If only republicans were more like Will McAvoy
I wouldn't hate them so much for being so backwards on every issue.
shareI wouldn't hate them so much for being so backwards on every issue.
shareI know they tried really hard to make Will seem like a Republican, but he was one hell of a liberal Republican in my eyes. I couldn't get past that.
shareHow exactly was Will liberal?
Name one instance of his taking a liberal stance on anything.
I'll wait ........
Other than when he explicitly disagrees with the vast majority of the right's decision on-air? Or, even better, when he bashes members of the right? It doesn't help he is portrayed by Jeff Daniels who is, himself, very liberal. I'll just take a couple quotes from the show.
He refers to the Tea Party as the American Taliban.
He even explicitly says that the Republicans have gotten too conservative.
"The problem is now I have to be homophobic. I have to count the number of times people go to church. I have to deny facts and think scientific research is a long con. I have to think poor people are getting a sweet ride. And I have to have such a stunning inferiority complex that I fear education and intellect in the 21st century. But most of all, the biggest new requirement, really the only requirement, is that I have to hate Democrats. And I have to hate Chris Christie for not spitting on the president when he got off Air Force One."
"Who's Allen West on the left? Who's Joe Walsh or Michele Bachmann? A 14-1 ratio of negative stories and your takeaway is is that there's a problem with the storyteller." - that quote in particular is an utter joke.
And that's just from one episode. Sorkin doesn't know how to write a conservative character without bashing the Republican party. Heck, Sorkin had to reveal that Will was a prosecutor when he practiced law to just attempt to sell that Will was conservative. At best Will is portrayed as a moderate. The opening 5 minutes of the very first episode in the entire series contains one long liberal rant, and is some of the 3 most condescending minutes I had ever heard in my life and I myself am a moderate with some liberal leanings.
I really liked the show, but Will was a "Republican" who was portrayed as the liberal hero.
Being Republican doesn't mean that you are a Tea Party Movement supporter, as it's not really part of the Republican platform. It's a movement, not an actual "party".
It also doesn't mean that you always like any Republican candidate, no matter who they are.
Being conservative does not mean that you're automatically a Republican. There are conservative Democrats, and conservative Independents. It's just that the word "conservative" has been used with Republican's so frequently that one would assume any conservative is going to always be a Republican.
He was, just as you said, a moderate Republican.
It's really unfortunate that modern movements and ideas have polluted the the GOP's platform. Don't forget that Lincoln was a Republican. Sadly, the GOP bares little resemblance to what it once was.
PS: I'm not a republican, and I hate politics. But it pays to know a little about the parties that you don't want to belong to.
R-Clayton sez:
"Other than when he explicitly disagrees with the vast majority of the right's decision on-air? Or, even better, when he bashes members of the right?"
The vast majority of the right? No. He disagrees with certain specific members of the right, primarily, even specifically, when they lie. Will is, above al else, a supporter of THE TRUTH.
It just so happens that Republicans lie much, much more than Democrats, They HAVE to. If they told the truth, they'd never get elected.
The best descriptors for the Will McAvoy quotes you've selected are the words "sane", "logical" and "rational".
The key question is whether it's mutually exclusive these days to be sane, logical and rational while also being a Republican.
Yeah...but...
all that's true.
Of course I have no idea of your age, but if you've been paying attention to politics for more than just the past, say, 10 years, you'd know that Sorkin wrote a Reagan Republican and had Jeff Daniels play the guy on TV.
Ronald Reagan would be systematically dismantled by the modern Republican party and would have never made it past about four debates.
That's Will's point. The inmates are running the asylum.
"What else do you like? Lazy? Ugly? Horny? I got 'em all."
"You don't look lazy."
I don't think they are backwards. As a Republican, Will was unconvincing. Sorkin has an axe to grind with the Republican party and he slapped the label 'Republican' on Will to make the show somewhat more palatable. So far, Sorkin has used television to pontificate - via his characters - and as a viewer, you come to expect it.
What self-righteous twaddle. I love a good story. There are many better story tellers writing for TV but Sorkin and Shonda Rhames are both very dependable for writing what in a book would be called 'turgid prose.'
