The politics of The Wire (again)

Here's Ross and Jonah Goldberg talking sensibly about The Wire. Goldberg makes a solid argument for a conservative reading of the show, though sentences like this strike me as sloppy:

To the extent many liberals try to explain all of the problems of poor blacks on racism, the show was a powerful rebuttal.

I just get nervous when I read absolutes like "all of the problems." Bloggers would make for poor screenwriters. Ross rightly notes that Simon is, essentially, a liberal. But the point I like, made by both of them, is The Wire generally avoided propaganda. It was so focused on story-telling, and digging deep into character. From Ross:

t's a testament to the genius of the show that its depiction of Baltimore (and by extension, America) offers fodder for liberal, conservative, leftist and libertarian readings - much like reality itself! In this sense, The Wire is the rarest and most precious of beasts: A work of art that's intensely political but rarely devolves into agitprop.

I thought this was less true in Season Five, when a clear ideology did emerge, but it wasn't left or right. The ideology was nihilism. Now, nihilism was always at work in The Wire, but at the end, I felt like it just became too much. It felt like a desire to show futility of systems became the author of plot, not character. I thought that the press angle was poorly done--and saying "Yeah well it's reporters who are objecting" is a weak, ad-hominem defense.

I thought the serial killer turn--particularly the way Freeman embraced it--was hastily executed. I most disliked the ease with which Marlo took over the city's drug trade. I even hated the manner of Omar's death--not that he was killed by Kinard, but that he was basically brought back into the plot, simply to be killed. He really served no major plot point. It all felt deeply cynical.

Anyway, before I throw this to comments, a bit of essential concern-trolling Let me apologize to the vast majority of my commenters, but experience has taught me to handle this in advance. I know there are certain readers here who nurse a visceral dislike for Goldberg and Douthat. That's fine. But I will delete any personal flames, which have nothing to do with The Wire, directed at either of them. "Suchandsuch is right-wing prick who has blood on his hands because of blahblahblah," may be entirely true. I guess it's not that I disagree. It's that, for purposes of this thread, I just don't care. There may be people who find such trenchant insight interesting to read. But I'm not one of them. Plus it's off topic.

Carry on.

Comments

"To the extent many liberals try to explain all of the problems of poor blacks on racism, the show was a powerful rebuttal."

That ridiculously "straw man" statement is a powerful rebuttal to the notion that Jonah Goldberg is worth two minutes of anyone's time.

Posted by brucds | December 4, 2008 12:03 PM

Gotta disagree with any argument for a conservative reading of the show. For me personally, this show made me much, much more liberal. Sounds kind of silly, I know. Sounds a bit overdramatic, I know. But this show literally changed the way I viewed our country and race relations.

TNC, gotta agree with you completely on your reading of season 5. It felt rushed, inorganic, and even a bit contrived. Still awesome, but lacking a bit.

Posted by Stacy | December 4, 2008 12:07 PM

I remember an interview with Simon in the New Yorker just before Season 5 started airing in which he mentioned that what he was really going for was a retelling of the great Greek tragedies in a modern setting, where the edifices of civilization come crumbling down around us, and in that respect, I think he succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination, even in season 5.

The big key, as you noted, was that Simon got the storytelling right first, and then let whatever message was going to come through have some space. In an odd way, it's similar to what Jon Stewart does with the Daily Show. He makes sure the jokes are funny first, and then worries about the message they're sending afterward.

Posted by Incertus (Brian) | December 4, 2008 12:08 PM

Sorry - I didn't read to the end of your post about "personal flames." I can assure you that my initial comment is dispassionate analysis. People who write sentences like that and think they've got a handle on "liberalism" either don't know what they're talking about or have an ax to grind that's reliant on gross mischaracterizations of the alleged opposing view.

Posted by brucds | December 4, 2008 12:08 PM

As a teacher, my favorite plot line of the entire series was the career change that Jim True-Frost's character underwent when he moved from the police department to the public schools.

My favorite scene in the entire series? The one where the girls attacked each other during Mr. Prezbo's class. Not only were the young actors' reactions perfect, but True-Frost demonstrated, in about two seconds, how an actor can move from "good" to "great" in a single moment.

The Wire really was the best drama on television.

