we still prosper.
Sen. Santos (Jimmy Smits) is correct; when the GOP was founded in 1854, it was founded by Liberals, Progressives and anti-slavery activists; all of the "PoliCons", political Conservatives, were Democrats and had been for a little more than five decades. But, beginning with the PoliCon Democrats planning and carrying out the execution of Abraham Lincoln, "The Switch" took about 104 years to be completed, where at least 99% of the PoliCons had become GOPers by 1969 and it's been that way ever since. Therefore, if someone calls the GOP the "party of PoliConism" or "party of Authoritarianism/Fascism", etc., they are correct. The PoliCons brought Authoritarianism/Fascism with them when they switched parties.
Spare me the false equivalency narrative, which I call the "Siren Song of the Libertarians and GOP Moderates/Progressives". The last time you could have said that and be correct about it was the 70's... the EIGHTEEN 70's (1870s). That's because, in that decade, there were a roughly equal number of PoliCons in the Democratic Party and the GOP. But, as I correctly wrote above, at least 99% of the PoliCons have been GOPers since 1969.
@@prometheustv6558 During the course of my nearly-1,500 hours of study/research of government/politics, I discovered that APRWs (Authoritarians/PoliCons/Right-Wingers)/GOPers have responded to the truth and facts via a three-step process I call "The Regression"... 1. Cognitive dissonance, which is what Prometheus is retreating behind with the six-word response to the truth and facts. APRWs/GOPers retreat behind cognitive dissonance because the truth and facts make them "uncomfortable". I got news for ya: you can deny the truth and facts all you want, but, it doesn't change them; 2. False equivalency. The Democrats and GOP were last "the same" 150 years ago, when both parties had a similar number of APRWs within them. The GOP Liberals were chased to the Democratic Party by 1872; most of the Progressives of the GOP left the party with Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. APRWs/GOPers think that singing the Siren Song of false equivalency makes them look smart when the opposite is true; 3. Projectional hypocrisy. The APRWs/GOPers are EXPERT projectional hypocrites, wrongly projecting their adherence to the evils of Authoritarianism onto the Democrats. When the Authoritarian GOP talk about the Democrats, what they're really doing is telling on themselves.
While I've known about the GOP's adherence to Fascism, one of the four types of Authoritarianism (Totalitarianism, Feudalism and Communism are the other three), for more than a decade, thanks to this FUBAR (F*cked Up Beyond All Recognition) year of 2020, millions have FINALLY woken up to that fact. Despite the Authoritarian GOP's claims, the more than 80 million votes Biden/Harris received are legitimate; the "voter fraud" comes with Herr Drumpf getting 74 million votes and the likes of McConnell and Graham being "reelected"; when the Red states' Governors and SoS' say that their elections are legitimate, they're only talking about the presidential race.
well how about these words that actually discribe liberals, anti American, racist, race baiting, pro illigal imagration, anti American citizen, terrorists, science liars, ....hey liberals ...we the people are on to you.....
The problem is there were liberals also opposed all those measures (other than abolishing slavery perhaps), because liberalism is such a capacious ideology. The Democrats are largely social liberals, what we in Britain were call new liberals, who believe that the power of the state can be used to help people and cultivate virtuous behaviour. A lot of Republicans are what we’d call ‘classical liberals’, who believe the best way to cultivate virtuous traits of thrift, hard work and self-reliance is through the state getting out of the way. Liberals can call for clean air legislation to ensure people are not sick, but they can also argue against it as the state placing an undue burden on the successful in business. They can back medicaid as helping poorer people with unforeseen medical costs so they can work and strive out of poverty, or they can oppose it as encouraging dependence on the state. Liberalism is about the end goal of encouraging virtuous behaviour, individual freedom, thrift and self-reliance, they just disagree on how to get there. conservatives, true conservatives, oppose this overriding goal by arguing the state should not be attempting to cultivate new forms of behaviour but protect old institutions and social bonds. The state should thus intervene if it will help do this. The Republican Party is full of liberals, just the sort of liberals who (imo) are the greatest threat to liberalism due to their dogmatic belief in human agency above economic and social conditions.
Sorkin at his proselytizing best--or worse: "Liberal ideology requires us all to act (in our capacity as citizens) as if we were blind to the true value of the most important social realities and institutions: the two-parent household, the unique mother-child bond, lifelong marital fidelity, and divine worship."--Daniel E. Burns is associate professor of politics at the University of Dallas.
I'm here again, watching a debate between two intelligent people with integrity running for leader of the country I happen to have been born to citizenship in... and wanting it to be the reality so bad. Why can't it be?
Such a great, well scripted show. Incredible actors. Absolutely awesome. I have the entire DVD collection. Watched it at least 5 times. Start to finish over the years. But this scene shows, glaringly - how left leaning the show really was. Sad really. Doesn't talk anything about the conservative values or anything good conservative policies - just highlights how "good" liberalism is. Typical Hollywood. Yet in reality, Conservatives/Republican values is what built and really runs the industry. I am NOT Republican nor am I Democrat. I try to be a critical thinker, and look at all sides of a conversation.
"If by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." JFK 1960
nah, people dont call themselves progressive because liberal is a bad word. We call ourselves progressive because our political views are to the left of liberals.
Liberal is used as a slur today to, but not even the liberals knows what it should mean today liberals are all on point when it comes to weed but totally misses the boat when it comes to guns you should be free to do what you want unless you are hurting somebody else, down to individuals you can defend everything from transgender to gun rights by being a liberal. being a republican or democrat you gotta twist and turn your back on so many issues that your back is broken and you are very inconsistent
Yeah Bee That is why the two-part system in both America, and here in the UK, is pretty much broken, as within both the Democrats, and Republicans, the Conservatives, and Labour, the lunatics have seem to have taken over the asylum ... For progressive liberals, like me, it is a Devil's bargan; it seems that in order to get the reasonable things we desire, we either have to hold our nose, and vote for the least worst, or vote third party, which has a snowballs chance in hell of being elected ... Of course, one can argue that FpTP voting system is the source of the problem, and that PR is the better alternative, which is a pretty reasonable argument to make. Except, with PR, it always inevitably leads to coalition governments. The bigger the coalition, the harder it is to get legislation passed, and the more fractured, and unstable, the government is, resulting in (viz. Italy), a high governmental turn-over, which can pretty much disablize a nation. What is the alternative between those two ...? I honestly don't know ... but there has to be ...