If they were more like Will, they'd be Democrats.
shareIsn't that wonderful?
shareIn a Bizarro World kind of way. It's the fundamental problem with the show, despite Daniel's good acting, he's not credible as a Republican.
shareDarling137 gets it. One of the things that bothers me about the show is that, as an actual moderate/conservative or even conservative leaning centrist (I feel the same way about the tea-party that Will does), it seems painfully obvious that Will being a "republican" is just a way of giving more credibility to his constant critiques of republicans and cover to the complete absence of criticism of democrats or the Obama on the show.
_____________________
Need a new signature?
Why not Zoidberg? (\/)(;,;)(\/)
He is definitely credible as an old school republican. Though you and others like you won't ever admit it. Just keep crying that Will McAvoy is not republican at all. However listen (as you read them) to Will's words:
Will McAvoy: No, I call myself a Republican 'cause I am one. I believe in market solutions, and I believe in common sense realities and the necessity to defend ourselves against a dangerous world and that's about it. Problem is now I have to be homophobic. I have to count the number of times people go to church. I have to deny facts and think scientific research is a long con. I have to think poor people are getting a sweet ride. And I have to have such a stunning inferiority complex that I fear education and intellect in the 21st century. But most of all, the biggest new requirement, really the only requirement, is that I have to hate Democrats. And I have to hate Chris Christie for not spitting on the President when he got off Air Force One. The two-party system is crucial to the whole operation. There is honor in being the loyal opposition. And I'm a Republican for the same reasons you are. So I hope your voice gets louder in the next four years.
I remember when the majority of Republicans were like Will. Of course there's always been a few crazies, which is how the party was manipulated into nominating Barry Goldwater in 1964. He was so conservative for his time he only carried 6 states. Not that Goldwater was crazy, he was actually pretty sane, just extremely conservative. It was the crazies in the party that orchestrated his nomination though. Today, Goldwater would still be considered a conservative, but not an extreme conservative in the mold of the TP crazies who have hijacked the GOP.
Mediocre Marx Brothers is better than no Marx Brothers!
I'm not saying that it's not possible for someone to be Republican and be quite moderate. Many are, as are many right-leaning independents. What I'm saying is that his personal ideology seems to be left-of-center with a few conservative issues. Yes, many in the middle like Will (and, incidentally, me and "others like <me>") are sick of getting labeled by the extreme wings of the ideological spectrum of not being conservative/liberal enough, but the writers do a lousy job of portraying this because his character is fairly one sided, hence it's not credible.
The quote you provided is excellent. It proves my point by example. Will states that he's Republican because he is one. Ipso facto right?
But he then lists three things that make him Republican and, in his own words, "that's about it." Indeed. He then goes on to list six or seven reasons what he's not. I don't want to try to read into Sorkin's head but it's as if he took three things about Republicans he could support or tolerate and then found half a dozen misperceptions/straw men/extreme or distorted views of Republicans that he despised.
If the shoe were on the other foot, I would roll my eyes just as much with a supposed Democrat who said "I believe in equal rights for everyone, and I believe the status quo needs to change for the world to get better, and the necessity to provide opportunity for those without a voice. And that's about it. The problem is now I have to hate white men. I have to shame, attack, boycott or protest people who don't share my views or say things I like. I have to deny facts and think racism and sexism are the cause of all our ills. I have to think that rich people got their money by stealing it from poor people. And I have to have such a stunning inferiority complex that I must denounce anyone who believes in a higher being as being stupid, simply because I don't. But most of all, the biggest new requirement, really the only requirement, is that I have to hate anyone to the right of me. And I have to hate Joe Lieberman--a loyal Democrat and VP candidate--for not quitting his Senate race and having the audacity to support George W Bush in Iraq."
I simply don't find it credible that a character who self identifies as a Republican (not as a right-leaning independent, mind you) lists twice as many things about the party that he ostensibly embraces that he despises than he likes. He rarely ridiculed the liberal opinions of his coworkers and almost never defended conservative principals. I liked the character fine, but it seemly seemed to be a Frankenstein of what Democrats wished Republicans would be.
Nonsense. The phrase "I believe in market solutions" covers many different things. While numerically he does list more things that modern republicans support, they are quite specific and not covering an idea like a general approach to financial governance.
