I don’t tend to watch a great deal of television. It’s not that I think that there’s anything wrong with it, I just don’t like it very much. When I do watch it tends to be movies or shows about antiques. But this past Sunday I did watch a segment of a network series, one to which I have tuned on occasion over the past six years: “The West Wing.”

I tuned in to this segment because it was publicized as being very special: a live debate between the two “presidential candidates” running to replace the current president played by Martin Sheen. On one side was Alan Alda as a senior Republican senator. On the other was Jimmy Smits as a youthful Texas Democratic congressman. The debate was hosted by Forrest Sawyer, an experienced television newsman in real life. The candidates, apparently, worked from a script outline, but much of the debate was improvisation. It was, sadly, far more exciting and the candidates far more informative than any real presidential debate I have witnessed in a quarter of a century.

This episode of “The West Wing,” for me, marked a watershed in the history of American politics. I remember when Ronald Reagan first ran for president. His candidacy was greeted by many with amusement. The idea that a “B film” actor, best known as the host of a television show sponsored by a detergent company, could become president of the United States seemed ludicrous. Of course, President Reagan went on to two terms in office and was, in the minds of many Americans, one of this country’s greatest presidents.

When Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for governor of California being an actor was seen as no impediment to holding high office and many, in fact, thought that the skills he had learned on the sound stage would serve him well in his campaign. Obviously, they did. But even after Gov. Schwarzenegger won the campaign few people thought that he would be a good governor because he was also an actor. No one, to my knowledge, has yet claimed that an actor would be a better governor or president than a non-actor.

After watching the “debate” on Sunday night’s “West Wing,” I have changed my mind about actors and politics. The fact of the matter is that I found both Alda and Smits to be far more impressive as speakers and candidates (albeit fantasy candidates) than Al Gore, George W. Bush or John Kerry. They were terrific. They were thoughtful and their arguments were cogent and well-reasoned. Even when I disagreed with things they said, I was impressed with their statements.

Frankly, I thought that Jimmy Smit’s speech about liberalism was far better than anything any liberal politician has said in years. And I thought that Alda’s analysis of the role of the free market in American government was a superb statement of an often misunderstood and parodied position.

I think that this segment of “West Wing” has set a standard for presidential debates that the real debates ought to attempt to match. CNN, in a report of the show, mused what it would be like if real candidates would be as honest and candid as the television candidates were.

I also think that the producers of “The West Wing” ought to let the public know how much of what was said was, in fact, improvisation and how much scripted. I, for one, would like to know how much Jimmy Smits had to do with the words he spoke. If he was primarily responsible for his statements, the Democratic Party ought to be looking at him as a potential candidate for a real election campaign.

I suppose that, in the end, what happened on “The West Wing” on Sunday night was that Hollywood did what Hollywood does best: give the American people a taste of what they fantasize about. In this case the fantasy was plain, honest talk from politicians. I can only hope that both parties study this episode and learn from it.