I mean...that's not liberalism--that term has always meant supporting individual rights where possible but taking collectivist action for the greater good when necessary. How you want to define "necessary" depends on what country you're in but that ethos is always there. What you're describing is libertarianism, which has a much greater emphasis on personal freedom.
@@nigelft There's an easy solution. Make me King. I promise I will care for the people of this country WITH AN IRON FIST!!!!!! Oops, sorry, didn't mean to say that last part out loud.
Sorkin's dialogue was often _too_ polished, to the point of sounding unnatural. Great to listen to, but sometimes reminds me I'm watching fiction. _The Newsroom_ was like this all the way though.
@@JMUDoc Well, I mean, the point isn't to write realistic dialogue. It's fiction, and that's valid. I don't get that argument "well, real people don't talk like that", and politicians aren't that good of a people, and democrats aren't that productive and dragons don't exist, yet no one is saying "well, Game Of Thrones was unrealistic". If people wanted something realistic they would watch C-SPAN.
Anthony F nice you don’t even know there names and just call them the Spainish guy and the old white guy. It’s Alan Alda Ana Jimmy Smits who is American and was born in Brooklyn New York.
I mean, it was a show about politicians. Being full of themselves is what mpst of them do best. Not surprising that crept into the tone of the show itself.
@Cole Goetzl not only Separating immigrant children but murder multiple of those children are dead by the hands of Trump's thugs on his orders. they just say that lost track of the kids.
Classical liberal: limited government & all men are equal in their natural rights (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness) Modern liberal: all men must be guaranteed equal status in virtually all forms by an ever-expanding government There's a big distinction between a Lincoln and an Obama.
Cory Weston Um... what? He's for abortion, for gay marriage, for increasing the government's role in the economy. He's increased entitlement spending. How exactly is he a conservative?
Zorc620 And this right here is the biggest problem with our politics today. We divide each other based on pre-determined categories, and what our biased political parties call each other. You think you can label all liberals? I'm liberal, and believe gay marriage is right. Why? Because denying law abiding US Citizens equal rights is wrong. I believe the government is too big, and needs to be trimmed and made leaner. But wait....how can a liberal not follow your labels? Because labeling each other is the problem. You can call me a classic liberal, but even that won't be accurate 100%. You and I might actually agree on a thing or two, but don't let your friends hear that a liberal doesn't completely fit your biased labels.
You're right that labels are problematic. My point, though, was that Santos was using them incorrectly (and Vinnick, too). If we're going to use labels, let's at least try to use them with some level of accuracy.
Zorc620 You know what those words actually mean? Conservative as a concept means keeping things the same and/or reverting to how they were in the past. Liberal means changing things. So as the status quo at the moment is that abortion is legal, that's actually a conservative ideology. There is an opposing conservative ideology to revert to an older way of thinking and make it illegal again. A liberal ideology on this front would be a one-child policy or compulsory abortion. Legalizing gay marriage is a liberal ideology. You want an example of how Obama has conservative leanings at least at times? The liberal position on guns is for increased gun laws. The conservative position would be for there to be the same amount as current or less. Obama repealed more gun restrictions in his first two years in office than George W Bush did in his 8 years in office.
Nixon created the EPA and HMOs. Republican votes passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a majority of Southern Democrats, known as Dixiecrats, filibustered and voted against it. Democrats in the South passed Jim Crow laws and created the KKK. It was segregationist president Wilson who screened "Birth of A Nation" at the White House. It was Franklin Pierce, a Democrat, who signed the Kansas Nebraska law, which created the Republican party and allowed slavery into the territories overruling the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After the Civil Rights Act only three Democrats became Republicans. Neocons were originally Democratic hawks who moved to the Republican party during the early '70s. The Bushes are neoconservatives and have done terrible damage to this country. There is no black or white as regards parties. We have had many lousy presidents on both sides and yett managed to survive because of the Constitution!
Bruh, "the guy with grey hair" is a national treasure. You wanna undo the nasty taste from Tower Heist, go watch MASH. Hell, the other comments here said it, he's smiling while Santos speaks because that's exactly how Hawkeye speaks (the character that defines him and launched his career).
Too bad everything Santos said was and is a lie! Sadly, too many idiot Democrats will believe it! Try to look at your argument from your opponents perspective and you'll see just how wrong your ideas are! (Or get used to losing. Either way.)
![The West Wing: Two Words the President Doesn’t Want to Hear [CLIP] | TNT](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-EXjSvWY8IY/mqdefault.jpg)
![The West Wing: Chaos at the Convention [CLIP] | TNT](/img/n.gif)
One detail about this scene I love is the occasional slip-ups while they both speak, since that's exactly what you expect to happen in a debate like this when they're speaking on the fly.
I think this "debate" was an actual live performance.
@@VHS_Vampire1988 It was.
Just watched this episode for the first time ever.. it was pretty amazing. Just like 30 Rock with their NBC live episode, they did two versions.. one for each coast. It is an absolutely incredible episode with very special (and REAL) performances by Smits and Alda.
Or in the case of a recent debate, interrupt and talk over the other. Thank you to the US for throwing out that sort of ignorance and boorish president.
Those slip ups were all in the script
SENATOR BAIL ORGANA??!!!
WHAT ARE YOU DOING RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT??!!!!