Posted by Ben | December 4, 2008 12:15 PM

The last season was definitely thrown together but it was all about a changing of the guard. I HATED how they ended Omar. But that was all so the youngin could become the NEW Omar at the end. And on it went like that. I was hoping that there was a final Barksdale/Marlowe confrontation but I think they basically ran out of time and they tried to cram what should have been at least two seasons of tying up loose ends into one season.

On another topic I don't see how ANYBODY can come close to reading the Wire as a conservative show nor would I understand why they would want to. You had the season where drugs were legalized in a whole section of town and they were doing needle exchanges. The people who most were made to look like Republicans ie the big wigs at the paper in the last season and some of the top brass on the police force were always the slimiest. They had an openly gay female detective and she was one of the main characters. And the "heros" of the show had the worst morals ever.

Maybe the only way I could see conservatives using the Wire is because its set in baltimore which is a Democratic strong hold and they can say "see this is what happens when you let Dems take over" But thats just a wild azz guess.

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | December 4, 2008 12:16 PM

To me, the show was a complicated, beautiful proof of structural racism: the kind embedded in institutions and societal stasis. It was an indictment against disinvestment and white flight. It was a reminder that various individual problems (poverty, drug use, education, disinvestment) are all intricately interconnected and have to be tackled together. The Wire showed that the status quo is not something to be protected, but challenged.

All of these are inherently liberal and progressive views on contemporary America. The only way you could find conservative doctrine in The Wire is to ignore the role of institutions, which is to miss the entire point.

Posted by alli | December 4, 2008 12:21 PM

Yikes, can I get a re-write? I meant "elegant," rather than "beautiful." I don't mean to imply that structural racism is beautiful, but that the show tackled the issue and portrayed it in such an elegant way.

Posted by alli | December 4, 2008 12:25 PM

I don't think that there's a "conservative" readiing of The Wire that can be disconnected from a viewer's holding conservative politics. That's fine. What The Wire happens to include, at the level of politics, is a look at the failure of institutions that are, more often than not, controlled by Democrats. One can make of this what one wants, but IMHO I don't see any evidence that "conservatives" have ever been any better at governing these institutions than the centrist-liberals in whose hands they more often than not fall. Even at the level of policing, the show underscored the War on Drugs as an Epic Fail, to use a favorite TNCism.

At the level of culture, the notion that the show is "conservative" has as much credibility as the notion that Bill Cosby, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are "conservatives" because they endorse the much-misunderstood-by-people-outside-the-AA-community concerns-cum-brouhaha stirred by Brother Cosby. ("Much misunderstood" until a certain explanatory piece was published by a talented young writer in a major magazine, the name of which escapes me.)

This is of a piece with the "conservatives" who are making joyful noises about Obama's cabinet. The Wire was something brilliant and popular so these characters - who have so little they can righteously claim as their own that falls into either category - that they want a piece of it. Fine. Enjoy. Just don't bug me with bogus arguments that start from a place that's as weak as that Goldberg quote.

Posted by brucds | December 4, 2008 12:26 PM

I think The Wire critiqued an entire social/political/economic system, and all the ideologies that enable it. Conservatism and Liberalism are both part of a disfunctional structure of power that exploits and dehumanizes people, and are both worthy of blame.

I think Season 5 can come off as nihilistic because it can't propose solutions that match the scope of the problems. But that's partly because it's so hard to imagine an alternate reality, even if you know the reality we're in sucks. That's what hegemony means.

Posted by Pesto | December 4, 2008 12:28 PM

To the extent many liberals try to explain all of the problems of poor blacks on racism, the show was a powerful rebuttal.

Sloppy indeed, but sloppy is as sloppy does. Or something. Wrong on many levels, wildly unfortunate on others. And, naturally, never an example to support the sweeping statement. One could just as easily rebut with words to the effect of, "Certan, specific, lazy-thinkging, legacy right wing pundits try to accuse liberals of being like [Adolf] Hitler and [Benito] Mussolini."

And you have to love the irony of "rarely devolves into agitprop," since what they're doing is just that (well, Mr. Goldberg is anyway).

Nonsensically spinning popular culture into right wing talking points is an embarrassing trick, and unfortunately not a new one. Next thing you know, we'll be hearing about how The Clash et al were really conservative.

Posted by ed | December 4, 2008 12:38 PM

Agree 100% on season five. Simon was always grinding axes, but the last one was just too personal, leading to results were ham-handed, tin-eared, and whatever other element-bodypart metaphor you can think of. The newspaper and serial killer storylines were both reductionist, silly, and unbelievable.

