Ok, so I promise this will be the last post spent analyzing 24, but I just want to gripe again about the way the show presents foreign policy. President Taylor — the sympathetic character — seems to hew to the liberal interventionist tradition, which in gaining currency as a misguided rhetorical tool against George Bush’s neoconservatism occasionally became mistaken for mainstream liberal foreign policy. The argument basically followed that if we were going to undertake ostensibly humanitarian missions in Iraq, then why were we not unilaterally invade Darfur or Myanmar? Obviously, this is most effective as a form of calling Bush’s bluff, but as a foreign policy, is a truly daft. After all, if you thought invading Iraq was a bad idea, it makes more sense to oppose Iraq-like invasions than it does to advocate for even more unilateral invasions, but just under more morally sound pretenses.
Anyway, this is highlighted quite perfectly when President Allison Taylor — notice the syllabic similarity to Hillary Clinton? — is confronted with the decision of whether unilatarly invading Sangala to stop ethnic conflict is worth risking the lives of thousands of innocent American civilians. I mean, are you fucking joking? Is that even a decision? Clearly, you act to save the lives of the American civilians who put your dumb ass in office. Jesus, problem solved. Meanwhile, her Chief of Staff, who advocates the realist view (“super powers act in their own best interest”), is made to look like a heartless asshole. Would it be too much to ask to have just one sympathetic character on that show who isn’t a complete fucking moron?