Because he's our only hope? :)
In hiding from the Empire, he had a crack at local earth politics, cream rises to the top. Must have seemed like a walk in the park after dealing with that c[_]nt Sheev.
GENERAL KENOBI!!!
Because he’s brave enough for politics
I love the look on Alda’s face at the end. It screams “Wow, you nailed that.”
Alan Alda was smiling during that scene because in real life he agrees with everything Jimmy Smits' character was saying.
That's the beauty of his role as Arnold Vinick, since Vinick was a Republican, and Alan Alda is about as liberal as you can get. He won an Emmy for that performance, his 6th Emmy.
He actually said in an interview recently in regards to the West Wing reunion:
“It was hard for me to not jump up and say “YES!” Because I was honestly wishing that we had this character in real life. I see them coming up today and it makes me, mildly to say, ecstatic. I want to live in a world with more Santos.”
@@alexandradaniels6048 We live in a world with more Santos. The problem is getting them into elected seats, where we need them.
And to be clear, I don't mean Democrats. I mean political leaders whose only operating mandate, is to work for the people.
@@rcslyman8929 I agree. I do think they are more likely to be elected today more than any time in American history.
@@alexandradaniels6048 Probably correct, but I think we'll only possibly see it more in the state houses, rather than at the National level.
Plus side is, I've seen it happen in my own district. Not even an election year, but my State representative came knocking on the doors around my neighborhood to talk with us, ask about any issues we were having or could think of. 42 years old, lived in 3 different states, I haven't ever seen that, even in an election year. She's earned my vote if she continues to run for office just for that alone.
Alan Alda was looking at Jimmy Smits like, "You remind me of me when I was doing 'M*A*S*H.'"
No, he wasn't.
@@bfg3890 [Whoosh]
@@partyguy101ify I get it... and he wasn't... you moron...
@@bfg3890 [whoosh]
@@GaunteroDimmm o’dimm indeed
Interesting thing I learned about this episode is that they did the whole thing in a single take, just like any normal debate. Jimmy Smits looks really pleased with himself for nailing that speech because he knew there'd be no do-overs. He had to nail it, and he did.
It was live, and they did it twice. Once for the east coast feed, and again for the west coast.
And if this clip is from the DVD set, it was the West Coast airing.
It was live. No takes
@@williamerazo3921 Doing it once qualifies as a take...a first take.
Vinick: Now an unthinking liberal-
Santos: I'm about to end this man's whole career...
Hardly! Santos made Vinnick his Secretary of State.
@@owainmorgan3897 I'm about to continue this man's whole career.
I like how they stutter in their speeches, it sounds more authentic
It was - this was scripted, but they performed it live.
Alda and Smitts did this live show twice, once for each coast.
David Jackino I did not know that! That's quite impressive.
No I’m pretty sure they were recorded at the same time... that wouldn’t make any sense
@@binx414 They did it live! They performed twice so they could be live on each coast.
@@binx414 It was live twice. ER did it, same with 30 Rock.
And if this clip is from the DVD set, it was the West Coast airing. It says so in the box set
I'll never forget watching this live. We had a watch party for it. We were going nuts. It was a really big deal when it happened.
Makes sense this guy helped create the rebellion
This isn't a real debate and I know it because I've watched this series over and over. But can we just take a moment and applaud the acting between Smitts and Alda to make it seem otherwise? They draw you in and immerse you so well I almost forget its all scripted television. And bravo to the director of this scene, allowing the two to stumble on their own words as the two argue, adds a piece of reality rarely seen on TV today.
That wasn't really the director. This was 100 percent scripted but was actually performed and aired live in front of an audience. It was basically a live teleplay.
very well written to go out on live tv as well.
Really... you had to watch this over and over to realise it was not real...
@@kilgoretrout3966 It didn't go out on live TV.
@@jonofpdx I remember reading that and being completely impressed by both actors. The amount of talent it took for them to do that, along with the reactions and exchanges with one another, is a testament to how skilled they both are.
One of if not the best speech’s about our democracy I’ve ever heard. And why I’m a proud Democrat
Do yourself a favor, look up the man the democrats are currently trying to use to justify going after removing trump from ballots.....his name was stevens....the confederate vp....a democrat. Convicted of insurrection in a court martial.....imprisoned in a military fort prison....later granted amnesty and held office in the house for several terms as a democrat.....left the house after being elected governor of Georgia as a.....democrat.....died 1870 or so.....still a democrat. Key who wrote the star spangled banner lefties hate so much.....a democrat slave owner.....took seeing slaves hold the banner up with their white counterparts on the ramparts to see them as human and begin to turn his life around....And what are they doing now? "allowing" illegals into their homes.......to work for room and board, no salary...under a democrat government's program......but hey slavery by another name is progressive right dems?
Cmon. I understand why you’re a democrat but using this show as a reason why you’re proud to be a democrat is silly.
This is fiction and not representative of the democrats or the republicans. And the democrats in this show are much more moderate than the Dems
Of today.
If you’re proud to be democrat, I get it, but you should find better reasons than fictional idealized politicians.
If I were a democrat I’d point to FDR, JFK, LBJ. One took the country out a depression and won a war to save the world, one managed to handled the Cuban missile crisis and saved the world in the process. And one completed the 100 years long battle for signing civil rights into law and ended segregation and race based discrimination.
democrat: the slaver party
I like to think that liberals believe what Dr. King Jr taught us. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Which is why we fight for equal rights for all Americans - regardless of race, education, sex, sexuality. I'm not transgender, but I can and will fight for them to have the same rights that I do.
Amen, brother.
Republicans always think you have to be gay or transgender to support gay and transgender people. Now when I show support for them and a Republicans asks "What, are you gay?" I'd be like "Not at all, why? Are you interested?" Watch them act as if Jesus himself were looking at them in shame.
