“So all our show is an exaggerated sort of expression of that stuff that I think the policymakers in this country have to face every day,” said Joel Surnow co-creator and executive producer of the TV show ’24’ (Espach, CNSNews.com).
‘24’ has been entertaining viewers with suspense and riveting action scenes for five seasons now. The show is most famous for its cunning, ethics bending super agent Jack Bauer. A show where the president and agents torture terrorists together and oil tycoons attempt to start wars must have a political message.
The clear message seen throughout the series has been that the ends justify the means. No matter what needs to be done, as long as the United States can remain secure it is acceptable. There are echoes of Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and current Republican ideologies, specifically those of President George W. Bush, seen throughout ‘24.’
To understand the political undertones that permeate throughout ‘24’ one must first know a little bit about the television show, specifically the ending to season 2. This show is done is real-time, there are 24 shows in a season and each show represents one hour of Jack Bauer’s day. The reason for season 2 being chosen is because it is one of the more eventful and realistic scenarios.
Supposed terrorists have detonated a nuclear weapon in Los Angeles, the group who is thought to be responsible has been supported by three, unnamed, middle-eastern countries. He has just lost his wife and his job in CTU, Counter-Terrorist Unit, but the president needs him to find out who is responsible for the nuclear detonation before the United States goes to war with three countries that might be innocent. With the support of the government, Bauer tortures suspects, so does the president, in one scene he tortures one of his closest cabinet members who is suspected of aiding the terrorists. In typical ‘24’ fashion, the suspect being tortured gives up the vital information and it ends up helping the investigation, although later the rest of the cabinet learns about the torturing and tries to, and succeeds in forcing the president out of office. The situation has been set and Jack Bauer has to fight his way through it, fighting for the side of good.
In season 2 of ‘24’ there are many plot twists and alternating political tones that can leave the viewer feeling slightly confused. Does the show openly support the president or criticize him? It seems that the show does a whole lot of both. Is it a coincident that Jack Bauer and President Palmer have to torture suspects in order to save the United States, around the same time that U.S. troops were accused of torturing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq? Or, in season 2 Jack Bauer is fighting so that the U.S. doesn’t go to war with innocent countries under false pretenses. This scenario seems to be very similar to the beginning of the U.S. war against Iraq.
The show attempts to promote the ideals of utilitarianism, which defends actions by saying the ends justifies the means. Jack Bauer torturing a suspect by breaking his fingers or shooting him in the leg is okay, because he is doing it to prevent a catastrophe from happening. The minds behind the show setup certain situations in which characters have to make questionable moral choices to help the common good, in the end what the character did is morally acceptable.
The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau expounded on the common good by writing, “it follows from what precedes that the general will is always upright and always tends toward the public utility; but it does not follow that the deliberations of the people always have the same rectitude” (Rousseau 1761, p. 430). Rousseau was contrasting the differences between the common good and the public will. He believed that the common good will always be moral and will always lead toward progress, because it is infallible and right. While the public will is easily manipulated and can make mistakes.
One of the answers to Jack Bauer’s moral questions of torturing suspects is that he was just doing it for the common good. If he is fighting for the common good, and he represents the government does he accurately represent the common good and the general will? Rousseau, having never met a super agent like Jack Bauer, would argue that Bauer can’t accurately represent the common good, because he really only represents his own will. Even though Bauer claims to represent the public utility, it is obvious that he is not always upright and moral. So, according to Rousseau Bauer is an individual acting in the interests of his own wills, not the common good.
Even if Rousseau doesn’t believe that Jack Bauer is working for the common good, the characters in the show certainly do. So does the shows creator and producer, Joel Surnow, “this is a war, and in war, there are always casualties. You have to care about the people that are paying the price or the show doesn’t work” (Espach, CNSNews.com). At a panel discussion on ’24’ that was sponsored by the conservative Heritage Foundation and hosted by the ultra-conservative radio host, Rush Limbaugh, who asked the question, “How much of the show is written with real-world events as a guide versus how much of it is totally made up?
Is any of it what you wish the United States was doing? Had the capability to do?” Surnow responded by saying, “Absolutely, it’s what we wish, there is a wish-fulfillment fantasy” part of ’24.’ He continued, “The terrorists are the bad guys, and we’re the good guys”. In response to Surnow’s comments, Limbaugh enthusiastically added, “Alright, alright, me, too!” (Espach, CNSNews.com) The pro- ’24,’ anti-terrorist panel answered a number of questions about the political leanings of the program most importantly the admission of using the program to communicate conservative ideologies.
The torturing suspects to gain vital information that could save lives is okay along with a general notion of security at any cost. No matter how many rights need to be violated, like Article eight of the Bill of Rights forbidding ‘cruel and unusual punishments’ (Bill of Rights, p. 37). Torture isn’t the only violation either, the president imprisoned a member of the media because he had sensitive information, Bauer has repeatedly murdered, threatened and harmed others, all in hope of saving more lives. Bauer also frequently denies the suspects rights to an attorney. If this was a regular television show this would not be a problem, but people take this show seriously.
They encourage Bauer to act in this manner by continuing to give the show incredible ratings. There are already conservatives, such as the producers of the show and Rush Limbaugh, who wish the U.S. government would act in this manner. One must wonder if the U.S. government takes a Jack Bauer like approach to fighting terrorism? Even though Bauer commits questionable acts he does represent the U.S. government (in the TV show).