I said he's credible as an old school republican (like Ronald Reagan). Being a fanatical evangelist,denying science and education, and absolutely hating the opposition party (and even more specifically Chris Christie not spitting on the President) are all modern aspects of the GOP. Even Barry Goldwater commented: "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise." And that's the problem. The current incarnation of the republican party is against compromise at all costs.
Mediocre Marx Brothers is better than no Marx Brothers!
He's hardly like RR. Your list of supposed earmarks of the GOP are merely cartoonish representations of, arguably, cherry picked most extreme elements of the GOP. It's the equivalent of saying that modern Dems are Islam-loving/Jude-Christian hating atheists, identity politics supporters who deny true equality and merit based markets, and absolutely hating the opposition (specifically the white hetero normative paternal hierarchy which is responsible for all that is wrong in the world). McCain, Ryan, Rubio? Nope, doesn't fit that definition. But it's what writers of this show and people like yourself choose to belief represents the opposition because it conveniently fits into a stereotype that puts Dems in the best possible light.
I'm an independent yet you have put me in the position of defending the GOP, because the the characterizations, by Sorkin and you, are so laughably two-dimensional. Even your view of the "current incarnation" is a selective, narrow, and simplistic view of an entity that is no more a monolith than the Democratic Party.
But by all means, please continue to believe that it's a deep, accurate, and nuanced portrayal of a Republican.
"Your list of supposed earmarks of the GOP are merely cartoonish representations of, arguably, cherry picked most extreme elements of the GOP."
Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying. I was pointing out that many believe that in order to be a republican, you have to believe those things. I don't believe that, and if Will believes in market solutions and a few other things, he is credible as a moderate republican. Maybe not RR, but I don't think you can paint him as a democrat just because he doesn't fit with your idea of a republican.
Mediocre Marx Brothers is better than no Marx Brothers!
i just think Sorkin doesn't even try. He's a smart guy so I'm thinking he really knows that Republicans are as varied as Democrats, but he chooses the least Republican Republican to represent that ideology and that comes off as either lazy or ignorant. Of course, the 3rd option, is that he's trying to create a character which isn't cookie cutter, that's against the grain, and if that is the case, the partially succeeded. But it's not convincing. But then again, he probably lives in a bit of a bubble, given his profession and success, so perhaps he doesn't know the subtleties after all.
shareMy suspicion is probably that eventually Sorkin would've written Will switching political parties, had the show played that long. It can't possibly have been unintentional, the way it was written, which is almost worse - at one point Charlie (?) says to Maggie, "when we told you Will had been a Republican speechwriter, what did you think?" Maggie's response:
"That you were making a joke?"
Someone else: "That he was trying to destroy the party from the inside?"
That's pretty telling to me. Gee, if the statement "Will is a Republican" strikes his coworkers as a joke/equivalent of saddling the party with a terrorist; how is the viewing audience going to have any better differential?
Good observation and great point!
It's kind of funny since I recently got into a YouTube discussion on the realism of war movies and took the opposite tack. This guy was saying the final battle scene wasn't realistic because the Germans "never" did that (certain tactics or doctrine). I reminded him that the D Day landings were chaotic and units were thrown together ad hoc, so unusual wasn't necessarily unrealistic.
So I suppose, in the spirit of consistency, I should qualify my own position here too based on your theory.
IF the intent was to make a news guy a Republican who felt the party moved away from him, it's not believable to the viewer (at least those who are familiar with Republicans)
IF, however, the intent was to create an iconoclast, a wolf in sheeps clothing, who is liberal and only uses the Republican label, then I guess his actions are consistent with the character's motivation.
The "RINO" nonsense is why the Republican party is going to have a bad time with a few elections. The Republicans have decided that moderates are bad and are fine with this backwards uncompromising view, while the Democrats seem fine embracing moderates and reaching across the aisle. The party needs more fake people like Will McAvoy and less real people like Ted Cruz
shareRepublicans that are like Will McAvoy are called Democrats.
share[deleted]
If only Democrats were like Jim Webb. I would consider Democrats as ILLIBERAL screwheads.