It was democrats who started the kkk and it was republicans who ended slavery. Democrats in the south supported segregation and opposed all of the civil rights legislation. But democrats now lie about their long history of racism --- and call the republicans racist. This show is bullshit.
Majeo republicans don't care if somebody is gay. But they also don't want parades down Main Street about it while first graders are being taught about having 2 fathers. You're full of shit.
@@MrJamberee the Republican party supported classical liberalism, however it became the Dems who became liberals later on. So you condemn dems for past deeds and praise Republicans. Still same song and dance today or have you come to the middle ground and realize everything shifts continuously?
11 years on, and here we are... It really is true, that the only thing we learn from history, is that we dont learn anything from history.
Damn proud to be a Liberal! Damn fucking proud.
So, slavery and the KKK is your thing. Got it!
Bless you
Bless you
@@sharkcatzorro-u6i great burner account, you fucking coward.
Best acting performances in television history
One of the comparisons to the 1st argument they're making is "Southwest" vs. almost any airline that's more than 30 years old.
Before this debate I was rooting for Vinnick. But after hearing him say that, I switched to Santos.
Which is exactly the point of this scene.
Well rhetoric usually trumps logic and facts in politics.
I loved this episode. Both characters portrayed their characters in such a reasonable manner. When you strip away political extremism, and the influence of the media and the uneducated, you see two well thought out platforms that both deserve to be heard. I am a Conservative and really enjoyed the Santos character. I wish more politicians were like the Santos and Vinnick characters.
I miss McCain
Lmao
While conservatism/liberalism can be two diametrically opposing viewpoints, the point of a democracy is finding a compromise somewhere in the middle of both. No one side will obtain completely what they want, but concessions are made that both parties can live with. Sadly, that just doesn't happen all that much in the real world, especially in modern times. The Democratic party, in my view, is the more moderate party because it has a wider spectrum of members between "conservative" democrat and progressive/liberal, whereas the Republican party goes farther and farther to the right to appease the more extreme side of their voting bloc. That is, the Democrats basically have to make concessions within their own party to secure total support in their ranks while Republicans tend to vote lockstep with each other much more easily.
This is probably my favourite quote from the whole series, because it's so true, and I like to quote it because it's still happening. People still want to label people as liberals (or the preferred term in my country of Australia, "lefties") as though it's an insult, the worst thing you could be. But "lefties" have pushed this world forward while all that conservative have done is hold it back.
ironic that he's calling the opposition "liberals" in an economic discussion when he's defending capitalists
I’m sure all those lefties pushed this world forward when they fought for slavery and for segregation.
@@prometheustv6558 can you point out which "lefties" did that? Are you reffering to the democrat party?
@@prometheustv6558Oh you mean Marx, who sided with the Union against slavery? Or the entire liberal North? Or any of the thousands of counter-secessionists from the Confederacy that joined back with the Union?
Lawrence O'Donnell brought me here.
James Persinger ditto
I’m a liberal but I will point out that while liberals passed the clean air and clean water acts a conservative president signed it...Richard m. Nixon
He's an asshole.
@@caseykain7708 not because he agreed with it
@@orinanime Nixon focused on foreign policy he allowed the house to basically pass the majority of what it wanted
I am proud to be a liberal and progressive
Doc Davis So your a socialist?
Dmitri Petrov lol. These days left leaning, even just a little, is socialism
+
Dmitri Petrov - here is the continuum that you are not told about from Fox and hate radio: we start with corporate Democrats -> liberals -> progressives -> democratic socialists>communists. So, you showed your ignorance and/or bubble of knowledge fed to you from the rightwing media and made a mistake here. Why can't Doc be proud to be a liberal? Im proud to be a democratic socialist but I know the difference between my ideology and a communist - its a big difference. Many scholars will tell you we really have no "left" in USA - whatever. Indeed there are precious few of us despite what you have been force fed. As you know, the Rightwing has a spectrum as well, right? The GOP has purged the party of liberal Republicans (see NY's Lindsay and many other fine statesmen in our history) so your spectrum starts still with centrists (with very little difference from corporate Dems) all the way to the neocons and so forth until the sad bunch of nationalists/neo-nazis. Trump is none of the above. Con-men grifters have no ideology, simply drunk on power and money to feed their sad self images/narcissism. They are mentally ill, but that for another day.
@GeometryDashGaming The Hell it isn't. What people should not be proud of is being a member of a racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-science, anti-education, anti-environmentalist, anti-caring, obstructionist, anti-liberty, anti-peace, lying, hypocritical group like the current Republican (and I say current as in the last 50 years) party; A party being led by a con-man that doesn't even understand the basic principles of government or even being a decent human being.
I pick up the Liberal tag and wear it like a beacon of hope that we don't (once again) devolve into Jim Crow and McCarthyism. I pick it up and invite people to inclusivity instead of segregation and gated communities where only the very wealthy are allowed decent housing and medical care. I pick it up and stand in defiance of every single thing the modern Republican party stands for.
The look on Vinnick's face at the end of Santos' speech. He knew that he got beat there, and he accepted it and smoothly moved on.
Because Sorkin made strawmen who could never refute the leftist garbage like that speech that was just spewed.
@@Akihito007 The irony is that Sorkin probably made the most bipartisan portrayal of political figures in any major piece of political media. The fact that you think someone standing up for their principles makes them garbage clearly indicates that you've never done the same.
@@Strategic_Reformer The FACT that you actually believe the dribble that you just wrote makes me think you're snorting more cocaine that Sorkin did when he was writing that God awful show with his absolute IGNORANCE of actual American history and Biblical knowledge. His drek should have been titled, "Conservative Strawmen: The Show".
@@Akihito007 oooh we got a snowflake on our hands! I'll try not to trigger you by saying I like European beer, don't eat beef, am a liberal, gun loving atheist and have watched both Fox AND CNN! EDUCATION! EMPATHY! INDIVIDUALITY! Turn away child, Avert your eyes from such horrors! Your meager brain can't handle the concept that not everything in life is absolute or belongs to an extreme!