Only thing I'll disagree on is Omar. Yeah, he was brought back just to die, but I was just happy he was brought back.

Posted by DB Cooper | December 4, 2008 12:44 PM

wow, wait a sec, what's with this "Simon is, essentially, a liberal"?

David Simon on Colbert: " I think I am a socialist"

O.K., i admit, his next sentence was "(mumble) I'm a capitalist too"

Posted by muzzyology | December 4, 2008 12:46 PM

Umm, i read it conservatively often enough that I’m confused that it can be dismissed so quickly here. The pointlessness of bureaucracy and the Hobbesian self-interest that degrades the progressive belief in inherent goodness were there every week. The nihilism of the show is, in itself, conservative in “we can’t save everyone so we shouldn’t try” kind of way. Is it not a Democratic tenet that govt bureaucracy is axiomatically good? And that more bureaucracy is gooder?

To be clear, i do not believe the Wire was a conservative show - i was backing up Douthat's comments that it could be read either way.

Posted by UpHere | December 4, 2008 12:50 PM

The argument for a conservative reading of The Wire is pretty much limited to government inefficiency and dysfunction, and thus an argument for "small government." Of course, considering that one of the government programs criticized in the show is No Child Left Behind, and that the GOP has destroyed its own image as a pro-limited goverment party, that argument would seem ridiculous to most liberals and moderates who see the GOP as a religious/anti-gay party.

Posted by Winston Chang | December 4, 2008 12:51 PM

The Wire might have been liberal in its urban allegiances, but I can't see a "liberal" reading of its conclusions about American society. The City is overwhelmingly Democratic, and every institution fails its constituents on every level. Two of the more redemptive characters opt out: Cutty Wise can't vote and Jimmy McNulty doesn't out of choice. I might advise anyone attempting to draw a political score from the series to revisit the following quote, from the Hamsterdam roundup in season 3. Dealer: "Ay yo this is America!" Santangelo: "Wrong! West Baltimore."

The Democratic political machine fails just as notably as the Police Department, the FBI, or any other structure that Simon took time to document. Carcetti reveals himself to be just as bankrupt as Royce. The liberal academics want to "study the study". Bunny Colvin doesn't even consider bringing in health workers to Hamsterdam until The Deacon shames him into it.

Conservatives may have a case in their reading of the series; yet I doubt many Republicans are going to gain much ground in any major urban area to affect their allegedly-vindicated policies.

Posted by Jonathan | December 4, 2008 12:54 PM

brucds,

That wasn't a personal flame. You're fine. I don't mean that his sentiments can't be critiqued.

Posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates | December 4, 2008 1:04 PM

Jonathan,

I think you are mistakenly conflating Democratic politics, societal institutions, and progressive policy. They are not all the same thing.

The failure of institutions in the show is separate from the diseased political institutions, which were as much the failure of Republicans (remember the budget fight with the Governor?) as Democrats. Societal institutions - and I mean 'institution' in as broad a manner as possible - are shaped by politics, but also by history, psychology, economics, etc.

My take that the show is inherently progressive arises from the portrayal of all these failures in institutions as an interconnected whole. Marilyn Frye calls it the birdcage theory: drug use or police department politics are just one bar of a birdcage, but one bar doesn't keep you trapped - it's all of them working together.

Posted by alli | December 4, 2008 1:04 PM

I disagree with you slightly on season 5, at least as far as Omar is concerned.

One of the best aspects of the show was the gamut of feelings toward specific characters, situations, institutions, etc. that it elicited. It was one of the only dramas in which I would, at varying points, detest and revile every character, and then later have admiration or even affection for those same people. The Wire didn't deal in shades of gray such as, oh, we'll use the Sopranos; it utilized the whole freakin color wheel.

So, what does this have to do with Omar? Well, Omar was brought back at a time when, due to the nihilistic motifs, the viewer had lost any faith they could possibly still have in society's justice system and the other institutions that govern it. McNulty's and Freeman's cavalier endeavor (which I agree was forced -- especially, as you said, Freeman's acceptance of it) only served to complicate and deteriorate the morass, and even add to it. So when Omar returns, the viewer, or at least this viewer, starts to ponder whether "street justice" really is the only feasible way to administer retribution to those who most deserve it. Sure, the thinking goes, it takes down innocent people and perpetuates an endless cycle, but if Omar could get those bastards Marlo, Chris and Snoop...

