As of this writing the show is on it’s 4th episode and can be seen on ABC, Wednesday nights.
An interesting proposition for the weeks leading up to the 2016 US Presidential elections, the Secretary of Housing and Development is hidden away while the entire U.S. government gathers to hear the new President’s inauguration speech. This middle-management politician finds himself in a whole new world when a terrorist attack takes out every single member of government. Now, as Designated Survivor, Tom Kirkman must handle a country in crisis surrounded by staff who have no faith in him, some of whom want his job, in a political environment completely alien to him. Fantastic scenario and executed very well. An enjoyable show so far, but…
One of the major challenges President Kirkman must contend with the Governor of Michigan who has imposed police state measures on the Muslim community in his State and is in direct insubordination to the President, stating a lack of confidence. A tragic scenario that only gets darker when a teenage Muslim is beaten to death by police. Due to the autonomy of individual States, there is very little Kirkman can do legally without offending the public by the iron fist or seeming too soft. A great advertisement for tighter Federal control of the States. However, in a genius stroke of the show’s writing, Kirkman lays a deception which forces the Governor’s hand. Yet, two episodes later, the Governor reinstates his police state policy.
The issue I take with this storyline is that the Federal government has all the legal power it needs to assure that nationally-recognised Rights and Obligations are upheld in all the States. In fact, the Federal government often enforces it’s laws which States supposedly have the right to supersede, with great success and little complaint from the people nation-wide. So my question is, are people watching this TV show and being given the general feeling that the Federal government aught to have even more legislative control over the States, despite it having enough?
SPOILER (EPISODE 2 AND LATER)
This show tells a lot about politicians, government, and people in general. For this reason it gets two thumbs up despite not being hair raising or sexy. What interests me the most is the potential of the attack turning out to be an inside job or at the very least showing that this course of investigation is legitimate when the evidence presents itself.
From the very beginning President Kirkman was reluctant to run headlong into the assumptions made by his military intelligence concerning who was responsible, wanting to take his time to be sure and deliver actual justice to the American people. In the plot, it’s lucky that he has considering the General feeding him this information wanted a coup from day one. This all become more interesting when a Congressman is fished out of the rubble, suspiciously being the sole survivor. Upon investigation by an FBI Agent who just won’t quit, his movements before the blast are deemed suspicious.
So could this be an inside job?