Whenever an exciting new figure bursts onto the national scene, it’s wise to temper your enthusiasm lest the latest viral sensation prove to have noxious views or other fatal character flaws. A sympathetic bullied kid might have parents with ugly beliefs who are exploiting his suffering for free stuff; a congressional candidate might act like a maniac on Internet comment threads.
By the standards of the so-called Milkshake Duck theorem, which describes the feeling of letdown that follows such a discovery, it’s not so terrible to learn that David Hogg, one of the students who has become an activist after surviving the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School earlier this year, cites “House of Cards” for its supposed realism. But if Hogg and his fellow students are really interested in breaking the gun lobby’s throttlehold on American politics, there are many, many other shows with much more to offer them.
Hogg isn’t wrong when he says that “one of the main messages [“House of Cards"] sends is that politics is spectacle.” One of the problems with the theory of politics and policymaking in “House of Cards,” though, is the show’s idea that politics is entirely spectacle.
Everything that happens on “House of Cards” happens on a grand scale, whether it’s voter suppression by means of fake terrorist attacks, melodramatic addresses to the nation, or a presidential decision to invite members of Pussy Riot to dinner with the Russian president. Politics is purely gestural, especially because the Underwoods (Robin Wright and Kevin Spacey, who will not appear in the last season of the show after facing a raft of sexual misconduct allegations) have no actual political beliefs. And while advocates of various causes drift through “House of Cards,” the series doesn’t have enough sense for the grit and emotionalism of politics to recognize the role that interest groups play in political deadlocks and breakthroughs.
So what’s a better model? It’s fashionable to suggest that Armando Iannucci’s caustic comedy “Veep,” which suggests that national politics is largely the domain of ambitious idiots, venal operators and a few competent underlings, is a superior portrayal to the slick manipulation in “House of Cards.” But the wise thing to do is to take those two together. It’s absolutely true that there are telegenic figures in American politics who are smart about rallying their followings and do well on television. But to actually get anything done, the wannabe Frank Underwoods of the world need colleagues in government who are less visionary or even downright feckless. That’s true if you want to pass legislation, impeach a president or be elected one yourself.
And even the sharpest show about Washington will miss one essential element of politics: They’re fundamentally local. “Parks and Recreation,” the long-running comedy about ambitious civil servant Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler), may have been a liberal fantasy about women in politics. As a model for aspiring activists, though, it’s useful as a portrait of how politicians are shaped by the eccentricities of their districts. In Leslie’s case, that means navigating a crazed media environment; a constituent community where outspokenness and oddity are in direct correlation; a fraught history that still reverberates in contemporary politics; and colleagues such as city councilman and orthodontist Jeremy Jamm (Jon Glaser), who never met an opportunity for personal profit or contrarian obstructionism he didn’t take.
The tenor of American politics might be improved if Hogg and his fellow students could find a way to marginalize the apocalyptic and frequently hostile rhetoric of National Rifle Association officials such as Wayne LaPierre and Dana Loesch. But ending those overheated spectacles is just a start. Breaking the deadlock over gun regulation in the United States will be a much longer, weirder, harder and maybe even sillier process, most of which won’t take place in Washington.
The greatest trick “House of Cards” ever pulled was convincing viewers that it was a savvy, moral look at American politics rather than a shallow, brittle fantasy that skates over the hardest parts of governance. The sooner we put it behind us, the better.