Well, Omar getting taken down, especially by Kinard, quickly decimates that construct -- and thus, returns us to the theme of nihilism that we only slightly break away from by the finale. The street is a failed, hegemonic institution just like all the other institutions on the show, only more destructive, flexible, and decentralized. Once again, my insight into the characters, situations, and so on and so on, is turned completely on its head. I thought bringing Omar back was an essential parallel, with additional layers being added by the fact that his murder is solved.

Posted by Pete | December 4, 2008 1:05 PM

alli,

I hear you, and I should've clarified a bit more that the failure was not only on an institutional level (eg, schools) but on a personal level of morals and judgment that can't really be separated from party politics - eg, Clay Davis (or Tommy Carcetti) - or even from stereotypical "liberal do-gooder" causes like Dr. David Parenti and the University of Maryland study.

I agree that the pov is certainly more progressive than conservative (that said, there's a lot of pining for the good ol' days when police walked the beat and drug dealers didn't kill as many people). Yet, I don't think a valid read of The Wire is "Vote Democrat", at least.

Posted by Jonathan | December 4, 2008 1:15 PM

Gee, thanks for spilling the beans about Omar dying!

Posted by Catherine | December 4, 2008 1:22 PM

Insofar as we have a sense of Simon's politics and there's a congruence between his worldview and his art, I think it's safe to say that any critique of liberalism contained in the show is a critique of the "conservative liberalism" of mainstream Democratic pols. It's a fairly radical critique, not a conservative one. (Ex. the failure of the War on Drugs, which is one of those Establishment Liberal-Establishment Conservative pacts that generally don't work out so well. Kind of like No Child Left Behind and the war in Iraq.)

Posted by brucds | December 4, 2008 1:28 PM

Marlo's rise didn't look easy to me. I suppose in one respect -- it was easy for him to be utterly amoral, because he was utterly amoral.

I even hated the manner of Omar's death--not that he was killed by Kinard, but that he was basically brought back into the plot, simply to be killed. He really served no major plot point. It all felt deeply cynical.

This is muddled. Why did he have to serve a major plot point? Was his dying not a major plot point? What he 'served' was a major theme, and indeed the artistic creed that informs the programme's entire structure. This is not cynicism but realism. (Where's the evidence for cynicism? No miserabilist gloss was put on Omar's murder.) Omar's death was a sentimentality test, and the most effective of the show's run. Here is a character built up as some kind of superman -- invincible superkillers being perhaps the central archetype of American cinema -- destroyed by a child, trivially and without ceremony. That Stringer Bell got the big theatrical death scene, and Omar, the vigilante we -know- is in the right, is not cynical but a testament of life's arbitrariness. Since when has life cared whether your motives were good?

Posted by Jameson | December 4, 2008 1:34 PM

I see Simon's message as being very simple: The drug game favors anti-social behavior over pro-social behavior. Anyone who tries to do the right thing will be dragged down. Anyone who plays to win is or will become a monster.

It's not so very different from The Godfather Trilogy. "Booze, gambling, girls; people want these things. But this white powder will bring us down."

What Don Corleone was saying what that drugs were a vice with no president and beholden to no societal norms. No time, no place.

What Simon is saying is that you think you can hold Sunday and church crowns as off limits, but you can't.

Posted by Tony Comstock | December 4, 2008 1:41 PM

I stopped watching season 5 after the serial killer thing emerged in the second episode. It was so stupid, and kind of breaking the rules of the show, like those late seasons of Oz when the inmates had to take aging serums and whatnot.

Posted by adsfasd | December 4, 2008 1:48 PM

Season five was lazy; the pacing that made the Wire so excellent fell completely to pieces. It was like they wanted to tie all the lose ends together without any attention to the storyline. The Stanfield storyline was weak.

Posted by Joel | December 4, 2008 1:55 PM

My wife and I have been David Simon fans since his first book came out. We don't usually stay up past 10PM, but we watched Season Five of "The Wire" in two sittings.

Dint nothing seem weak about it to me.

Posted by Tony Comstock | December 4, 2008 1:58 PM

Arrgh - a *Spoiler Alert* would have been nice for those of us still working through the DVDs...

Posted by Ben | December 4, 2008 2:20 PM

Being a new fan of The Wire (I just completed watching Season 2 on netflix), I enjoyed reading this post and the comments immensely....and learned a lot too -- probably a few things I didn't need to know yet -- Omar and Stringer Bell's deaths.

