I wish Hal Holbrook had been used more on the West Wing. The acting (unsurprisingly) was top-bitch, and the character was great. I think he could have been a phenomenal recurring character.
The Uyghurs would like a word. They wont get it, because they're in chinese "reeducation camps". But they'd like a word if they could. Trade with China is important, it gives us something to pressure them with to respect huan rights more. But it also let's them know we're still willing to trade with them even though we know what they're doing to their citizens.
His message on China was the theory we hoped would work. Unfortunately, this has not happened and we are now dealing with an increasingly powerful and belligerent China who is attempted to claim an area (South China Sea) where one third of the global shipping runs through.
It has worked in a lot of other countries tbf and in China to a very limited extent, they are more free now than in the past and more happy but still not as much as we all would hope.
@@delta8868 It has worked in other nations yes but to say China is more free? I couldn't disagree more. They have more economic development, sure but every aspect of their lives is overseen by the government. Their social credit system is abysmal.
I bumped into Hal Holbrook, and his lovely wife Dixie Carter. I don’t remember what we were seeing, but they were a cantankerous couple who didn’t allow anyone to run them over. Once they were recognized, everyone made way. It was magnificent.
"May I get a young, attractive aid to swing by with a bit of tonic and a twist of lemon?" Noooo, no, I'm much too bitter and full of ...... well now sure. Why not? You send just someone by..... *Figgin' Hal Holbrook.*
I love this and the next clip about 10 word answers. I adore Hal Holbrook, I got to see him perform as Mark Twain live, how fabulous! Sadly, Schweppes no longer makes Bitter Lemon, or if they do, they don't market it here in the US...
@MrEab2010 I had forgotten that he and Martin Sheen played lovers in a TV movie. He was also in Wall Street with Charlie Sheen, but didn't have onscreen time with Martin.
*Hope is not a method.* This clip shows what we hoped we'd get. What we actually got was trade with a country that pirates our technologies, continues to repress its people, and laughs as it arms itself with the money it got from that trade.
If you're trying to use trade to make countries give their people more rights, use it as a "reward" for those countries giving said rights. The same way we do the opposite with sanctions. But trade agreements are mostly signed to make manufacturing cheaper, at the expense of workers in that sector, to the benefit of the 1% only.
The idea to promote free trade to promote human rights made some sense at the time. Unfortunately we are seeing that it hasn’t worked with Russia and China. On the flip side it has made their economies very vulnerable to sanctions. Western economies will suffer as well but, in my opinion, have more capacity to adjust. I guess we will find out.
Free trade has pulled hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty. Does economic freedom lead to political freedom? We'll see, but there have been protests in recent years in China about environmental issues and COVID lockdowns. That didn't happen when trade was closed and everyone was poor.
I love coming back to these old clips of The West Wing, because it really makes me think about how deeply embedded in culture neoliberalism was when I was growing up. I count myself lucky that unlike Sorkin, my worldview isn’t permanently riven by Fukuyama and his ilk.
You know, I loved this show as a college student. Now that I'm older and wiser I have some serious issues with it. This scene is spot on regarding the complex and experimental nature of foreign policy...right up to the point where the female professional pimps out her "attractive aide". Gross.
I still love the show, especially the writing, but its cisfeminist neoliberalism is... well, what we're watching unfold now. Congrats on discovering that all work is objectifying on multiple levels, though... like when we make workers stand all day for no reason. That said, I really don't think Carol minds being called attractive. And half of all sex-workers are male-assigned. "I like sex!" - Ainsley Hayes
@0.48. "Trade is essential for human rights. Instead of isolating them......" Ahhhh, if only we knew back then what we know about China's strategy today, how things might be a little different.
Free Trade is essential to allow Western multinational corporations to crush small, local businesses and push homogenizing political agendas that divide and destroy unique cultures.
I dunno, I think the "nothing else has worked" part could fit in. So many other people have tried so many other things (including war) and have failed, so what's wrong with trying something different?
The irony of writing this guy as being annoyed about having to condense complex issues into sound-bites, is that the screenwriters themselves perceive economics through soundbites. Not through actual training in the field. But who cares about those nerds, right?
The whole scene seems to me to be the screenwriters admission of their limitations, both from their medium and from their lack of expertise. They know there's only so much nuance they can provide, and "It's complicated" and a couple of quick parables is all they can fit.
"Trade is essential for human rights." Neolibs have been pushing that line for decades, so when exactly does the liberalization of China begin? A few more decades? This show hasn't aged well.
