To bring this back to the show, I've always wondered about the politics of the Federation Council as a democratic body? I could see Earth leading the liberal/socialist block with its anti-capitalist system. They believe in nationalized industries (e.g., has there ever been a mention of Starfleet acquiring resources from a private contractor similar to Lockheed-Martin?) and have devoted a significant amount of their resources to government programs and institutions, with Starfleet and the Federation providing most basic services.
Episodes like DS9's "Past Tense" practically beg the audience to care about the homeless problem and for people to support/fund programs that would help people. You don't leave that episode thinking, you know the conservative solution of cutting government spending and give out more tax cuts that go mostly to the 1% will fix it all.
Also, I could see the Vulcans as representing a form of social conservatism that believes in holding to ideology even when in contradiction of their own nature, at least in the early years of the Federation. It would explain Spock being among the few who join Starfleet in the 23rd century. The Vulcans basically do a form of "praying the gay way" in order to deny who they are and what they feel in order to live their lives in an emotional closet.
I always took Sarek's end in TNG to be tragic and an indictment of the Vulcan way of life, as well as being representative of the views of some current social conservatives in the here and now who believe that people "choose" who and how they love which they think can be "corrected" with proper counseling (i.e., torturing children with negative reinforcement for having sexual attraction to the same sex). As evidenced by his mind-meld with Picard, Sarek is a man that down deep LOVED DEEPLY Spock and Amanda, but repressed it because of societal requirements, and at the end of his life it is tearing him apart inside.
Actually one side launched one violent insurrection, and it was horrific and disgusting and wrong. The other side, during the BLM riots, launched multiple violent insurrections in cities across the nation, and they were also horrific and disgusting and wrong. In this matter, neither side is without sin, and both are furiously throwing stones.
One side was full of petulant a-holes that couldn't accept that their side lost an election, the other side was reacting to the systematic murder and brutality of a class of people on a recurrent basis over DECADES, with little to no repercussions for those who do the killings and battery.
Sort of like the
Bell Riots in
Trek lore, eh? Or did the people in the Sanctuary Districts have it coming when the government cracked down?
Also,
96.3% OF 7,305 BLM PROTESTS WERE PEACEFUL. I know that's something that you might not have seen while watching Fox News, but truth isn't popular with most of the media that social conservatives get their information from.