Posted by storm | December 4, 2008 2:27 PM

The genius of the show for me was that regardless of Simon's own beliefs, they really did give every issue incredible nuance. I'd agree that nobody watching season 4 could think that public-school bashing simplistic school choice responses are the answer or that the kids get anything near the opportunities they deserve. But it also allowed for an interpretation that mere funding inequality wasn't the answer -- remember those new textbooks and computers in the basement the administration just lost? Same across the board -- you can agree with IBS Local 47 that its a tragedy that we build condos rather than grain piers, but unions aren't portrayed (to put it mildly) as unalloyed good, and a libertarian could ask "why don't they fly away?" -- i.e. leave a dying industry/way of life for new opportunities rather than deal with the Greeks, etc.

And while maybe Simon thinks some radical paradigm shift could/must change the underlying institutions, and thus change the way people interact, the fact remains he emphatically showed a universe where humanity is fallible rather than perfectable and good intentions can lead to tragedy, which is a core concept of Burkean conservative thought.

Hate to be pretentious, but the best works of art don't lend themselves to simple interpretations evern when they were designed to. You don't have to be a slavophile and tormented believer in Orthodoxy to love Dostoyevsky. Same with the Wire. Its great art, it makes you think deep, and it may change your perceptions in a variety of ways that aren't susceptible to simple partisan rules.

Posted by girondistnyc | December 4, 2008 2:27 PM

"I stopped watching season 5 after the serial killer thing emerged in the second episode."

You watched all of the first four seasons of The Wire, and stopped watching season five after the second episode? I don't believe you.

Posted by Stacy | December 4, 2008 2:31 PM

I loved the show, but I think the nihilism that TNC mentions goes to its principal flaw: it was too negative. I don't mean that it was a flaw simply because it was unpleasant, but rather it seemed inaccurate. There were so few happy moments, and the happy moments were set up simply to make the bad stuff that followed all the more tragic (Jimmy's relationship with Beady, Omar's time in the ocean paradise). I know Simon wanted a Greek tragedy sort of show, but I always saw it as being more about realism, and that absolute lack of happiness made the depiction seem incomplete.

Posted by Patrick | December 4, 2008 2:36 PM

adsfasd,

I'm not going to argue that Season 5 was the best, but you really missed out by giving up after episode 2. I too, thought the serial killer plot seemed hokey and dumb in the beginning, but the way it tied together the chaos enveloping the entire season was really well done. The last three episodes were as good as anything ever done on the show.

Posted by Ethan | December 4, 2008 2:41 PM

"Yet, I don't think a valid read of The Wire is 'Vote Democrat,' at least."

I agree. Voting for Clay Davis certainly didn't solve the problems of the West Side. And Carcetti's 'new day' was a total sham.

I don't know if the show offered solutions as much as it asked the right questions - often, the harder task of the two. Exposing the interconnectedness and inherent flaws in a way that doesn't point to a specific solution, but instead opens the mind to think something through to its inevitably disappointing conclusion, as girondistnyc pointed out above, was something I'd never seen a television show do successfully. The Wire did it with elegance.

I live in New Orleans and there's a group of us here who adore the show because we consider New Orleans to be the show's metaphorical setting. B'more and NOLA have a lot in common, demographically, economically, geographically (ports, etc). I am beyond thrilled that DS's next project is "Treme," set here in New Orleans.

Posted by alli | December 4, 2008 2:46 PM

"humanity is fallible rather than perfectable and good intentions can lead to tragedy, which is a core concept of Burkean conservative thought"

"Conservatives" who have any power effectively quit thinking like that a long time ago, replacing it with "free market" ideology and American Exceptionalism wedded opportunistically to a form of rightwing statism. Even most libertarians like Cato accept the paradigm of historically liberal "issues" and either claim they'be been resolved to the degree necessary (racism, inequality) or have some "free-market" government-sponsored replacement therapy (vouchers/tax credits instead of public schools or universal health insurance.)

The spirit of Burke is more alive today in pragmatic liberalism IMHO than it is in any discernible conservative political philosophy - at least any being served up by the "conservative" political class. There are "conservatives" like Andrew Bacevich who hold to the above Burkean tenets, but ironically you're more likely to find Bacevich writing for The Nation than any mainstream magazine of the Right. (American Conservative, where he also appears, is pretty far removed from the spectrum of thought acceptable to "mainstream" conservatives of the GOP.) Also and ironically, Bacevich invokes liberal social ethicist/theologian Reinhold Niebuhr to make those cogent "Burkean" points.

