That said, the parts of it where the humanity of characters, their isolation, dread, horrors, pride, aspirations, and values shined through – those resonate because they are reflections of ourselves. Like any good piece of writing, we see fictional behavior as meaningful because of how similar it feels to our hearts or the hearts of people we have met, and nothing rings hollow quite like fiction written by someone whose only seen people in fiction. When we praise George RR Martin's detailed character work, we praise him for making true to life characters in this strange world he created. So, what do we highlight about people in Game of Thrones?
[Spoilers for everything beyond this point.]
What you learn from a point of view depends on what you know. So someone like Elizabeth Warren might have the wonderful opportunity to learn a lot:
Dany believes fiercely in her right to rule [...] She states her mission clearly in season seven: “I’m not here to murder. All I want to destroy is the wheel that has rolled over everyone both rich and poor, to the benefit of no one but the Cersei Lannisters of the world.” And as much as Dany wants to take on her family’s enemies and take back the Iron Throne, she knows that she must first fight the army of the dead that threatens all mankind. This is a revolutionary idea, in Westeros or anywhere else. A queen who declares that she doesn’t serve the interests of the rich and powerful?
This... has not aged well, as everyone has noted. But I think something more important is at play: how do you watch Game of Thrones and not come to the conclusion that the pursuit of power is a destructive force, both to the world around them and to their very heart? The show reminds us, over and over again, how, to be successful in your quest for dominance, you need to behave in disgusting ways.
The thing that really shocked me, is how weirdly theme-deaf Warren was. "A ruler who doesn’t want to control the political system but to break the system as it is known? It’s no wonder that the people she meets in Westeros are skeptical," she says. But the reason they're skeptical is that saying "I want to dominate and rule over you, but hate the system of people ruling over others" is tough to hear from someone who says they have an inheritance and mandate from fate to dominate you. It's an absurd idea, a contradiction on its face!
That's the brilliance of something like the schmoyoho songification of her quest, done before the ending was known and appropriately skeptical. She's very good at making promises, and it's worth juxtaposing that with her weird stoicism about violence. Of course, the person who calmly watched her brother get horrifically killed with molten metal, she's probably got your best interests at heart.
The sad part is, she probably did. That's the whole point. Dominating people for their own good is essentially nonsense, but nonsense very real people (like Warren) believe in. If Daenerys wanted a free Meereen she would have copied the government of Braavos (where she spent a lot of her idyllic youth). Her quest for power isn't that.
Now, a lot of real life kids have the name Daenerys. This isn't a problem, really – no more than all those truly well meaning parents who named their kids Isis (after the Egyptian god) before the Daesh terror threat. It might even be cool, despite being named after Dragon-Hitler. Societies are strange that way.
But "don't believe promises of politicians" isn't even as important as "good intentions don't make a good ruler" or "someone seeking power is dangerous to everyone". Of course Warren doesn't know the last part – if she had the capacity to learn those lessons, she would have learned them from history.