@@Strategic_Reformer Not to mention that Sorkin had stopped working on the show by the time either of these characters were introduced
I fucking LOVE this!
But damn- woulda been a whole other ball game to film this live!!! Well done all
Vinick should have said "well they just nominated me!"
Senator Organa just school Dr Benjamin Franklin Pierce lol
One thing that was so great about "West wing" (and "Newsroom" as well) was that it portrayed a great version of Republicans. There were so many reasonable, intelligent and caring Republicans in that series. "Where are they now"? (M. Santos)
Such a contrast from last night hey
Yeah, because the writers of this show made the republican give the democrat a perfect setup and then suddenly go silent. It happens again and again in this show. Have you not noticed the only time republicans aren't portrayed as cynical people who don't even believe in what they preach is when they agree with democrats? The writers simply couldn't imagine someone could truly disagree with the liberal position.
1425363878 bro I think you are missing the point of my comment
In 2016 when Hillary Clinton's Republican Opponent (whoever that ends up being) throws that word "liberal" at her. I hope she uses this same speech that Santos gave to Vinick about liberals. It will definitely score a lot of points for her!
+Anthony Tanza
Spoke too soon lol
@@ciaranoconnell4783 lol rip
Spoiler Alert: Putin hacked the election and installed Trump as his puppet.
@@kathrynwillsey9259 Nah, no hacking, stupid people just fell for Putin's Facebook disinformation campaign and middle ground people like me didn't realize how much Trump would embolden the tinfoil hat brigade, so Trump was able to squeak by in a few key states while still losing the total vote.
Trump had 3 million fewer votes that Hillary, then 7 million fewer than Biden. You wanna see why, go look at the history of Libertarian vote totals - 1-1.5 million year in and year out, a hard spike to 4 million in 2016 from people who couldn't bring themselves to vote for either the crook or the con artist, and then a plummet back to 1 million as those same middle grounders voted Biden, the most neutral seeming candidate in the last two decades, out of fear of Trump and the tinfoil hats.
except she didnt. she had every opportunity to do it and instead she adopted the mindset of "im entitled to be the next president"
One thing that really blew me away with this debate is that for the most part, each candidate actually waits to let the other finish talking before they bring up their points. They actually try to listen and understand the other argument before trying to counter-argue. That's really rare in public speaking these days, when everyone is just trying to shout-out their desired 20-second soundbites.
I just avoid the labels. Socialize human needs like healthcare, food, clean environment, and progress the economy in other goods through good old capitalist competition. Any socialist wants some capitalism, otherwise entertainment would be shitty, but I'd be hard pressed to find a capitalist who doesn't want publicly funded roads and public education. Shades of grey for life, homie.
we have been a Social Democracy for some time now. i think the comeaway from this is..one single system, in pure form, cannot balance itself in terms of practicality and fairness.
Good lord... you're an idiot.
My guy, by your own definition most conservatives arent capitalists, yet they wave that banner. Look at our infrastructure for proof. Our bridges, our dams, etc. I realize you said this 7 years ago and I'm not personally attacking you, but my how far we've fallen. Betsy DeVos, in response to public education. Everything has been politicized to the point where we have to undermine public institutions because public institutions are "socialist" and thus must be undermined for the pure purpose of agitating liberals. We can't even have a pandemic without the sitting POTUS downplaying it *on the record* and pretending it was to prevent panic instead of stepping up and being a leader.
"otherwise entertainment would be shitty" what? There's probably an argument to be made for capitalism, but publically funded entertainment gave us Mister Rogers, Sesame Street and Doctor Who, among other things.
Healthcare isn't a need. Humanity went millenia without it and didn't go extinct.
Food is a need, yet functions in a market.
I don't want publicly funded roads or education, since privately funded versions are superior in quality and/or price.
The government monopolizing a service isn't proof it's needed for that service to be available, nor proof it is better at it.
The government's only legitimate role is prosecuting and preventing aggressive violence, and adjudicating dispute.
Sigh ... well said, sir. Although it's sad that it even needed to be said ...
Why in HELL didn't Michael Dukakis say this in 1988?!
That's pretty much the inspiration for the entire show. Why don't our politicians say the awesome things we wish they'd say?
Because Dukakis didn’t have Aaron Sorkin on his staff.
@@mt22201 I think Lawrence O'Donnell wrote this episode. Sorkin had already left.
Because he’s a dumbass
If only Dukakis could have said something like this in '88....
That question about kitty that they gave him was disgusting and he gave a good politician answer. I agree with him that there shouldn’t be a death penalty because it’s not a deterrent.
I have looked for this scene for a long time. Even thought its television drama it still applies.
This was filmed live.
The crowd reactions are spot on.
I'm a liberal. I am so far left that I'm ALMOST a socialist, and that is pretty much exactly how I feel.
Me too.
I am on SS and love to be called a liberal.
mind if i join you guys? i'm an old school, New Deal Liberal, but i also know, like anything, it must evolve with times we couldn't have predicted, but its still a very Liberal position.
Shallow and unthinking ideologue. Go take a nap.
It is crazy to see how the word Liberal is used in 2019 vs what it meant when you posted in 2013. I am not a big fan of how our country has changed in that time.
The camera quality actually makes it look like a real presidential debate. Hell, I bet that if you watch this on TH-cam TV, you could fool somebody into thinking it's real.
It was live, so it isn't going to look like other episodes.
YESSSSS.... stop running from the word Liberal... Progressive.. Socialist even..
I'm a Liberal and proud of what my party has accomplished.
