My Review of the Television Drama Series “Madam Secretary”

Last updated on: March 20, 2017 at 7:49 am by Roger E. Olson

My Review of the Television Drama Series “Madam Secretary” 2017-03-20T07:49:45-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I watch only a few television series regularly. Most are, in my opinion, a total waste of time. Television is, in my opinion, by-and-large, what one television critic called “a vast wasteland” (Newton Minow, 1961) With more viewing options has come very little real improvement. I have a very low opinion of television programming in general and yet I feel the need to watch select shows to keep up with popular culture. Occasionally I find a series that I think is worthy of real praise. One is the Sunday evening CBS series “Madam Secretary” starring Téa Leoni and Tim Daly (among others). It is now in its third season and my wife and I watch it religiously for several reasons: it is political drama at its best (like “West Wing” was); it portrays both men and women fairly; it is realistic; the acting is very good; the story lines are informative. I usually have my Ipad open during the show learning about the countries and leaders and international situations being portrayed. Most of the situations are somewhat fictional, but often they point toward real or possible crisis situations.

Of course, one of the reasons I was interested in the show from the beginning was that Tim Daly, husband of the Secretary of State played by Leoni, is a Catholic professor of theology and ethics. Especially in the first season names like “Augustine” and “Thomas Aquinas” frequently were heard. As a historical theologian and ethics professor myself, that caught my attention and has kept it even though that theme has dwindled much.

Let me say that one thing I especially admire about the series is how it portrays women; for the most part it portrays them as strong but not prone to violence (so far I have only seen a woman hit a man once and he definitely deserved it!), smart but not cunning (except when they should be!), and not all young and beautiful models (far too many prime time television series neglect older female actors/actresses and give all the major female roles to women too young to hold the jobs they do on the show). (In my opinion, too often the women characters on television are portrayed as cunning and violent in situations and ways I do not think many women would be.)

Now, before I criticize “Madam Secretary,” let me explain something about how I watch television. I do not think most television programming is politically neutral. I use the word “politically” here very broadly—not having to do with partisan politics but with the broader meaning of having to do with human relationships. I think much television programming is geared toward social engineering; there is often an underlying current of meaning that I suspect most viewers consciously miss but that affects them unconsciously. I do think I tend to notice social engineering intention in television programming and advertising where many do not notice it. In my opinion, many writers and producers intentionally use their powerful roles in creating television to steer viewers toward adopting their own views about human relationships.

One reason I have enjoyed “Madam Secretary” is probably because, by-and-large, I agree with the social engineering I see there. However, that probably makes it especially poignant for me when I see social engineering there that I think is deleterious to the social fabric of America. If I think a television series is silly and unworthy of being taken seriously, I don’t tend to object as much when social engineering I happen to disagree with appears. Often I just laugh it off and assume most people will, too.

I have always known that “Madam Secretary” is a series driven largely by feminism. And, for the most part, I have been pleased by that and supportive of it—recommending it to people as a rare prime time, major network drama that portrays how government could work if more women were involved at higher levels and how a good marriage and family can function under great stress. I have often said to myself and to my wife “I wish we had a president like Elizabeth McCord (the name of the Secretary of State on the show). Also: “I wish more marriages and families were like hers—egalitarian as well as loving and supportive.”

However…Last evening’s episode (March 19, 2017) ended my love affair with “Madam Secretary”…for now. I cannot stop myself from pointing out some very serious flaws in it. Does one episode ruin a whole series? No. But I worry that new writers have come on board, as so often happens, with the result that the series loses interest for me. I do not know that; I have no inside information.

So what happened during last evening’s episode (season three, episode sixteen, “Swept Away”) to stir my ire and cause me to devote an entire blog post to it?

