I believe the reason you won't see this show is because there are not enough qualified writers to make such a show. The talent is there, but not the basis of understanding. Hollywood has become a place where conservative ideas are not only unwelcome, but they are censored and shunned. Just watch an awards show and you'll see it's basically 3 hours of Trump bashing. If that's who the writers are, they have no basis to write competently about Republicans. They treat Republicans and conservatives as evil--in almost every show. You can't have a show about a Republican president that isn't written by Republican writers and there just aren't any out there because they are not welcome in Hollywood.
An, but... Sorkin gathered some Dem politicos around him to advise him how to make it more believable. It couldn't be that hard to gather R politicos for their collective knowledge. It would be much harder to write, no doubt, trying to balance the value of policies and people, and making the characters human, but if done properly, would be powerful.
Even with single payer, there's no guarantee of the payer paying; people would still need to save for medical bills. The insurance rate might generally be lower in single payer, but participants also lose all choice and flexibility.
No. No bills. A small invisible tax included into everything creates a fund that pays doctors and hospitals to help all sick and damaged people. You walk into a Doctor's surgery/Hospital, get treated, then walk out never having to have reached for your wallet once. Easy.
Living in a single player country (the UK) with the NHS, I really don't care which Doctor treats me when I am sick, I am more interested in getting the actual treatment.
Watch the last season of TWW. Arnold Vinick, the R running for President, is a good man. The writing staff worked hard to show the positive aspects of his campaign, and that he was a real challenger, it was just the Dems rolling straight over them. The story goes that the original plan was to have Vinick win, but the real life death of John Spencer meant that had to be rejigged to account for it, and they believed that would swing voters back to the Dems. Vinick, as played by Alan Alda, was a good man. Given him or Trump, I'd vote for him every time. Now, a TV show today could not in any way write about the WH as it currently is. It could only be done as a sharpened, even cruel, satire or the lowest of comedies. But that isn't what I want to do. I'd be looking to write about a R govt that is a proud example of the best of what the Republican Party should be, not what it currently is. Same as the Bartlet Govt is a representative of what a good Dem govt could be. A good writing staff should be able to find the good and downplay the ordinary.
You won't see the Republican party be portrayed as best as it can, because liberals don't see that as possible, and don't get conservative values at all. If you don't support a woman candidate, you're a misogynist. If you don't support a black candidate, you're a racist. The idea that actual politics have anything to do with the support is foreign to them. This is what they see when they see anyone who disagrees with them, and it's even worse among Hollywood writers. They cannot possibly pull off a Republican West Wing.
Well... there could be a story/arc if you have 'good Republican' and bad Republican' sides, where they have to struggle against the worst in themselves and try to be better.
You can't have a good Republican who still believes in exterminating gay people, denying women their reproductive rights and authorizing mentally challenged people to own many, many AR-15s, because that person is an asshole.
Funny, I was just about to say the same thing about Democrats. After all, if they were really in touch with what's happening in the country, they wouldn't have been so blindsided by Trump's success. (I'm not saying that they would change their political positions but they would at least be able to in some way articulate what's going on without resorting to easy caricatures of "racism" & "sexism.") The ACA was proposed as an alternative reform to straight-up nationalizing health care, which is what Obama originally wanted to do. When single-payer no longer seemed to be a viable political option, Obama switched to the ACA. And since Obama belonged to the other political party, the Republicans made it their pet issue to oppose it, more for show than anything else as it turns out. I think there's definitely something to that. It's also why Republicans tend to be crap at follow-through. They run on limited government when out of power but then jack up the size of government once they get into power because they like the power more than anything else. People in government tend to seek out government solutions to every problem even when government created the problem. To someone with a hammer, every problem is a nail. But then, this isn't limited to politicians. There were so many Law & Order episodes where Jack McCoy would overcharge a defendant to try to leverage a plea bargain because he was a prosecutor and charging people with crimes was pretty much the only weapon that he had. While there's a certain inherent irony in populist messages coming from a real estate billionaire (much like Sanders running as a revolutionary candidate when he's been in Congress for a quarter century), what I find interesting is that Trump's opponents focus on dismantling Trump the man and pay little attention to the fact that his message resonated with nearly half the country. It's like when government tried to force employers to pay for everyone's health care and the employers responded by cutting hours and turning a lot of their employees into "contractors." Now THAT'S a trickle-down. So long as there are humans, there will be people gaming the system. So it's probably best to minimize the damage by minimizing the system. As opposed to the one where it's affirmed and they proudly proclaim that the pre-born can now be slaughtered without cause. Basically also the same reason why there's been no movement on illegal immigration in the last 30 years.
So you're basically saying... a Republican can't be humane? That they can't have those feelings and be a good person vs toeing hard the party line? Keep in mind I want to hark back to the party before Clinton, maybe even before Reagan. Maybe those old-time Rs vs current Rs. @The Borgified Corpse are politics now so partisan there's no shifting them? Because it's only a matter of time before these ossified humans are given up on and forgotten, maybe even a new party rising up.
While no "West Wing" the show "Designated Survivor" is not without its merits. Where "West Wing", during the (second) Bush administration showed us a thoughtful fictional president, "Designated Survivor", during the trump administration, shows us a president whose defining characteristic is his basic decency.
There's 7 things you need to embrace to be a Gold Star Republican. 1. The war on Drugs. 2. The war on LGBT (rights). 3. Cutting taxes and reducing government spending (The war on the poor). 4. The second amendment. 5. Closing down immigration. 5. the war on Female reproductive rights. 6. The persecution of minorities. 7. Protecting Insurance companies from pre-existing conditions. If you're even only all about one of those 7 things, you can probably still run as a republican candidate for the Senate, and win.
Or a change in demographics, look at the recent student walkouts in the USA, they are tomorrows voters.
I suspect you've cut to the heart of the matter and it's to do with validation as much as anything. For any Party to be portrayed showing its core and driving values you have to at the very least try and understand them. The trap would be for a production team to want to show failure in those. If there was a liberal bias in the creativity aspect it would be so difficult for that bias not to come through. I believe it takes a strength to overcome bias. You see it every day and interestingly in forums like this where words are expressed regards equality and fair hearing. Talking the talk and walking the walk do not necessarily follow each other. Much easier to generalise and create stereotypes. Did anyone here watch JAG?? I recall it was supposed to have had a conservative leaning bias.