Same here. The GOP on the other hand keeps getting crazier as time goes by. Arnold Vinick would be too liberal for today's GOP. In fact, he would be viewed as a Barry Goldwater or Nixon conservative (someone who is socially liberal, rejects the KKK and Nazis, and is an actual fiscal conservative). In fact, the West Wing creators even said his character was based off of Barry Goldwater. If the GOP keep going with direction of Donald Trump/Ted Cruz and/or Mitch McConnell/Lindsey Graham and/or Marjorie Taylor Greene/Lauren Boebert, they are going to continue to lose election after election. If they go in the direction of John McCain and George HW Bush let alone Lincoln or Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt, then they might stand a chance and be back to a respectable party. Right now, it is run by entitled, asinine, hypocritical and corrupt sociopaths. The current GOP is no longer a political party but a criminal organization at a high level and it needs to be obliterated.
will somebody make 1:45 screenshot into a meme
Maybe the problem is the enduring and incessant need to distil everybody down to being a Liberal or a Progressive or a Conservative, and so on.
This is a very basic psychological ploy that people use to dehumanize other people and justify dismissing people they don't like.
Every policy be mentioned is right. But the Clean Air and Water Acts were signed during the Nixon Presidency...
Nixon vetoed the Clean Water Act in 1972; the House and Senate overruled his veto the next day.
Nixon vetoed the bill, which was introduced by Senator Muskie. The veto was overridden by Congress. Nixon: “Legislation which would continue our efforts to raise water quality, but which would do so through extreme and needless over-spending, does not serve the public interest”
@@teach1st Yeah that sounds like later "conservative" Nixon. Nixon was Eisenhowers VP though, and Eisenhower was a very liberal Republican.
Defending the party of slavery and the KKK is a hell of a strategy Cotton, let see how it works out for him.
You mean the Republicans are pro-slavery and supported by the KKK? Sadly I agree, we've all seen how much neo-confederate racism there is in the MAGA cult.
Came here after Lawrence O'Donnell referenced this clip. I had no idea he wrote on that show. I should get around to checking it out
That's why democrats-- the party of slavery and the kkk-- end up smelling like a rose in this propaganda show.
I did one of those internet surveys, and I am supposed to a liberal conservative. That is okay with me
Uncle Pete cleans up good
Vicnick says in some african countries 30% tax and 20% on everything you buy(it might be shocker to americans ect but not us).. we always had that in 'Norway.. 37% tax and 25% on everything you buy :) despite this, we still prosper.
You need to add, what do conservatives conserve?
The liberal post-war consensus, if they're any good.
Signed,
- a conservative
Protestant white nationalism.
Is Vinnick saying that people don’t deserve their pensions ?
They don't lol
Get em bail! Organa 2024
Anyone else have to do the west wing at school?
Still a neat clip that circulates on Facebook
Am I the only one who thought he was Jimmy Smits?
It is.
Fuckin-A right!!!!!
Sen. Santos (Jimmy Smits) is correct; when the GOP was founded in 1854, it was founded by Liberals, Progressives and anti-slavery activists; all of the "PoliCons", political Conservatives, were Democrats and had been for a little more than five decades. But, beginning with the PoliCon Democrats planning and carrying out the execution of Abraham Lincoln, "The Switch" took about 104 years to be completed, where at least 99% of the PoliCons had become GOPers by 1969 and it's been that way ever since. Therefore, if someone calls the GOP the "party of PoliConism" or "party of Authoritarianism/Fascism", etc., they are correct. The PoliCons brought Authoritarianism/Fascism with them when they switched parties.
Spare me the false equivalency narrative, which I call the "Siren Song of the Libertarians and GOP Moderates/Progressives". The last time you could have said that and be correct about it was the 70's... the EIGHTEEN 70's (1870s). That's because, in that decade, there were a roughly equal number of PoliCons in the Democratic Party and the GOP. But, as I correctly wrote above, at least 99% of the PoliCons have been GOPers since 1969.
None of this is remotely true
@@prometheustv6558 During the course of my nearly-1,500 hours of study/research of government/politics, I discovered that APRWs (Authoritarians/PoliCons/Right-Wingers)/GOPers have responded to the truth and facts via a three-step process I call "The Regression"...
1. Cognitive dissonance, which is what Prometheus is retreating behind with the six-word response to the truth and facts. APRWs/GOPers retreat behind cognitive dissonance because the truth and facts make them "uncomfortable". I got news for ya: you can deny the truth and facts all you want, but, it doesn't change them;
2. False equivalency. The Democrats and GOP were last "the same" 150 years ago, when both parties had a similar number of APRWs within them. The GOP Liberals were chased to the Democratic Party by 1872; most of the Progressives of the GOP left the party with Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. APRWs/GOPers think that singing the Siren Song of false equivalency makes them look smart when the opposite is true;
3. Projectional hypocrisy. The APRWs/GOPers are EXPERT projectional hypocrites, wrongly projecting their adherence to the evils of Authoritarianism onto the Democrats. When the Authoritarian GOP talk about the Democrats, what they're really doing is telling on themselves.
While I've known about the GOP's adherence to Fascism, one of the four types of Authoritarianism (Totalitarianism, Feudalism and Communism are the other three), for more than a decade, thanks to this FUBAR (F*cked Up Beyond All Recognition) year of 2020, millions have FINALLY woken up to that fact. Despite the Authoritarian GOP's claims, the more than 80 million votes Biden/Harris received are legitimate; the "voter fraud" comes with Herr Drumpf getting 74 million votes and the likes of McConnell and Graham being "reelected"; when the Red states' Governors and SoS' say that their elections are legitimate, they're only talking about the presidential race.
@@andrewrei6106 But I thought the party switched in 60s. I guess not.
Actually i find conservative to be a dirty word
That's because you can't escape your shallow ideology.
@@MrJamberee Nah, I don't think he is a conservative that can't escape Fox News' stupidity-machine.
well how about these words that actually discribe liberals, anti American, racist, race baiting, pro illigal imagration, anti American citizen, terrorists, science liars, ....hey liberals ...we the people are on to you.....
