What does it mean when the citizens of the most powerful nation on earth prefer a fictional character for the presidency than a real man? Is it simply a tribute to good television, or an indication of a deeper problem in the arena of political leadership?

In the same month that George W. Bush’s approval rating slipped to an all-time low of 37%, the fortunes of two fictional American presidents continued to rise both here and overseas. Seven’s newcomer, Commander In Chief is beginning to make waves after a stunning debut in the American market, while old favourite The West Wing continues to gather adherents on the ABC. As public affairs strategist Jim Eskin puts it, “Some say George W. Bush is currently the third most popular President around, running behind President Mackenzie Allen (Geena Davis) and President Josiah Bartlett (Martin Sheen).” A recent poll in the UK reveals that its citizens at least would certainly prefer President Bartlett to hold the title ‘most powerful man in the world.’

Sheen’s president is a Democrat with solid economic credentials, which to the uninitiated means he has a heart for social policy, as well as a head for keeping the country in the black. He has the gravity of a Kennedy, the personality of a Clinton and the tenacity of a Bush all rolled into one. Media commentator Brooke Gladstone says his popularity is tied firmly to the times we find ourselves in. “As faith in government erodes, The West Wing pulls in the eyeballs of [those] who crave an alternate reality.” Davis’ President Allen provides that alternate reality in spades. She is a devoted wife, a mother of three, and a female president who is beholden to no special interest groups. As her chief political opponent Nathan Templeton (Donald Sutherland) puts it, “You know that your Vice-Presidency was never, ever intended to be a Presidency. It was done as a stunt. You’re a female. You’re an independent. You’re a teacher.”

It’s easy to appreciate the attractiveness of these televisual leaders. They value relationships over results, people over profits. They appeal to our better natures rather than our fears. President Bartlett refuses to prop up a dairy industry at the expense of hiking milk prices for the poor. Most of all, both Presidents say what they mean and mean what they say. “This is more important than re-election,” Bartlett thunders. “I want to speak now!”

But both series point to a fundamental disconnect that defines the difference between fantasy and reality – and I don’t mean the way problems tend to get solved in two or three episodes. The millions who are displaying their preferences for this style of leadership with their remotes – both here and overseas – also elect their governments. How is it then that we can prefer to watch politicians that have social inequalities firmly in their sites, and live under leaderships that are obsessed with economic interests?  And just in case you think I’m making partisan points, let me remind you how the last federal election was won in Australia. Pundits agree, Labor lost and the Liberals won because of their economic policies. Most members of the electorate – including me – voted according to how hard we thought our hip pocket might be hit.

Does this schism between how we entertain ourselves and how we act point to a certain meanness in humanity? I think so. The world lives in uncertain times and so, in the privacy of the poll booth, we quietly balance policies crafted to appeal to personal benefit rather than the disadvantaged or the derelict. Does Geena Davis’ presentation of a female president make it more likely Americans or Australians will consider a woman like her for the top job? Only as likely as they are to consider voting according to their consciences rather than fears.  The Bible teaches us that human beings have the ability to mouth all manner of platitudes and still act according to the basest self interests. The West Wing and Commander In Chief highlight this ability to admire what is good and still engage in evil. Ultimately it is the conflict between our God-given consciences and our sinful natures. To paraphrase the Apostle Paul, our hearts have elected one President, but our bodies serve another.

Real change for the better, politically and personally, requires us to move beyond what does me good, and seek what is actually right. President Bartlett tells his staff, “There are moral absolutes,” and he seeks to lead by them. Secretly I’m hoping Jed Bartlett will get sick of the White House and move down under. According to one columnist Aaron Sorkin, the creator of The West Wing, uses Bartlett to crystalise his vision of politics as “a noble call to do good.” But I don’t think that vision is ever going to be achieved until I and other voters are prepared to do more than admire ‘good’ but seek it in our lives and the policies of our leaders.