Star Trek and Liberalism....

[LadyT'Anna]

What the author failed to mention is the largely unknown aftermath of delivering "freedom" in the 60's. What happened after Kirk delivered Star-Spangled Awesomeness to planets across the galaxy? What happened after Kirk destroyed Vaal? Well, seeing how Vaal only taught its people one useful still (to kill), I have a pretty good idea what happened next (see Recent History, Iraq and Afghanistan).

I think TNG's affirmation of tolerance and its insistence that we can't just give people freedom and assume they know what to do with it was prophetic.

I am of the opinion that concepts like freedom, democracy, or progress is not ours to give. I also think that when we try to "give" these concepts to cultures that aren't willing to embrace it or assert it themselves, it's just another form of imposing our will on to others.

IMO exposure to these concepts, facilitated by peace, is the best way to affect the kind of permanent cultural shifts we desire.

Forcibly imposed democracy has become the 21st century's version of a tragic irony.We can't be afraid to let other cultures discover the merits of freedom and democracy on their own terms. We should have more faith that these core American values will propagate themselves.

I'm an editor, not a historian. But from what I've read about Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Arab countries, their culture is essentially feudal. The Arab Spring met with difficulties because feudalism cannot be abolished overnight. A transition period is needed, and some of these transition periods have lasted hundreds of years, even among Western nations such as England. Catherine the Great of Russia didn't free the serfs until the 1700s, and Russia's experiment with democracy looks to have been painfully brief. Returning to Trek, democracy is in short supply among the planets the Enterprise visits, and Kirk's presence as a charismatic proponent is no guarantee that democracy will or even should take hold.

 

[Tim Walker]

Re: Star Trek and Liberalism....De

Democracy is not readily transplanted. It seems to be something that a society evolves over a considerable period, if it is to have roots.

 

[LadyT'Anna]

Re: Star Trek and Liberalism....De

Democracy is not readily transplanted. It seems to be something that a society evolves over a considerable period, if it is to have roots.

Precisely. And that is a very big if.

 

[Harvey]

I really need to finish writing my fact check on this.

This is a myth.

I'm thinking I got it from an interview of Don Ingalls in Starlog magazine. I'm at work now, and might not have a chance for a couple of days to find it or fail to find it.

I've got that issue lying around. Here's what Ingalls said:

"Mine was more an adventure in a background; Gene's was more a political statement...His story was more tilted to parallel Vietnam than mine did."

I wrote about Ingalls' teleplay here: http://startrekfactcheck.blogspot.com/2013/11/writing-private-little-war-star-treks.html

 

[LadyT'Anna]

Part of the point of "The Man in the Hero Suit" (I swear, that sounds like a Stieg Larsson novel!) is that Kirk sees the Enterprise and her crew as his personal property rather than that of Starfleet. That attitude could be considered dysfunctional--if not by viewers, then certainly by Starfleet Command. Look no further than his exchanges with Matt Decker in "The Doomsday Machine" to see an example of this.

That has both right and wrong elements to it.

Jim does feel personally responsible for his ship and his people. Very responsible. It's shaped his life and he's forsaken a lot of things many people take for granted. He's certainly not like that Greek captain that was the first one off the ship when it hit a rock. I look at Doomsday Machine and see a calm but concerned Kirk refusing to have Crazy Matt kill his crew like he already did for his own.

For Adm. Komack in Amok Time, while I again can see it as disobeying an order it was an emergency situation as BillJ said just before. Just change that Spock needed a medicine that was only on Vulcan or he would die and I doubt there would be too much consternation. Also, it was a ceremonial function. It wasn't a distress call or battle alert. That would have been a very difficult situation indeed.

Marsden, I realize I'm rejoining this party rather late, but I did want to thank you for the clarification; I am very much obliged to you.

Thinking back on Commodore Decker's particular brand of instability, I have to conclude that it's something of a trope: Roddenberry poking fun at the fire-on-everything-that-moves brand of national/global politics.

(Suddenly the choice of "Day of the Dove" as an episode title makes even more sense. Hawks didn't have to be mentioned once.)

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

If anything, I think the author only highlights the evolution (not the downfall) of liberal ideology between the 60's and today. The Cold War was all about "Us vs Them." Issues were portrayed mostly in black and white. The world today is much more nuanced.

What the author failed to mention is the largely unknown aftermath of delivering "freedom" in the 60's. What happened after Kirk delivered Star-Spangled Awesomeness to planets across the galaxy? What happened after Kirk destroyed Vaal? Well, seeing how Vaal only taught its people one useful still (to kill), I have a pretty good idea what happened next (see Recent History, Iraq and Afghanistan).