Martin Szoke classic projection. As for being pro illegal immigration, I’d rather have them here than gun touting morons we currently do.
@@TheAudioman15 hey audioboy you just proved my point, thanks for proving your ignorance......
Can't believe Vinick didn't have a witty remark for that.
Seriously? The show was written by democrats. Try to put 2 and 2 together.
@@MrJamberee Literally just liberal wish-fulfillment fantasy
@@JDesch It certainly is. "conservative" wish-fulfillment fantasy would be a horror film made by Michael Bay
... Donald Trump's retort to Santos last comment: "no, I wear the badge of honor, not you ... not you ... I wear the badge of great honor".
Believe me, it's the best badge, simply the best
The problem is there were liberals also opposed all those measures (other than abolishing slavery perhaps), because liberalism is such a capacious ideology. The Democrats are largely social liberals, what we in Britain were call new liberals, who believe that the power of the state can be used to help people and cultivate virtuous behaviour. A lot of Republicans are what we’d call ‘classical liberals’, who believe the best way to cultivate virtuous traits of thrift, hard work and self-reliance is through the state getting out of the way. Liberals can call for clean air legislation to ensure people are not sick, but they can also argue against it as the state placing an undue burden on the successful in business. They can back medicaid as helping poorer people with unforeseen medical costs so they can work and strive out of poverty, or they can oppose it as encouraging dependence on the state. Liberalism is about the end goal of encouraging virtuous behaviour, individual freedom, thrift and self-reliance, they just disagree on how to get there.
conservatives, true conservatives, oppose this overriding goal by arguing the state should not be attempting to cultivate new forms of behaviour but protect old institutions and social bonds. The state should thus intervene if it will help do this. The Republican Party is full of liberals, just the sort of liberals who (imo) are the greatest threat to liberalism due to their dogmatic belief in human agency above economic and social conditions.
Sorkin at his proselytizing best--or worse:
"Liberal ideology requires us all to act (in our capacity as citizens) as if we were blind to the true value of the most important social realities and institutions: the two-parent household, the unique mother-child bond, lifelong marital fidelity, and divine worship."--Daniel E. Burns is associate professor of politics at the University of Dallas.
Sorkin did not write this. Sorkin left the show left the show after season 4. This was in season 7.
Pensions to plund.....pay
I love how this was a real life debate. The people in the crowd aren't actors.
Yeah they are
@@Subangelis they aren’t. Look it up
I'm here again, watching a debate between two intelligent people with integrity running for leader of the country I happen to have been born to citizenship in... and wanting it to be the reality so bad. Why can't it be?
Such a great, well scripted show. Incredible actors. Absolutely awesome. I have the entire DVD collection. Watched it at least 5 times. Start to finish over the years. But this scene shows, glaringly - how left leaning the show really was. Sad really. Doesn't talk anything about the conservative values or anything good conservative policies - just highlights how "good" liberalism is. Typical Hollywood. Yet in reality, Conservatives/Republican values is what built and really runs the industry. I am NOT Republican nor am I Democrat. I try to be a critical thinker, and look at all sides of a conversation.
Take a page, Biden!
"If by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." JFK 1960
nah, people dont call themselves progressive because liberal is a bad word. We call ourselves progressive because our political views are to the left of liberals.
16 people voted for Trump.
I would do this to conservative people who hate liberals to remind them on why they are becoming irrelevant.
Bail Organa for President "Make Alderaan exist again"
Screw you, I'm voting for Dwane Elizando Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho. HOAP!
Shame we have no blue dog democrats left.
Manchin?
It
got
worse
Inject this shit straight into my veinsssssssss
Liberals increase the size and scope of government in the name of helping people. Conservatives well, what do they do but let the market decide.
And almost every time conservative politicians do that in the United States, the market crashes.
Liberal is used as a slur today to, but not even the liberals knows what it should mean today
liberals are all on point when it comes to weed
but totally misses the boat when it comes to guns
you should be free to do what you want unless you are hurting somebody else, down to individuals
you can defend everything from transgender to gun rights by being a liberal.
being a republican or democrat you gotta twist and turn your back on so many issues that your back is broken and you are very inconsistent
Yeah Bee
That is why the two-part system in both America, and here in the UK, is pretty much broken, as within both the Democrats, and Republicans, the Conservatives, and Labour, the lunatics have seem to have taken over the asylum ...
For progressive liberals, like me, it is a Devil's bargan; it seems that in order to get the reasonable things we desire, we either have to hold our nose, and vote for the least worst, or vote third party, which has a snowballs chance in hell of being elected ...
Of course, one can argue that FpTP voting system is the source of the problem, and that PR is the better alternative, which is a pretty reasonable argument to make. Except, with PR, it always inevitably leads to coalition governments. The bigger the coalition, the harder it is to get legislation passed, and the more fractured, and unstable, the government is, resulting in (viz. Italy), a high governmental turn-over, which can pretty much disablize a nation.
What is the alternative between those two ...? I honestly don't know ... but there has to be ...
I mean...that's not liberalism--that term has always meant supporting individual rights where possible but taking collectivist action for the greater good when necessary. How you want to define "necessary" depends on what country you're in but that ethos is always there. What you're describing is libertarianism, which has a much greater emphasis on personal freedom.
further, liberal comes from the Latin, liber, which means free, or living as a free person....wow, what a nasty word...for shame.
@@nigelft There's an easy solution.
Make me King. I promise I will care for the people of this country WITH AN IRON FIST!!!!!!
Oops, sorry, didn't mean to say that last part out loud.
Man, the dialogue in the series took a dive when Sorkin left. Aaron would've made poetry with the scene.
That would have been glorious to see!
Don't do drugs, kids!
Sorkin's dialogue was often _too_ polished, to the point of sounding unnatural.