Posted by brucds | December 4, 2008 2:49 PM

"The spirit of Burke is more alive today in pragmatic liberalism IMHO than it is in any discernible conservative political philosophy"

Word.

Posted by Tony Comstock | December 4, 2008 3:01 PM

The absence of schmaltzy hope or happy endings in Season 5 of "The Wire" did not indicate that nihilism was afoot or that David Simon is a nihilist. If there are any adjectives that should top the list of adjectives used to describe or sum up that show, they are "critical" and "honest". Period. All along, from season to season, The Game remained the same. Given the murderous, destructive nature of the game, it was clear and logical that the show would not and could not end with honor and honesty without many people, from Lester Freamon to Chris to Snoop to Dookie to Omar, taking a serious fall of one form or another. Why? Because the whole point was, these systems suck and, indeed, life is no picnic, even if we somehow build a healthy society. If people walked away from the final episode thinking that things were getting better, or that someone had "won", or Marlo had been neatly taken down, then we'd be less inclined to give a shit about places like West Baltimore or corrupt, fuck-ed systems that are the root of so many problems everywhere. The whole point was, don't willingly suspend your disbelief while watching this show, just believe it and keep on believing it after the show is over. Know that it is realistic, and care about reality.

The only thing interesting about Ross and Jonah's discussion is that people like Ross and Jonah exist——people who look for their gods and their affirmations in everything from an overrated movie about a teen who gets pregnant ("Juno") to a fantastic HBO series whose sophistication did not and could not allow for Goldberg-like simplifications and us/them constructs about liberals and conservatives. Remember that the same type of "conservative" pundits loved that penguin documentary because they thought it affirmed their values. Funny how their interest in nature is piqued only when an animal appears to be doing something that conforms to the "family values" of white evangelicals. I assume the infanticide and cannibalism of so many species is not talked about as much among social conservatives...

Posted by tinisoli | December 4, 2008 3:11 PM

brucds -- I would agree absolutely that pragmatic liberalism (in the modern American sense) can embody Burkean caution and avoidance of hubris to a greater degree than much of mainstream GOP thought today. The question is how one defines "pragmatic"...

Posted by girondistnyc | December 4, 2008 3:11 PM

Here is what I meant about it not having a conservative read. First off we are going ot have to learn to remove republican and democrat labels when we are talking about liberal/progressive vs conservative. Second of all there was a comment above about liberals believing in inherent good. I would say its very dubious to assign that as a liberal principle. In fact most liberals want rules and regulations in place to make sure that even if someone WANTS to be evil they either won't be able to or they will get punished for it. Conservatives want the government to get out of the way in just about every situation and let things work themselves out. To me thats more of an indication in the belief of an inherent good in people that would preclude them from say making tons of money on credit default swaps just because they know they aren't regulated.

Also most of the programs that we see that actually worked in the show were liberal/progressive. There aint a conservative on earth that would have thought of having the safe zones for drug dealing and drug using. And they for damm sure wouldn't have initiated needle swapping and other health and social services in the same area. You look at the season where they had the plan at the schools and slowly but surely things changed. They werent handing out vouchers to send kids to better schools, they were trying something new in the schools that were failing.

As for the politics hell every politician on the Wire republican or democrat was shady, some shadier than others but still. Carcetti didn't live up to his campaign hype but he was definitely TRYING to do the right thing most of the time. I never saw him as being shady or having shady motives so i didn't see him as a bad guy even when he made side deals and did somewhat shady stuff.

The fact that they had a gay couple who also had a child to me again would be decidedly un conservative. Something a lot of people don't point out either is that for Omar being gay he was really in love with the youngin that they strung up. And even for all of his thugging you really didnt see him being promiscuous and I know that would drive social conservatives CRAZY.

I guess my test on the conservative thing would be how would these people react if they HAD to watch every episode of the Wire ever made?

1. James Dobson
2. Newt Gingrich
3. Virgil Goode
4. Bill Krisol
5. Tom Coburn

Ok Ok Ok, I know those guys don't speak for all conservatives, but I would still love to see them have to watch the wire. I would bet more than one of them would have their head explode.