A massive assumption. Since TOS did not follow up on the post-Federation intervention, one cannot make a parallel to Iraq, or any other real life situation. In fact, since the rest of TOS, TAS and the TOS movies never gave any indication of failed outcomes of Kirk's specific missions (with the exception of exiling Khan, instead of sending him to prison), we should project the Vaal (or Omega) situation as continuing on the positive note which concluded the episodes. That's what the writers intended, so there's no need to inject ideology regarding America's recent conflicts into TOS.

I think TNG's affirmation of tolerance and its insistence that we can't just give people freedom and assume they know what to do with it was prophetic.

I am of the opinion that concepts like freedom, democracy, or progress is not ours to give. I also think that when we try to "give" these concepts to cultures that aren't willing to embrace it or assert it themselves, it's just another form of imposing our will on to others.

We do not live in an isolated world. Everyone from all sides have engaged in trade, resource manipulation, wars, invasion, etc., and one way or another, some culture or land will be influenced by foreign migrants, armies and/or governments. There's no getting away from it, and there's never going to be some way--other than isolation--that the will of one group or nation will not be imposed on another. So, what is the place of anyone in world of groups, tribes...governments?

That's why I view TNG's New Age propaganda as being anti-Trek (as established), and as noted the other day, new age university, peacenik "we have no right to, and neither do you" form of smug judgement, from the self-handcuffing / lecturer like Picard. Then why the hell are you out there? To sit like some passive biologist, observing all through a microscope? Not only is that astoundingly unrealistic, but for fiction, it offers little that leads to drama for a series that was as much about conflicts (whether desired or not) as it was about contacting alien life.

Forcibly imposed democracy has become the 21st century's version of a tragic irony.We can't be afraid to let other cultures discover the merits of freedom and democracy on their own terms. We should have more faith that these core American values will propagate themselves.

The idea of applying one government's form of democracy (or any other kind of political ideology) is not new, It is ancient. Regarding that idea of core American values propagating themselves, here--today, there are cultures that are inherently resistant to anything American, so it is highly unlikely "core American values" will ever do more than inspire dissension. For people of that mindset, there is no organic situation that will change a culture, particularly those who are still fighting over the same core problems as ancestors dead for hundreds of years.

 

[E-DUB]

When talking about "democracy", so many forget that it's not a goal, but a method. It's a way to do things, not a thing itself. American democracy propagates American values because it's Americans practicing it. Democracy in another country would propagate that countries values just as readily as it does ours.

 

[LadyT'Anna]

When talking about "democracy", so many forget that it's not a goal, but a method. It's a way to do things, not a thing itself. American democracy propagates American values because it's Americans practicing it. Democracy in another country would propagate that countries values just as readily as it does ours.

Yes, if a country can conceive of it to begin with.

 

[FormerLurker]

And some folk would rather be lucky than good.

Then there's James Tiberius Kirk, who is both lucky and good.

Indeed.

Reminds me of a line from "War is a Science" from the musical "Pippin". Charlemagne sings "It's smarter to be lucky than it's lucky to be smart."

 

[RAMA]

What about the decline in Conservatism? It went from a moderate view headed by somewhat reasonable, well meaning men, to a group of insane, anti-science, sound-bite nazis, who controlled the worst and laziest Congress in American history.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07...nages-pass-15-legislative-items-6-months.html

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...least-productive-in-recent-history-but-close/

Looking at the authors article..it seems as if he takes peace with the Klingon Empire as an insult...imagine of the Allies didn't agree to "forgive" a lot of atrocities in order to forge peaceful coexistence after a long, hard war.

Picard's liberalism isn't consistent with the 60s era, he's right, it's called social progress...where almost anyone in the decades since the show aired is uncomfortable with the events of "The Apple" and arming primitives in "A Private Little War".

Remember what was happening when the 21st century marine appeared on Encounter at Farpoint? Iran-Contra in the most corrupt government in US history up to that time, the Reagan era. That's why the military was in such disfavor.

I'm a great advocate of technological advancement, but also of the right for populations/groups to bow out if they so choose..like the B'aku or in The Apple. There's room for them to reach whatever homeostasis their culture desires without affecting the rate of overall change.

The author then goes and takes JJ ABrams out of context, who said he didn't understand ST but goes on to say he understood it better since.