Great to listen to, but sometimes reminds me I'm watching fiction. _The Newsroom_ was like this all the way though.
@@JMUDoc Well, I mean, the point isn't to write realistic dialogue. It's fiction, and that's valid. I don't get that argument "well, real people don't talk like that", and politicians aren't that good of a people, and democrats aren't that productive and dragons don't exist, yet no one is saying "well, Game Of Thrones was unrealistic". If people wanted something realistic they would watch C-SPAN.
Ironic how the spanish guy plays the liberal and the old white guy plays the repub....pretty accurate
It's called acting. Alan Alda is a Democrat.
Anthony F nice you don’t even know there names and just call them the Spainish guy and the old white guy. It’s Alan Alda Ana Jimmy Smits who is American and was born in Brooklyn New York.
I know the writing and everything was good, and it was a quality show come the end of the day, but MY GOD this show was so fucking full of itself.
I mean, it was a show about politicians. Being full of themselves is what mpst of them do best. Not surprising that crept into the tone of the show itself.
Just goes to show you why anybody with even slight gravitas can make it in politics today.
Jimmy Smits was great in this role but the word liberal is akin to stating bubonic plague outbreak.
Scripted.
_No, really??_
7 people voted for Trump
@Cole Goetzl not only Separating immigrant children but murder multiple of those children are dead by the hands of Trump's thugs on his orders. they just say that lost track of the kids.
Wtf is this cursed shit?!
This what is Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are talking about right now for 2020 when they get to be next President and Vice President in history
If Trump decides to back the fuck off, the yeah.
Most of that wasn't true. Lol
Yeah it was….
@@MarlonBitoy nope
@@cab8866 Quite literally all of it was true.
Classical liberal: limited government & all men are equal in their natural rights (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness)
Modern liberal: all men must be guaranteed equal status in virtually all forms by an ever-expanding government
There's a big distinction between a Lincoln and an Obama.
Cory Weston Um... what? He's for abortion, for gay marriage, for increasing the government's role in the economy. He's increased entitlement spending. How exactly is he a conservative?
Zorc620 And this right here is the biggest problem with our politics today. We divide each other based on pre-determined categories, and what our biased political parties call each other. You think you can label all liberals? I'm liberal, and believe gay marriage is right. Why? Because denying law abiding US Citizens equal rights is wrong. I believe the government is too big, and needs to be trimmed and made leaner. But wait....how can a liberal not follow your labels? Because labeling each other is the problem. You can call me a classic liberal, but even that won't be accurate 100%. You and I might actually agree on a thing or two, but don't let your friends hear that a liberal doesn't completely fit your biased labels.
You're right that labels are problematic. My point, though, was that Santos was using them incorrectly (and Vinnick, too). If we're going to use labels, let's at least try to use them with some level of accuracy.
Zorc620 You know what those words actually mean? Conservative as a concept means keeping things the same and/or reverting to how they were in the past. Liberal means changing things. So as the status quo at the moment is that abortion is legal, that's actually a conservative ideology. There is an opposing conservative ideology to revert to an older way of thinking and make it illegal again. A liberal ideology on this front would be a one-child policy or compulsory abortion. Legalizing gay marriage is a liberal ideology. You want an example of how Obama has conservative leanings at least at times? The liberal position on guns is for increased gun laws. The conservative position would be for there to be the same amount as current or less. Obama repealed more gun restrictions in his first two years in office than George W Bush did in his 8 years in office.
What's wrong with everyone being equal... a fairer better society surely must be everyone's ambition?
Nixon created the EPA and HMOs. Republican votes passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a majority of Southern Democrats, known as Dixiecrats, filibustered and voted against it. Democrats in the South passed Jim Crow laws and created the KKK. It was segregationist president Wilson who screened "Birth of A Nation" at the White House. It was Franklin Pierce, a Democrat, who signed the Kansas Nebraska law, which created the Republican party and allowed slavery into the territories overruling the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
After the Civil Rights Act only three Democrats became Republicans. Neocons were originally Democratic hawks who moved to the Republican party during the early '70s. The Bushes are neoconservatives and have done terrible damage to this country. There is no black or white as regards parties. We have had many lousy presidents on both sides and yett managed to survive because of the Constitution!
I am a proud conservative, we believe in conserving what's good about our country and in the strength of the American people to stand for themselves.
conserving as in drilling in Anwar, opening national parks to private interests?
But your definition of "good" includes fucking over anyone besides yourself.
Nah. You really don't.
That is a big ass lie it was the conservatives who ended I love jimmy but he clearly doesn’t know his history
I invite you to locate a liberal waving a Confederate flag.
you should read much more history. i wont spoil it for you, but there's a twist you are not expecting.
Be Well.
@@TheTrueCampor locate a conservative doing that
@@prometheustv6558 They're everywhere.
@@keitht24 Never seen one
Terrible. Santos was terrible. Vinick should have won.
Horsecrud. Liberals didn't do any of the things he claims. It was just another of the many things that was wrong with this show.
Who else hates the guy with grey hair just because his character in Tower Heist was so nasty?
Bruh, "the guy with grey hair" is a national treasure. You wanna undo the nasty taste from Tower Heist, go watch MASH. Hell, the other comments here said it, he's smiling while Santos speaks because that's exactly how Hawkeye speaks (the character that defines him and launched his career).
Too bad everything Santos said was and is a lie! Sadly, too many idiot Democrats will believe it! Try to look at your argument from your opponents perspective and you'll see just how wrong your ideas are! (Or get used to losing. Either way.)
"everything Santos said was a lie"... please point out the specific "lies" and back-up your claim with legitimate evidence.
Actually republicans ended slavary
Yes when the party was liberal.
@@robertsimon1246 before the parties swapped platforms.
Yeah, they just said that on the clip...a LIBERAL Republican.
@@robertsimon1246 The party was never liberal
So cringe