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | December 4, 2008 3:20 PM

This is of a piece with the "conservatives" who are making joyful noises about Obama's cabinet.

brucds, I thought you were going to launch a "Which characters correspond to the new admin" meme, but seeing as you veered away, allow me to kick off this stupid but fun game.

Omar - Governed by personal if vicious sense of ethics, not a stranger to violence, physically marred by injury: RAHM EMANUEL.

McNutty - Mouth constantly gets him into trouble: BIDEN.

Lester - Keeps an even keel, smarter than everyone in the room: COOL BARRY SMOOTH.

Carver - Tainted by involvement in ethically questionable dealings at the behest of his superiors: HOLDER.

Prez - Forced to adapt to a new role after begin exiled from the group because he couldn't keep his gun from discharging: BUBBA.

Posted by Leee | December 4, 2008 3:24 PM

I live in New Orleans and there's a group of us here who adore the show because we consider New Orleans to be the show's metaphorical setting. B'more and NOLA have a lot in common, demographically, economically, geographically (ports, etc).

Word. Baltimore also reminds me a lot of Oakland (yeee!)

Posted by Jonathan | December 4, 2008 3:27 PM

"The question is how one defines "pragmatic"..."

How? Buy for a dollar, sell for two is a good enough definition of pragmatic for me.

Posted by Tony Comstock | December 4, 2008 3:29 PM

I guess I am uncommitted on the various readings enabled by the seasons of the Wire. Sure. Why not? Where I must draw the line, though, is at extrapolating America from Baltimore. I cannot even begin to enumerate the ways in which topoi do not substitute from an invested postru theoretical position. But as someone from a particular NEIGHBORHOOD in Baltimore (and neighborhoods MATTER in Baltimore), I amn't buying THAT bullshit. To instantiate Baltimore synechdocally for America is to just not get Baltimore. That was not an L.A. or an NYC or a Chicago series or an Urban Write Large and Small series, hons. That was of and from Baltimore, genitively speaking in all senses.

Posted by MEB | December 4, 2008 3:31 PM

MEB, I respect that - I loved that Simon's love of Baltimore shone through in every scene. Even at its grittiest and most despondent, he evoked such pathos because it was rooted in his love for Baltimore.

I didn't extrapolate any truths about America - only about New Orleans, and certainly not everything was the same. It worked on a metaphorical level, especially after Katrina.

That same pathos, though, and that same love no matter how bad it gets, thats hows about we feel about 'dat 504.' New Orleans is also about your neighborhood. "Where'd ya go to school" means your high school. The ward you rep, the project you lived in, your neighborhood, your family name, your church parish, no matter your race or class, it all matters. It's a parochial town where people really don't ever leave.

I am excited for Treme, because while it can't approximate Simon's feelings for Baltimore, I hope that it will be NOLA true in the same sense that The Wire was for Baltimore.

Posted by alli | December 4, 2008 4:02 PM

I initially thought the serial killer plot line was a bit much, but what redeemed it, I think, was the way in which it spun inexorably out of McNulty and Freamon's control. The thing took on a life of its own. It illustrated a point that the show made more than once during its run, that within a system as broken as what the Baltimore of the show was, acts born of good intentions can not only fail to address the problems they were intended to but the could create problems unforeseeable to actors even as they solved the problems they were meant to address.

Posted by AMT | December 4, 2008 4:25 PM

As a semi-regular commenter, I hope nobody minds if I plug an upcoming conference about The Wire to be held at the University of Michigan Jan. 29-30th. The conference promises to be a great time and will include contributions by many esteemed scholars, including Mark Anthony Neal, and will also include a keynote event with Sonja Sohn (Kima) and Clark Johnson (director and also Gus in season 5).

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/heart_of_the_city/heart_of_the_city

Posted by Robert | December 4, 2008 5:13 PM

Lively discussion of this topic over at Roy's Joint:

http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2008_11_30_archive.html#5987839264542661923

Posted by ed | December 4, 2008 5:57 PM

Isn't Goldberg also completely wrong about how culture actually determines destiny? The only kid of the four who thrives is the only one who gets pegged as a corner kid, while the kids with the most potential get more or less destroyed by society. He's so convinced that the problem with the street is street culture that he mis-remembers what actually happens in the show.

