Garry Trudeau’s Alpha House on Amazon Prime: The cartoonist talks about his new series with David Weigel.

David Weigel Talks to Garry Trudeau About His New TV Series, Alpha House

David Weigel Talks to Garry Trudeau About His New TV Series, Alpha House

Television in the digital age.
Nov. 15 2013 2:57 PM

My Roommate, My Senator

Garry Trudeau talks about his new TV satire of Senate Republicans, now airing on Amazon. 

(Continued from Page 1)

DW: I ask in part because they're more racially diverse than the GOP conference is right now. I did wonder how an African-American Republican could become a senior senator and not quickly be put on a national ticket.

GT: Ha! Jon Alter, my co-executive producer, made the same point about Robert. The problem, of course, is that he's the target of both a federal probe and a Senate ethics investigation, not exactly resume-builders.

DW: How much have you fleshed out the backgrounds/bios of these characters? How much are you leaving that up to the rest of the team and the actors?


GT: With both the strip and the show, I generally fill in the backgrounds of characters on an as-need basis. I've always been reluctant to get locked into anything that might limit where I take a character in the future. The simplest backstory decision can have a profound impact down the road. For instance, I made Louis a Mormon, which has all sorts of implications for how I write him. His strong identification with his faith group informs much of his behavior. Alpha House has no show bible, no inventory of established story and character points, but it probably should. Doonesbury is notorious among close readers for its inconsistencies.

DW: I'm a huge fan of Tanner '88, which had so much fun with the pretensions of post-Reagan liberalism. (I’m thinking of the episode in which Tanner announces his Cabinet, including EPA Director Gloria Steinem and Attorney General Ralph Nader.) Alpha House is about a pack of Republicans. Are Republicans now funnier, richer satire targets, than Democrats, after 25 years of them moving right and Democrats moving left?

GT: In 1988, after two stinging presidential defeats and on the verge of a third, it was the Democrats who were in disarray. Tanner, an old-school liberal, was struggling to make sense of the changes around him. He really believed it was all about trying harder, that if he were a bolder version of himself, people might come to their senses. Until Clinton led the party back to the center, this is how liberals thought, and it was their downfall. It's always more interesting to write about people in crisis than those in ascendancy, so that was the story Altman and I focused on. The show began as a portrait of a "good" candidate; it ended as a study of a doomed one.

This time around, it is mainstream conservatives who are caught in the riptide. They're being sucked out of their political comfort zone, and they have no idea what to do about it. They're being attacked by ideologues and amateurs, and there's nothing in the traditional Republican model that prepared them for that. It's an existential crisis, and it's pulled them so far away from their core values, they no longer recognize themselves. What does Boehner see in the mirror now? He sacrificed the common good to hold on to power. This is what the show's about—a crisis of political identity. It's the bookend to Tanner.

DW: Tanner was generally true to himself, though. He broke out of the pack when an aide filmed him ranting about the promise of America and the left, and turned it into a TV ad. But these senators are all quite cynical about the politics they're supposed to embrace, from "fighting sodomy" to filibustering climate change science. In your experience, is this more common among Republicans than true-believerism? Do you think the party's held hostage, or that it's actually that far right?

GT: The former, and a significant number of Republicans are beginning to fear the implications. As the GOP peels away from even its own long-standing positions—on mandates, climate change, cap and trade, background checks, infrastructure, issue after issue. As it becomes ever more pure, but ever less representative, it's setting the conditions for its own demise. It's headed for a Goldwater-style crackup, which is what it will take to finally nudge them back towards the sensible center.

DW: You told another interviewer you were encouraged by the response to House of Cards, and you enjoyed the show generally. What did you make of that show as satire? What did it puncture particularly well about D.C./politics?

GT: Was it satire? It didn't seem to me the creators were looking for laughs. I just thought it was good drama—wonderful acting and first-rate writing (at least until the end, when a certain shark got jumped).

DW: Do you see any way out of the downward shame spiral that politicians seem stuck in, vis-à-vis the way the public sees them? Is the current turmoil around Obamacare—hey, these guys can't even run a website?—going to worsen that?

GT: There's some hope to be found in local politics. While some states are sliding backwards—the unraveling in North Carolina is breathtaking—some are headed into the future. California, in particular, seems to have righted itself and is once again showing us the way. Brown, of whom I was once a noisy critic, has been incontestably effective. To remake our politics, we need to pay attention to the R&D being done on the state level.