Pine's Kirk is all about character growth and I think we are seeing that over 3 films (minimum)..from the brash Kirk to one who has learned much..the speech at the end of STID being one of the finer moments of Trek and character we've seen in a long time. Possibly one of the greatest things he learned though, is the need to follow the Federations own laws and morals, and not unilaterally follow the zeitgeist of the moment(9/11 parallels again)..hence his questioning of the secretive and unlawful mission to Kronos to assassinate without due process. Oh wait, this is the great accomplishment of the conservatives isn't it? Homeland security, eliminating privacy and unilateral military action. Of course this is not to say Klingons or Commies are perfect people, but ultimately, the conservative ethos is hate, revenge and profiteering..exactly as seen when George W unilaterally attacked a nation because of deceit, then installed American private companies to make profit for his cronies, and help raise gas prices for his oil buddies. It's ironic the author accuses Kirk of brashness and violence..because that's what he had to overcome (his personal 9/11) to fight the brashness and violence of the "conservative" Admiral who wanted to create a war.

 

[RAMA]

I found the essay to be brimming with insights and valuable perspective.

Regarding the section on the two newest movies, I thought that was the least important part of what he had to say. The big thing was to trace the philosophical change from early TOS, to the third season, and then to Star Trek VI.

Hmm, really? I found there to be so much cherry picking and gaps as to be useless.

Star Trek VI in particular. Roddenberry didn't hate the script because of it's politics, he hated it because the Federation crew were racists!!! He would've wanted a much EASIER acceptance of peace! The movie does make up for this suggesting we need to get past some things to make progress.

The Klingons and UFP were at a crux point, I'm sure not all Klingon misdeeds would be forgiven, but some would because the alternative was at least 50 years of a desperate Klingon Empire making war. Is peace favorable to war when it's presented? Trek says yes..and it's not about racism alone, it's about overcoming racism or political views in order to accomplish something. I think the author would rather stick to ideals that stalemate and hinder...also typically conservative.

RAMA

 

[Marsden]

What about the decline in Conservatism? It went from a moderate view headed by somewhat reasonable, well meaning men, to a group of insane, anti-science, sound-bite nazis, who controlled the worst and laziest Congress in American history.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07...nages-pass-15-legislative-items-6-months.html

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...least-productive-in-recent-history-but-close/

Looking at the authors article..it seems as if he takes peace with the Klingon Empire as an insult...imagine of the Allies didn't agree to "forgive" a lot of atrocities in order to forge peaceful coexistence after a long, hard war.

Picard's liberalism isn't consistent with the 60s era, he's right, it's called social progress...where almost anyone in the decades since the show aired is uncomfortable with the events of "The Apple" and arming primitives in "A Private Little War".

Remember what was happening when the 21st century marine appeared on Encounter at Farpoint? Iran-Contra in the most corrupt government in US history up to that time, the Reagan era. That's why the military was in such disfavor.

I'm a great advocate of technological advancement, but also of the right for populations/groups to bow out if they so choose..like the B'aku or in The Apple. There's room for them to reach whatever homeostasis their culture desires without affecting the rate of overall change.

The author then goes and takes JJ ABrams out of context, who said he didn't understand ST but goes on to say he understood it better since.

Pine's Kirk is all about character growth and I think we are seeing that over 3 films (minimum)..from the brash Kirk to one who has learned much..the speech at the end of STID being one of the finer moments of Trek and character we've seen in a long time. Possibly one of the greatest things he learned though, is the need to follow the Federations own laws and morals, and not unilaterally follow the zeitgeist of the moment(9/11 parallels again)..hence his questioning of the secretive and unlawful mission to Kronos to assassinate without due process. Oh wait, this is the great accomplishment of the conservatives isn't it? Homeland security, eliminating privacy and unilateral military action. Of course this is not to say Klingons or Commies are perfect people, but ultimately, the conservative ethos is hate, revenge and profiteering..exactly as seen when George W unilaterally attacked a nation because of deceit, then installed American private companies to make profit for his cronies, and help raise gas prices for his oil buddies. It's ironic the author accuses Kirk of brashness and violence..because that's what he had to overcome (his personal 9/11) to fight the brashness and violence of the "conservative" Admiral who wanted to create a war.

They should have hired you for the scriptwriter for the next movie.

 

[RAMA]

Oddly enough i found this on a religious website. But they quote Roddenberry's intention here.

Roddenberry himself claims that his TV creation is "more than just my political philosophy. It is my social philosophy, my racial philosophy, my overview on life and the human condition." With Star Trek: The Next Generation, he admits, "we press the line toward being liberal a lot harder."

Does Roddenberry actually promote the humanist creed in these shows? In the interview, Alexander enthuses about an episode entitled 'Justice" featuring "a scantily clad" love-making race. He approvingly describes it as "the most anti-religious and humanistic television program I had seen in years." And Roddenberry responds with a basic humanist tenet: ". . . there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute."

After separating himself from God's "thou shalt not" absolutes, Roddenberry adds: "Writing, in a strange way, is like having the best of all worlds. You do become God." No surprise then that Alexander labels Star Trek: The Next Generation as "probably the most humanistic entertainment program that is on television - or, perhaps, has ever been on television."