Posted by zunguzungu | December 4, 2008 7:30 PM

I actually thought that Omar's death was handled perfectly. It would have been just a little too cute if he'd died in a blazing shootout with Marlo, or not died after some shenanigans, walking off into the darkness. I thought his death pounded home a good message: this guy's been set up as a mythical character, a good guy, even, but in the end, he's a guy who's involved in the street as much as anyone else, and that's not the sort of thing that normally gets poetic endings or happily-ever-afters.

Posted by dana | December 4, 2008 8:06 PM

Wow, the commenters here are great. I had a lot of things to say, but after reading the thread found them all said better and more deeply by othes before me.

Despite the host's injunction not to go personal, I'll say there's a huge difference between Douthat and Goldberg. Goldberg is a stone propagandist, the only way he sees anything is in terms of how it helps a narrow cause (the power of the Republican party, not even real conservatism). Douthat is far from perfect but he's is genuinely thoughtful and someone it's worth taking seriously.

this quote from above was right on--

I think it's safe to say that any critique of liberalism contained in the show is a critique of the "conservative liberalism" of mainstream Democratic pols. It's a fairly radical critique, not a conservative one. (Ex. the failure of the War on Drugs, which is one of those Establishment Liberal-Establishment Conservative pacts that generally don't work out so well. Kind of like No Child Left Behind and the war in Iraq.)

You can't mistake the Democratic party for the real left. But one problem is that the left, while it has serious critical chops, is short on solutions that work within the power structure we have now. That's one conclusion that harmonizes well with the Wire.

Posted by MQ | December 4, 2008 8:29 PM

Exactly. Omar's end was the Bunk/Omar convo come home.

Posted by Tony Comstock | December 4, 2008 8:48 PM

an interesting debate on whether 'The Wire' was too cynical/nihilistic in a couple pieces in Dissent:

"In Defense of The Wire"
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1237

that piece is a response to this:

"Is The Wire Too Cynical?"
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1236

Posted by HUT | December 4, 2008 10:22 PM

I have, once or twice, been charged with telling tough stories about people caught in dire, even hopeless circumstances. From that perspective I can think of a lot of words to describe The Wire, but "cynical" is certainly not one of them.

If anything, over the years I've wondered how Simon and Burns can keep so much love, compassion and empathy alive in their hearts without the burden of those feelings overwhelming them.

The housing project guy comes of as having an axe to grind, and the sound of the steel on the stone prevents him from hearing anything else.

Posted by Tony Comstock | December 4, 2008 10:42 PM

Wow, it's great to see this much discussion on The Wire long after the end of the show (and Generation Kill). When is Simon's next project up?

I really don't think The Wire can be a blank slate on which anyone can project their own political slant. And I definitely don't think you can argue that TW is conservative at heart.

In my opinion Season 4 is the biggest argument against a conservative idea that in America, anyone who really sets their mind to it and works hard can rise to great heights. The four boys showed they had many skills to offer society, and the desire to do so, yet only one- Namond has a chance to attend college and leave West Baltimore.

Similarly, libertarians rejoiced when Bunny Colvin legalized drugs in Hamsterdam. Yet, this wasn't the freedom from government that makes up the libertarian utopia. It was merely new regulations about where people could or could not sell drugs. Nothing was utopian about Hamsterdam.

Simon attacked unions in season 2. The Democrats' longest running interest group could not stem the tide of capitalism and deindustrialization.

And don't even get Simon started on centrist politicians. Other commenters have mentioned the false hope embodied in Carcetti's New Day or the thinly disguised corrupt political machine operated by Clay Davis. Simon couldn't even muster up much vocal support for Obama in various interviews. His view on politics was that "I think it is actually a little bit overly moneyed and broken."

Nor can we say the show is leftist, though I believe that if Simon lands anywhere on the spectrum this is the place.

Ultimately, I think the show doesn't accommodate all these political views because reality accommodates all political views. Rather, the show accommodates none of these views because reality can't be seen through Republican or Democrat glasses. It's messy but beautiful, and that's The Wire's brilliance.

Posted by Pete J | December 5, 2008 2:51 AM

I just started watching The Wire -- I'm still on Season 1 -- and I don't mind the spoilers, because the genius of this show is in the presentation: the writing, the staging, the acting -- my God, the acting. Amazing stuff.

Posted by Lizzy L | December 5, 2008 10:42 AM

Pete J.'s comment pretty much sums it up, huh?

Posted by MQ | December 5, 2008 11:01 AM