It is safe to assume that because of attempted assassination attempts on President Palmer (season 1) and a nuclear explosion in Los Angeles (season 2) that this fictional U.S. government would be most concerned with the security of the state. Even if one must commit morally questionable acts to protect the state.
‘24’ reflects positions most commonly associated with the classical liberal Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes main contentions in many of his works are that the main purpose of government is to provide security for the state. If the government fails at doing this, another government should be formed. Hobbes continues by saying that the best leader for the government would be an autocrat of some sort, it doesn’t matter if the government is a democracy or a monarchy, just as long as the leader is an autocrat. Although Hobbes clearly prefers a monarchy.
In the world of ‘24’ there is a democracy which has failed to provide the citizens with security; the president has been indecisive and incompetent in providing the necessary security. Even though Bauer has been able to find the perpetrators of the nuclear strike, he failed to stop the weapon from going off. Hobbes would recognize the failure of the government to provide security as a crucial flaw, but he would also contend that the people voted for representatives and a president who in some manner agreed to give Bauer the power to secure.
Throughout the show there are subtle tones that hint back to Thomas Hobbes, mainly the overall fear of destruction and response to that by increasing security. In season 2, President Palmer seems as if he is an all-powerful leader, but later in the season he is ousted out of his presidency by the cabinet giving way for the vice-president to assume control.
Two episodes later the vice-president resigns and the president is reinstated. Because President Palmer failed to provide the necessary security the cabinet, who in one way or another represent the people, voted to get rid of him saying he was not fit to run the country. Hobbes also asserts that the leaders of the country do not need to obey the civil laws that they created or enforce. “The sovereign of a commonwealth, be it an assembly, or one man, is not subject to the civil laws” (Hobbes 1651, p. 161). In the show ‘24’ the government and president commit all sorts of crime and are viewed as ‘the good guys’ leading a crusade against terrorism. The show is portraying the leaders and agents of the government as moral actors who are not subject to the laws of the common man, due in part to the war on terrorism.
The ideology that is most supported by themes in ‘24’ is the Republican agenda associated with President Bush. The show uses torture as a solution to problems multiple times during a period of time when torture allegations were surfacing in the real world. What do the viewers of ‘24’ think? They have seen Jack Bauer torture suspects and that helped him to further his investigation, why wouldn’t they assume that torture will always be used that way, so why is it a negative thing? ‘24’ is slowly anesthetizing the moral compasses of Americans in order to get them to blindly support such ridiculous actions as torture.
During season 2 Bauer must act quickly because he needs to stop a war from starting on false pretenses. Tony Almeida, Jack’s close friend, even admits, “What can be more important than stopping the war.” The moral outrage about potentially starting a war with an innocent state repeats itself as a common message throughout the end of season 2. Why is there such an importance in stopping the war? Obviously it would be immoral to start the war, but could this message be an overt political message for the viewers. Telling the viewers that the government would do anything to stop the country from starting a war on false pretenses, what could be more important? This is an attempt to reassure the viewers that our government is moral and that our war in Iraq is justified, even though we invaded the country on false pretenses. According to ‘24’ our leaders wouldn’t allow a country to be falsely accused and then punished, we are more upstanding then that.
One of the key aspects to understanding the political motives behind ‘24’ is the control of money. ‘24’ is broadcast and paid for by the Fox Broadcasting Company, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. News Corp. is a media empire controlling newspapers, TV networks, publishing companies all over the world. Rupert Murdoch once said, “For better or for worse, our company (The News Corporation Ltd.) is a reflection of my thinking, my character, my values” (brainyquotes.com). His newspapers and cable news network have been accused of promoting a conservative bias and supporting the agenda of the President of the United States.
Because of these issues regarding Murdoch, including the fact that he has an ex-fascist on his board of directors in former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, who was a member of the Falange party as a teenager, that party was under control of dictator Francisco Franco (Answers.com). Does News Corp. influence the production of ’24?’ No one can say for certain, but there are some interesting connections, especially those of Rupert Murdoch. There are obvious conservative ideals being presented in ’24.’ Murdoch even said that every facet of News Corp. has his influence in it; does that mean ‘24’ as well?
Even if there is no grand conspiracy (involving former prime ministers) to spread conservative ideology through ’24,’ it happens anyways. The multitude of torturing and the use of real world events in the storyline suggest that there is a political alliance with the current presidential administration.
When the writers of ‘24’ are preparing their stories, I am confident that they do not read Hobbes and Rousseau in order to find their positions. Even though they end up having similar stances as the philosophers. In the real world security is a major issue, which is why a view similar to Hobbes would be common. The show ‘24’ takes it to a higher level by putting the characters into dire situations which require a moral flexibility, all in order to preserve the state. The common theme of ‘common good’ repeats itself throughout the series and seems to be best exemplified by the philosopher Rousseau.
‘24’ is an action packed television show that seems to support many controversial issues. The use of torture is the most compelling and surprising issue that ‘24’ seems to support. Today politics plays an increasing role in the everyday lives of Americans, because of that political bias is more prevalent. The bias seen in ‘24’ may not be harmful, but it is alarming to think that there is a large amount of people that would support torturing suspects. The up and coming politician summed it all up when he said, “Today we are engaged in a deadly global struggle for those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms. If we are to win this struggle and spread those freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction” (Brainyquotes.com).
Author’s Note: This article was written in 2006.
Loading ...