Been waiting for someone to say it. The show was well written, but often was never self aware enough to critique the fact that most of the time it never went far enough with its beliefs, and I'm less forgiving of that given that the show kept trying to portray itself as idealist, and frankly moderate neoliberalism is just not "idealism", it's the definition of compromise. Not to mention it had plenty of qualities that are just unacceptable like the pervert that was lord John Marbury who was just allowed to be a creep, the toxic paternalism of Bartlett that never got fully addressed, and the constant devils advocacy for republicans, conservatives, racist cops, etc. It all makes sense when you consider that nearly the entire writing staff was comprised of white upper class men, but that's hardly an excuse, more of an explanation. I also hated how it fetishized American history and institutions, and rarely went far enough in contending with the sheer amount of blood this country was built upon. Oh well, I guess we can just look at the aspects that were well done television, and then critique the beliefs that didn't go nearly far enough. Who knows, maybe in the coming years an equally witty show will get written that finally goes the extra step of actually seeking systemic change, rather than mere prosperity within the inequitable systems of this country (perhaps even a more diverse set of writers for a change, that would be nice). Thanks for reading my dissertation, I will now go get a life XD
@@leolong2984 The show wasn't meant to be the ideal. It was meant to give the portrayal of a generic white house with a democratic president during the time it was written.
@@shawn4888 I suppose that's fair, but I think it'd be pretty disingenuous to claim the show didn't represent an ideal government the writers wanted to see y'know? I mean the first episode says it all with Bartlett chewing out the evangelicals. We know that would rarely happen in real life lol unless you have evidence to the contrary. I guess I'd just like you to qualify your point a bit more (hopefully my example serves that purpose for my argument or I'd be quite the hypocrite) Edit:spelling mistakes and grammar
@@leolong2984 Rarely? You are familiar with the Westboro Baptist church right? Doesn't seem like it would be a stretch for politicians to put pressure on church groups to denounce such things like westboro before talking to church groups again. The same of a president being upset if his daughter or granddaughter was given the package discussed on the show. Those things were going on when the show was written.
@@shawn4888 huh good point, okay you've rebutted my argument. Now please qualify yours just so I can understand better (by that I mean cite examples; explain how all the "he's a good man," its about Bartlett weren't meant to idealized him, cause I'm struggling). And keep in mind this just a media discussion, we aren't fighting okay? (I say this cause it's the internet, things get heated fast for weird reasons)
This is a dumb argument for Free-trade. It's essential for human rights? Are you having a laugh? The US had a free-trade agreement with Brunei, a country which implemented Sharia law. And don't get me started on the human rights records of all the countries on the Arabian peninsular that the US has had free-trade deals with. So yeah, this is horseshit.
Vincent Hitchin The argument is when you in act free trade, it forces country's to play by your standards in order to trade for free. It forces to ask them selfs what more important having kids to dirty labor or gain huge amount of wealth from what they gain by trading for free. It basically modernizes and distracts country's from doing wrong because the supposed huge amount of wealth makes them do better. This was the original point of free trade, the example you showed and what we have now are not true free trade. They are agreements with mass corporations and lobbyist getting in and changing things that only benefit them.
Thanks. I'm familiar with the argument, I just don't buy it at all. But this notion of US trade relations with Brunei not being "true free trade" sounds strange to me. Since Free-trade is all about lowering tariffs and other protectionist measures that prevent the unfettered access of foreign companies in accessing your markets, when you reduce protectionism towards a country like Brunei AFTER it has implemented Sharia Law (fair enough if they implemented sharia law, US said abolish it or no free-trade and then that happened, but that wasn't what happened) you are effectively rewarding Brunei for bad behavior. My advice is, don't reward bad behavior! And at the end of all of this you get more jobs shipped overseas and corporations enriched at the expense of everyone else, ordinary people in both countries don't benefit, not Americans who lose jobs but also not Bruneians who get jobs but are wage slaves. But this video is about human rights and the point is free-trade does nothing for this, not on it's own anyway.
CJ is annoying in this clip to me (most of you will obviously disagree). She just won;t shut up about 'how it looks'...which is what I despise about politics. Though I really like her character otherwise. BTW - Hal Holbrook had/has one amazing voice.
Appearance is exactly her job. She's a PR consultant by training, and appointed Press Secretary. And it's a press event she's prepping for. Where else exactly would you prefer she focus?
@@BradyPostma Where exactly did I say she did not do her job? Answer - I didn't. I said - basically - that what she does for her job is what I despise about politics.
@@McRocket - I had the impression that it was her personality you were calling annoying, or maybe just her behavior in the scene. I agree with you that it's ugly how oversimplification promotes power. I think of CJ as doing the best she can with an ugly job, and apparently I misunderstood you to be criticizing the way she did the job.
@@BradyPostma I understand and agree with you completely. Thank you for the explanation, your composure and not turning this into a silly fight. Cheers.
It’s what the US hoped, but it didn’t work. It didn’t work with Russia, and it hasn’t worked with many countries. You bring human rights and such to a country by fusing them to the identity of a nation in its darkest hour. You take Germany and Japan in 1945, broken and destroyed, and you bring them welfare states and decades of unparalleled prosperity, they become democratic ideals. When Russia in the 1990s had that same issue, they were given poverty by the Chicago School and the cold shoulder by the US and became authoritarian. Free trade is part of it, but also the will to remake from the ashes
@@chang-kp9sp Who is a country that does NOT violate human rights? Belgium? You can probably name one or two but their economies aren't big enough to do that much trade.
