'Designated Survivor': Demonstrated Potential

“We have a Housing and Urban Development secretary running the free world.”

Big deal, one might think. Stranger things happen weekly in this election cycle. Even Kevin Spacey recently admitted that reality has caught up with the once unthinkable plots of “House of Cards.” In terms of political antics, the bizarre nature of 2016 makes it difficult for any fictional commentary to remain compelling. Regardless, ABC’s new series “Designated Survivor” manages to stay original through its consideration of the different facets of Washington life, tastefully blending elements of national security, personal conflict, and power struggle into a promising new type of White House drama.

The pilot depicts the rapid transition of a quiet government official from fading Cabinet secretary to commander-in-chief—so rapid, in fact, that it occurs in half a day. The title of the series alludes to a contingency for utter carnage: One member of the presidential line of succession, the “designated survivor,” is chosen yearly to sit out the State of the Union address at an undisclosed location. “The West Wing” briefly explored this role [sixteen][16] years ago, placing a Secretary of Agriculture on standby to take the presidential oath. This time, protagonist Tom Kirkman (portrayed by Kiefer Sutherland) heads an agency even lower on the so-called food chain, as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, a position mocked by another character as a “glorified real estate agent.” Regardless, the Capitol explodes during the address, and Kirkman soon ends up in the presidential chair.

This episode is ultimately defined not by conventional politics but rather by the logistical and personal strain caused by a sudden transition of power. Secretary Kirkman begins his dynamic day with a visit to the Oval Office for a reason converse to his eventual destiny: his unexpected firing by the president’s chief of staff. Due to his public differences of policy with the rest of the administration, he will soon be replaced as HUD Secretary in order to bolster the president’s second-term agenda (and he will thus have no reason to attend the president’s speech that night). It remains to be seen whether Kirkman suffers from survivor’s guilt or imposter syndrome as he struggles to run the administration that was about to dismiss him, and whether news of his dismissal will be made public and plague his mandate. White House staffers already doubt their new boss for his inexperience, and an ambitious general is conspiring against him. Furthermore, Kirkman has many family concerns that make him hesitant about moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He is a father of two (including a teenage son who deals drugs), and while his children have never been targets, they are now at tremendous risk.

Another refreshing aspect of “Designated Survivor” is its impressively current timeline. A significant portion of the pilot—and likely of the season altogether—deals with the analysis of the explosion by a counterterrorism expert in the FBI, Hannah Wells. Having been present during the bombings in Paris and Brussels, she has tracked the social media activity of terrorist groups enough to notice patterns. When no terrorist group or enemy state takes ownership of the D.C. attack, she predicts future attacks to come. Her investigative role is enthralling so far, yet largely undefined. Additionally, while no foreign government demonstrates support of the bombing, Iran exploits potential American weakness by sending large ships into the Strait of Hormuz, giving the new president a foreign policy crisis in his first few hours. The combination of the enigmatic Wells subplot and the show’s overall reaction to cyclical global affairs will be an intriguing counterbalance to the more linear Kirkman story.

It is inevitable that “Designated Survivor” will be compared to peer dramas about the American presidency. It is less buoyant than “The West Wing” but less cynical than “House of Cards” (although the Capitol eruption tops anything that the Netflix flagship has done in terms of improbability). Its characters are more competent than those of “Veep” or “Parks and Recreation,” even when less experienced, yet demonstrably less teflon than those of ABC’s current top political show, “Scandal.” Nonetheless, the young series benefits from the ability to cherry-pick the successful ingredients of its acclaimed predecessors. Allegorically, “Designated Survivor” is crafting its own narrative for the presidency, one of great nuance and little cliché. It will be worth watching over the coming months, especially after November 8.