Church, State and the Missing Secretary
Plot Beats
The narrative micro-steps within this event
President Bartlet disputes the legality and propriety of faith-based initiatives with Senator Fred Schuler and Senator Choate, emphasizing concerns about discrimination in hiring.
Who Was There
Characters present in this moment
Unknown directly; perceived as unpredictable or atypical, which both intrigues and alarms the President.
Named by Bartlet as the afternoon interview—described colloquially as 'crazy' and tied to Charlie; present in narrative only as a framable option and emotional litmus test.
- • To be considered for a high-pressure support role (implied).
- • To bring a different style or background to the position (implied).
- • Non-traditional hires can bring useful perspective.
- • Personal recommendations can open doors even for unconventional candidates.
Off-screen flustered and preoccupied; comically inept at navigation according to Bartlet.
Mentioned by Sam and Bartlet as being in transit with Toby and hard to locate; functions as a running gag about campaign disarray rather than as an active participant in the Oval exchange.
- • To execute campaign responsibilities while traveling (off-screen).
- • To reconnect with the team as soon as possible (implied).
- • Field staff are often improvising and under strain during crises.
- • Practical logistics can derail polished political plans.
Empathetic and slightly bemused—aware of the President's mood and trying to operationalize the personnel situation.
Acts as the conversational bridge: asks about the status of secretary interviews, clarifies details, and receives Bartlet's candid reflections—practical, slightly amused, attentive.
- • To surface usable information about the interviews.
- • To support the President emotionally and logistically.
- • To help manage the fallout of the day's crises by keeping staffing issues moving.
- • The President needs competent staff and clarity on replacements.
- • Honest information about candidates will help make a pragmatic decision.
- • Bartlet's personal attachment is a factor that can and should be acknowledged.
Off-stage distracted and busy; his absence underscores the on-the-ground pressures the administration faces.
Mentioned alongside Josh as traveling with dead batteries and poor sense of direction; serves as shorthand for campaign chaos in Bartlet's quip.
- • To keep campaign events running despite logistical obstacles (implied).
- • To maintain lines of communication with White House staff (implied).
- • Campaign operations are messy and depend on aides like Donna.
- • Field staff are resilient but fallible.
Supportive in implication—Charlie functions as a stabilizing, protective presence in the President's staffing ecosystem.
Mentioned by Bartlet as the personal link to an afternoon candidate and as someone whose opinion affects the President's staffing feelings; not present but influential in the conversation.
- • To have his acquaintance (the afternoon candidate) considered by the President.
- • To support the President's practical needs while protecting institutional continuity (implied).
- • Personal recommendations matter in staffing.
- • Trusted aides understand the President in ways formal interviews do not.
Commanding and righteous in public policy; quietly unsettled and self-aware when admitting personal reluctance—pride and sorrow mixed under a sardonic surface.
Leads the exchange forcefully, reframing a vague policy pitch into a constitutional and ethical argument; then shifts tone to a private admission about failed interviews and his resistance to replacing a loyal aide.
- • To close down an imprecise policy framing that risks constitutional violation.
- • To affirm a moral boundary that protects non-discrimination in federal funding.
- • To test and process the difficult personal decision of replacing a trusted secretary.
- • Government funding cannot be conditioned on religious conversion or allow discriminatory hiring.
- • Precision in language reflects moral and legal seriousness.
- • Personal loyalty and institutional memory (the lost secretary) have real weight in personnel choices.
Sober and literal in recall; her demeanor registers as incompatible with Bartlet's conversational style.
Referenced as the second woman who 'wasn't funny'—Bartlet perceives her literalness and inability to read his humor as a liability for the role.
- • To perform the administrative duties of the secretary role with steadiness.
- • To demonstrate seriousness valued in bureaucratic settings.
- • Professionalism sometimes requires emotional reserve.
- • Proximity to high-spirited executives demands a certain rapport.
Aloof and judgmental as perceived by Bartlet; her correction of his phrasing signals high standards and a lack of easy rapport.
Referenced as the first woman Bartlet met on the plane and described as 'not easily impressed'—a reason she is dismissed for the role.
- • To represent competence and exactness required in a high-profile support role.
- • To maintain professional standards in diplomatic contexts.
- • Correct usage and protocol signal seriousness and suitability.
- • Oval proximity requires a particular diplomatic sensitivity.
Not present; recalled as mildly offended in the anecdote, serving as evidence of diplomatic fragility.
Referenced in an anecdote about a dinner at the Elysee where Bartlet joked about cheese and D'Astier was offended—used to illustrate a candidate's sensitivity and Bartlet's self-awareness.
- • To represent France's diplomatic decorum (implied).
- • To maintain national dignity in bilateral encounters (implied).
- • Diplomatic ritual matters and small slights can signal larger rifts.
- • Personal interactions reveal suitability and cultural acuity.
Curious and somewhat adversarial—seeking clarification through a practical, almost sarcastic inquiry.
Presses the President with a reductio-syllogistic question—uses the ‘soup’ image to test the boundary between benign service and religious imposition.
- • To expose any inconsistency in the President's stance.
- • To make the policy discussion concrete and politically usable.
- • To protect or expand avenues for faith-based actors to receive support.
- • Voters and lawmakers respond to concrete analogies, not abstract principles.
- • Religious groups can be effective deliverers of social services.
- • There may be political advantage in forcing the President to define limits.
Earnest and slightly impatient—focused on outcomes for his constituents rather than abstract legalism.
Argues pragmatically on behalf of faith groups as frontline social-service providers, pleading for federal support until alternatives exist.
- • To secure funding for religious organizations delivering social programs.
- • To frame faith-based groups as indispensable until better options appear.
- • Local religious groups are effective and trusted service providers.
- • Practical results (keeping kids in school, off drugs) justify temporary federal support.
- • Political compromise around implementation details can be found later.
Objects Involved
Significant items in this scene
The soup kitchen is invoked as the illustrative example that collapses the abstract policy into concrete moral terms: the soup itself is neutral and acceptable for subsidy, but programs run by religious organizations that permit discriminatory practices are constitutionally disqualifying.
Bartlet's anecdotal 'cheese' from the D'Astier dinner functions as a narrative prop to demonstrate candidate sensitivity and diplomatic tone; it explains why one candidate's correction signaled a poor cultural fit.
Organizations Involved
Institutional presence and influence
Churches are presented in Choate's argument as frontline social-service providers whose programs keep kids in school and off drugs; they are the human face of the faith-based funding plea and the object of Bartlet's constitutional scrutiny.
Synagogues are named alongside churches and mosques as community organizations delivering social services; they serve as part of Choate's collective argument that faith institutions fill gaps in social welfare.
Mosques are cited as part of Choate's coalition of faith-based actors offering essential programs; their mention broadens the appeal beyond a single religion and complicates any simple partisan framing.
The abstract entity 'Faith-Based Initiatives' functions as the policy proposal under scrutiny—its vagueness invites both political expedience and constitutional peril; Bartlet forces specificity and legal clarity.
Narrative Connections
How this event relates to others in the story
No narrative connections mapped yet
This event is currently isolated in the narrative graph
Key Dialogue
"BARTLET: You can't say "faith-based initiatives" to me. You have to be more specific then that. You can't offer a guy a hot meal but first you have to accept God into your heart. It's against the law. It's also a little obnoxious."
"SENATOR FRED SCHULER: If a church runs a soup kitchen, are they serving Christian soup?"
"BARTLET: No, the soup is non-denominational, Fred but I'm not talking about the soup I'm talking about the programs. And another problem is, the government can't subsidize organizations that discriminate in hiring practices as religious organizations are allowed to do."