24 Shapes the Post-9/11 Cultural Climate
The FOX drama 24 premiered in 2001 shortly after the events of 9/11. Although conceived before those attacks, and featuring “terrorists” who were not anti-American per say but merely foreigners seeking personal revenge against CTU agent Jack Bauer and presidential candidate David Palmer, the series was still able to tap into a national zeitgeist which continued throughout the decade.
Jack Bauer for President: Terrorism and Politics in 24 (BenBella Books, 2008) explores both the ensuing popularity of 24 as well as its influence and importance in the post-9/11 world. Through a series of essays, the book debates the positive and negative aspects of the series, including its appeal to both ends of the political spectrum. These discourses—which range in title from “Can a Leftist Love 24?” to “Jack Bauer Is the Dirty Harry for the Age of Terrorism”—are not necessarily reviews of the show itself, but thoughts and opinions on how 24 relates to the cultural and political climate of the United States.
While the show’s use of torture, as often employed by central character Jack Bauer, is the primary focus of a number of essays, other writers utilize 24 as the starting point for discussions on espionage, why people lie, the lack of African-American roles on popular television shows and real-life examples of terrorist attacks that mirror those seen on the show. Some, however, go further by exploring the importance 24 has played in society during the early stages of the Twenty First Century.
Jeanne Cavelos, for instance, discusses how the series functioned as a form of behavioral therapy for the post-traumatic stress that affected millions of Americans following 9/11. Dubbing it “The Jack Bauer School of Therapy,” Cavelos argues that 24 helped the country deal with the trauma by allowing us to witness other terrorist attacks in a non-stressful setting. Because those attacks are fictional, one can watch them detached from reality, without fear and in a more relaxed state, thus allowing for better mental processing of the actual, horrific events.
Jeanne Cavelos also contends that the show offers the opportunity to “role-play”—to identify with the various characters and even consider how one would react in similar situations—as yet another way of coping with terrorism. This is not merely about pretending to be Jack Bauer, however, as the simulation was also played out through the lesser, but equally important, characters of Chloe O’Brien, Bill Buchanan, Curtis Manning and Edgar Stiles.
Lorie Byrd, meanwhile, compares Jack Bauer to one of Clint Eastwood’s signature characters, Harry Callahan, another law enforcement official who regularly disobeyed his superiors and cared little for the rights of criminals. Byrd argues that what made Dirty Harry so appealing was that he first appeared during a period of the 1970s that exhibited a growing increase in crime; it also followed numerous Supreme Court cases of the 1960s that granted suspected criminals more rights than they had in the past. People believed these rulings hampered the police’s ability to catch the bad guys, thus making Harry Callahan’s actions appear heroic.
24, on the other hand, came along at a time when it wasn’t crime but terrorism that was on people’s minds. As a debate erupted in this country about how far the government should go to protect the rights of suspected terrorists—and whether those rights would hamper the ability to prevent terrorist attacks—along came Jack Bauer, disobeying authority and saving the day. Lorie Byrd believes that the nation needed Jack Bauer as a way to relieve the tension over that debate, in much the same way it needed Dirty Harry in the 1970s.
In “Simulating Terror,” Aaron Thomas Nelson points out that 24 appeals to individuals from across the political spectrum, including supporters as well as opponents of the Bush Doctrine. Nelson argues that this apparent contradiction is because the series intentionally plays to both sides of the political field. Supporters of George W. Bush point to Jack Bauer’s “the-ends-justify-the-means” mentality, for instance, which mirrors their belief that one must do whatever it takes to stop terrorism. But the Bush Doctrine is also based on the premise that the terrorists are foreigners determined to destroy the ideals of the United States. 24 contradicts that conclusion because the threats on the series are often not orchestrated by foreign radicals but by influential Americans determined to pursue their own agendas. 24 thus questions the validity of the very principal that the Bush Doctrine is based upon, while likewise justifying the solution to terrorism it advocates.
Eric Green offers similar rationales regarding why liberals enjoy 24 that are comparable to both Lorie Byrd and Aaron Thomas Nelson’s observations. “Jack Bauer can do what you could never dream of,” he writes. “And get away with it. And that feels liberating.” Personal morals and beliefs prevent many of us from ever acting like Jack Bauer or Harry Callahan, in other words, but it’s still enjoyable to pretend that we could nonetheless. Green likewise agrees with Nelson that 24 is not really a celebration of the Bush Administration but a reflection of its failure instead. “Bauer and CTU win the battles that Bush and the Republicans have not,” he suggests. “If The West Wing offered the fantasy of the Clinton Administration without Monica Lewinsky, 24 offers the fantasy of the Bush Administration without, well, the Bush Administration.”
Despite such observations, however, Eric Green considers 24 as borderline dangerous when it comes to the topic of torture. As a civil rights activist from California, he believes the use of torture in any form is irreprehensible, and by continually showcasing it the way 24 does only opens a debate that in his mind should remain closed. Ironically, this is in direct contrast to famed civil rights attorney Alan Dershowitz, who advocates legalizing non-lethal torture in extreme circumstances. The differences don’t stop there, however, as Dershowitz emphatically believes the topic should be openly discussed, especially within a free society like the United States.
“Regular viewers of 24 are keenly aware of the choice Jack Bauer generally makes,” Alan Dershowitz writes. “His job is to save innocent lives, not to strike appropriate balances between security and liberty. That choice must be made, in a democracy, by the people. 24—along with other controversial ‘speech’—helps to inform that choice.”
24 is that rare television series that not only entertains, but both reflects and defines the times in which we live. By showcasing our fears, challenging ethical beliefs and personifying heroic fantasies, it also plays a role in our cultural experiences. And as Jack Bauer for President makes obvious, it even adds to the political debate, shaping both society and the country in the process.
Anthony Letizia (January 25, 2010)
Discuss on the alterna-tv.com Forum
