'House of Cards' Is a Postcard from Washington

Television as a culture-forming institution changes in front of our eyes. A few years ago we were observing an obsession with reality shows, how fact and fiction mix together. Now there is a new trend in watching: “House of Cards,” the first television series produced by Netflix, a project that has replaced renting and selling DVDs in the U.S. Twenty-seven million Netflix subscribers watch television-streaming media. They don’t have to wait for the next episode, to them that is an anachronism, causing as much amusement as listening to a cassette tape.

“House of Cards” premiered on Feb. 1, 2013 allowing viewers to watch 13 episodes over the weekend and start a discussion on Monday morning. The discussion heated up because “House of Cards” is not only an experimental way of watching TV but like “Homeland” is also a postcard from Washington — an attempt to enter into the political and social realities of the capital. After the era of reality TV, doubts have been raised as to what degree Washington is prepared for the new dialogue.

While “Homeland” dealt with the subject of the CIA and fighting terrorism, “House of Cards” is way ahead of it. Its title is already cynical and promising. “House of Cards” is nothing like “House of Representatives” ruled by Frank Underwood with his tongue in his cheek, but don’t let him fool you. Aside from the fact that most political commentators have recognized the series as an unrealistic and grotesque representation of the legislative process and the dynamics of power in Congress, the most striking fact is that the ideas behind both “Homeland” and “House of Cards” come from outside the USA (“Homeland” is based on an Israeli idea and “House of Cards” on the BBC series from the UK.)

There are, of course, some interesting nuances for political experts. Jim Matthews (vice president in the series) is sometimes compared to Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy’s vice president and successor. Relations between Zoe Barnes (The Washington Herald correspondent) and the main character could be considered to reflect the scandalous affair between David Petraeus, the former director of the CIA, and his biographer Paula Broadwell. Even though the series does not speak much about legislature, trade unions and voters, it does analyze this question, or as Alyssa Rosenberg wrote for ThinkProgress, “The show…argues that all female political correspondents are sleeping with their sources.”

“Homeland” may be Obama’s favorite series, but that does not change the fact that the White House controls the media. The New York Times has asked about drones many times, challenging politicians with no results, and local correspondents complain that being a White House correspondent is politically pointless. What is really interesting happens far away from the Press Briefing Room, with its piles of bottled water, croissants and tuna sandwiches. Will Jeb Bush be an important figure in the 2016 elections? What makes fiscally inflexible Paul Ryan betray his ideals and work towards reaching a compromise in the budget issue? What happens when the liberal media and Rand Paul speak the same language? Paul protests against making CIA Chief John Brennan “the architect of the drones policy” until the matter of drones being used on U.S citizens in the USA is cleared up.

There is a 16 page document available online from the Department of Justice which is supposed to clarify the American point of view on the drones policy, but it is pure literature, open to many interpretations. Obama remains silent. If we really want to find out more about drones or what the difference is between killing an “American citizen” and a “man” — we will have to wait for the next season of “Homeland.”