First, some comments about religion and politics (or government). In that episode, Tibetan Buddhism is “front and center” with much talk about the Dalai Lama (fictionally portrayed) as a living saint (my words). I do not believe any Christian leader would ever be portrayed or spoken about on any prime time, network television series in any way like that. But that is not my main objection; my main objection has to do with the Buddhist ceremony taking place just outside the Secretary of State’s office and the Secretary of State’s command that all of her staff attend it. This would never happen if the religious ceremony, ritual, were Christian. That would be a clear violation of separation of church and state. To the best of my knowledge, no religious ritual, ceremony, practice may be sanctioned to take place, let alone all government employees in an office required to attend, in any public building.

Second, another comment about religion. This season the Secretary of State’s husband is participating in a government investigation of a secretive, extremely dangerous “Christian” cult. This cult is, of course, completely evil and completely composed of men. There are no women in sight whenever the cult is portrayed as gathered. During last evening’s objectionable episode, the cult leader stood before a huge cross advocating destroying the world. It seems to me likely, although I cannot prove it, of course, that this plot line is intended to say that there could be, maybe are, “Christian” terrorist groups just as intend on violence as other religiously-motivated terrorist groups. Of course, that’s true; there could be. But how likely is this one? I have never heard of a “Christian” cult composed entirely of men. I had to wonder: Is this plot line a not-very-subtle slur against conservative Christians and men? Well, taken alone, by itself, I would not jump to that conclusion. However, I am concerned that it may be the case.

However, and third, toward the end of the episode the fictional Dalai Lama dies. The fictional president says to Secretary of State McCord who obviously admired him almost to the point of deifying him: “He was a great man.” McCord responds “Yes, and even rarer, a good one.” (I may have the wording slightly wrong; that is the gist of what she says.) Apparently the writer and producer of that episode believes and wants us to believe that good men are rarer than great men. How is that not sexist? Try turning it around. What if a main character on a prime time network drama said that good women are rarer than great women? There would be an immediate and very loud outcry of “sexism!”

I don’t like double standards. And I think the message there contributes to an overall, general treatment in entertainment of men and boys as seriously flawed human beings. Many are, of course, but I interpret what “Madam Secretary” said as a slur—against men in general. I do not think slurs against an entire class of people are ever appropriate.

Fourth, and finally, this episode had the sparkling opportunity to say something about men’s rights and passed it up. One of the main characters is “Madam Secretary’s” assistant “Jay” whose wife is having an affair with his best friend and leaving him. Jay wants shared custody of their daughter but his wife presents him with a legal document claiming sole custody. At the end of the episode, instead of fighting for his right to have shared custody, “Jay” sacrificially signed the document and gives up all rights to be with his daughter. Many men fighting for shared custody of their children will wince at that as they should. What is the message in that ending of that plot line? I assume it is that children are better off with their mothers, so don’t make accommodations (as Madam Secretary could have done in Jay’s case) for fathers so they can spend more time with their children (something many women rightly ask for).

My point? Sexism works both ways. Yes, men hold most of the power in American society, but not all men deserve the slurs so often aimed at them as a whole. In fact, racial and gender slurs (like “mansplaining” which was uttered for the second time during this episode) should be avoided entirely. Two wrongs do not make a right. Let’s not empower women by demeaning men.

I was greatly disappointed in this particular episode of “Madam Secretary” and hope it is not the beginning of a trend. This is not, in my opinion, feminism at its best. Nor is it religious fairness (pluralism) at its best.

Note to commenters: This is my blog, a place for me to express my opinions, not a discussion board. IF you decide to respond, do so respectfully or don’t expect your response to be approved. (I moderate the comments daily.) Keep your responses brief (no more than 200 words) and to the point. Essay-style responses and those that wander off point will not be approved. If you agree or disagree with something I wrote here, say why. Give reasonable reasons that promote understanding and further conversation about the subject. Strictly avoid nit-picking; I will not post little, nit-picking corrections that do not address the substance (which is the definition of “nit-picking”).

Uncategorized

Previous Post

March 16, 2017

My Review of the Movie "The Shack"

Next Post

March 22, 2017 Thoughts about Church and Holy Spirit (by a Self-Identified "Bapticostal")

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I wanted a vineyard so badly that my wife arranged the owner's death through false witnesses. Who am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David Ahab Jezebel Naboth