One does not imagine, well over a decade ago, that Aaron Spelling drafted Beverly Hills 90210 with the idea in mind that "I will make this series to become an excellent platform for liberal causes week in and week out." Yet, later in its run, that is exactly what it became. I never watched the show regularly, but for a little while I did either because its time slot was super convenient or my then-girlfriend was watching it. I remember four straight episodes, the story went like this:

Opening: Character gets an opportunity
Conflict: Whether or not character should ethically get opportunity becomes questioned because opportunity runs counter to a liberal cause
Debate: Other character (usually Steve) argues that First Character should take opportunity anyway. First Character agrees.
Resolution: First Character realizes that it would be wrong to fight for opportunity because it would be wrong, because the liberals are right.

The two I can remember specifically are Brandon becoming a scab for the local paper and Jeanne Garth (what was her character's name?) wanting to adopt a child that had been designated for a gay couple. Really, it doesn't matter what the other two were. Liberals that saw this show most likely didn't think much of it. Just another dime plot. Conservatives took note of it as yet another example of liberal entertainment doctrinism for use later in a blog that they would start years later. Well, maybe not all conservatives, but that's what I did. I also stopped watching the show.

Several years ago, Aaron Sorkin began what I consider one of the best television shows ever produced and the last one I ever made a point to watch week after week, whatever plans I had. Before long, however, it became infected with a high-minded liberalism that diminished the quality of the show. One episode after another, the characters would get on their soapbox and argue that gun control was a necessity, hunting was inherently wrong, the Confederate flag is an abomination, and (said point blank) only bigots support vouchers. However, when Sorkin created Sports Night, I don't believe that the main thing going through his mind was "I will create a show about a nightly sportscast and I will primarily use it to advance liberal causes!"

In both cases, however, that's ultimately what happened. So is Beverly Hills 90210 a liberal activist show? Is Sports Night? Was Designing Women designed to be a comedic platform for liberalism? In all three cases, despite the political dispositions of its creators, I don't believe that to be the case. Rather they had these shows ostensibly about certain things (high school students, sportscasters, and... err... designing women) and their politics crept through. Any time 90210 wanted to become socially relevent, it would invariably choose a liberal cause. Whenever characters on Sports Night characters needed a conflict between doing what their corporate heads want and what's "right", it involved them going left.

But are they inherently liberal shows?

No, they're not... but yes, they are, and they are the most frustrating kind of liberal show in existence. The kind that weren't designed to be, but by the predelictions of its creators became such. The politics are sporadic, infectious, and virtually unquestioned. It's even a step further than that in that the writers assume that you agree with them to begin with. And hey, if you don't, then you're like the amoral, immoral, and/or stupid distortions we've got depicting the other side of the argument.

90210 at least made the effort to have an established character make the conservative arguments. However, that they chose one of the most superficial and least thoughtful character isn't exactly by chance. Of course the socially unaware rich kid driving the expensive car would make that argument. Of course. Why would an intelligent character do so? They're... intelligent. And thoughtful.

That's one of the biggest things that I would change if I ever were to get the chance to write movies or television scripts in Hollywood.

In a debate on Greg's Opinion site, I said that I would love to make some conservative shows. The question immediately entered my mind what kind of shows I would make with a conservative theme. Most of the ideas were actually somewhat horrid. Mostly because I don't like preachy shows. I can implement conservative themes, but to be fair many of them are implemented anyway. They're just rarely expressed. For instance, a good old law and order show with conservative themes might be The Commish. They rarely, however, actually take on the liberals, though. They merely depict a positive show about good cops doing their jobs in a world where police are generally the good guys. They don't rail against the ACLU or even defense attorneys all that much. Therefore a liberal can watch the show and enjoy it without feeling like their views are being mocked.

Conservatives are rarely given any such courtesy.

My views were regularly disrespected in Sports Night and are regularly so in West Wing. If a show bends to the left, it is generally quite merciless. If it becomes a big enough deal, the ratings fall. I know a number of conservatives (myself included) that liked West Wing at first, but as it became more and more ideological ended up leaving it behind. One would assume that if a conservative show were to do the same, the same thing would happen. Producers know this. This is where the liberal politics of Hollywood really come in to play.

If a producer is confronted with a script that is blatantly disrespectful to his views, he is likely to ask it revise so as to not offend the audience. This type of thing happens to blatantly anti-conservative scripts, but execs are less likely to pick up on it. If the ostensibly apolitical 90210 were to want to air an episode in which Brandon comes to the conclusion that abortion is immoral and this went unchallenged, an executive would (quite rightly) say "this will alienate the millions of Americans that have undergone one." If there is an episode in which fundamentalist Christians are depicted as hateful and that went unchallenged, they'd be less likely to see that it would alienate and anger the millions of fundamentalist Christians out there, their response would range from "Well, they're wrong anyway" to "They should understand we're only talking about the most extreme."

Well, how extreme?

Pro-life Christians? 40 some-odd percent of Americans are pro-life. Christians that believe that homosexuality is morally wrong? I'd say that number tops 50%. Christians that believe that abortion clinics should be bombed and gays hung? That's obviously a minority, but little distinction is made. If there is a debate among Christians in the show, it's likely to be between a liberal one and a conservative clinic-bombing one. More likely it would be between the nonreligious main characters vs. religious extremists. No distinctions made. They would argue that they don't want to argue theology, but they don't stop to think they already are.

Just as the intelligent Christian voice is rarely on display, the intelligent conservative one is rare as well. In many cases, I suspect this is because the producers don't know any. In many cases, they don't even know what an intelligent conservative would say. So they pit the best of their side (eloquent) against the worst of the other side (spiteful and mean). That's only if there is a debate, which itself is rare.

Before I go too far off the deep end, though, there are some shows that buck this general trend. Anyone who remembers Picket Fences, liberal or conservative, should remember the thoughtful manner in which it approached issues. Debates were set up, lines were drawn, and there were no mouthpieces for All That Is Left and Good. It generally settled on the liberal approach, but it at least gave the alternative approaches a platfom. It made for really engaging television. Law & Order does this to a degree by exploring issues that they confront where when the bad guys get away or get off lightly, you're sometimes enraged and sometimes feel "You know, they got away, but there was a reason for that."

That's all most conservatives are really asking for. The problem is that they are so few and far between that they are the exception to the rule. Most lawyer shows are about defense lawyers exposing the foolishness and/or vindictiveness of prosecutors and police. One doesn't have to be a conservative to see that as a fallacy, but it is conservatives who are most enraged by it. Losses here and there are fine and make for good drama. Shows in which conservative institutions like the criminal courts and police departments are always under fire and doing wrong is enough to drive someone batty.

It's also not something I would want liberals to have to go through. So even if I did head out to California to write conservative TV shows, I wouldn't likely be a conservative response to the liberal claptrap on television today. Not that they would have to go through it anyway because they could just turn the channel. Conservatives don't have that luxury. Instead we just turn the TV off (and then, ironically, face criticism for being "culturally unaware" as President Bush has).