 

[King Bob!]

Oddly enough i found this on a religious website. But they quote Roddenberry's intention here.

Roddenberry himself claims that his TV creation is "more than just my political philosophy. It is my social philosophy, my racial philosophy, my overview on life and the human condition." With Star Trek: The Next Generation, he admits, "we press the line toward being liberal a lot harder."

Does Roddenberry actually promote the humanist creed in these shows? In the interview, Alexander enthuses about an episode entitled 'Justice" featuring "a scantily clad" love-making race. He approvingly describes it as "the most anti-religious and humanistic television program I had seen in years." And Roddenberry responds with a basic humanist tenet: ". . . there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute."

After separating himself from God's "thou shalt not" absolutes, Roddenberry adds: "Writing, in a strange way, is like having the best of all worlds. You do become God." No surprise then that Alexander labels Star Trek: The Next Generation as "probably the most humanistic entertainment program that is on television - or, perhaps, has ever been on television."

Outside a few bits, I always found the Berman years to be rather conservative.

 

[T'Girl]

Outside a few bits, I always found the Berman years to be rather conservative.

Myself as well, but there are time when liberalism was brought in almost as if to prove a point.

Like the wargame episode where out of nowhere Picard declares that 'Starfleet isn't a military organization.' But before and after that episode we see Starfleet as a heavily armed military, and a Federation that isn't afraid to use it.

 

[MacLeod]

What about the decline in Conservatism? It went from a moderate view headed by somewhat reasonable, well meaning men, to a group of insane, anti-science, sound-bite nazis, who controlled the worst and laziest Congress in American history.

Is that symptomatic of conservatism in general or symptomatic of conservatism in the USA?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Hmm, really? I found there to be so much cherry picking and gaps as to be useless.

Star Trek VI in particular. Roddenberry didn't hate the script because of it's politics, he hated it because the Federation crew were racists!!!

There was racism in ST. It was not some liberal fantasy-land of hand holding. All one needs to do is go back to TOS, and look at Stiles ("Balance of Terror")and his clear racist feelings toward Spock, or even Spock himself, and the endless criticisms of human beings on more than a philosophical level, but their essence as well. ..and that was not always in the form of ribbing McCoy.

The idea that racism no longer exists--especially in a story where completely alien species are encountered and/or interacting with humans is a childish notion at best.

Aside from being a classic test of will / military insight episode, "Balance of Terror" is almost always celebrated for its realistic idea that humans of the future (and others) cannot wipe away the inherent tribalism / racism gene that drives society as much as it hurts the same society.

He would've wanted a much EASIER acceptance of peace! The movie does make up for this suggesting we need to get past some things to make progress.

Easy acceptance of peace does not serve good drama. Really, one could watch Sesame Street if they expect that on any easy level.

The Klingons and UFP were at a crux point, I'm sure not all Klingon misdeeds would be forgiven, but some would because the alternative was at least 50 years of a desperate Klingon Empire making war. Is peace favorable to war when it's presented? Trek says yes..and it's not about racism alone, it's about overcoming racism or political views in order to accomplish something. I think the author would rather stick to ideals that stalemate and hinder...also typically conservative.

Peace is a goal, but a difficult working reality, whether on an person to person level, and certainly with many governments. If one understands the true nature of human beings, then they will accept their first nature is to feed from tribalism / racism, violence, greed and suspicion. The struggle to overcome that is necessary, but in fiction, losing the struggle keeps drama alive--and tests the characters very need to accept, reject or modify that struggle, then examine how they operate from that point forward.

TUC's racists characters were doing what good, strong ST has in the past: mirror human failings / issues of the day (and forecasting a few), to illustrate that aforementioned struggle. At the time, racism was more than alive and well in the world, so a hand holding Federation would have come off like some preachy fantasy which few would relate to, and frankly, a bore---like that smothering directive running through most of TNG.

 

[Tim Walker]

Re: Racism

There was a TNG episode-I believe the title was The Last Outpost-in which a Ferengi commented on the ugly physical appearance of humans.

 

[T'Girl]

All one needs to do is go back to TOS, and look at Stiles ("Balance of Terror")and his clear racist feelings toward Spock

Also Chekov, in the first scene we see him in he makes a racist "joke" about the Klingons.

 

[T'Girl]

What about the decline in Conservatism? It went from a moderate view headed by somewhat reasonable, well meaning men, to a group of insane, anti-science, sound-bite nazis, who controlled the worst and laziest Congress in American history.

Both major political parties in America possesses a zealot core.

For every Sean Hannity there is a counter-part Rachel Maddow.