There's plenty in Trek for a social conservative to admire: bravery, compassion, heroism, and so on. Plus, the messages in episodes are often conservative-ish: a recurring theme in Trek is that utopia is unobtainable or even undesirable (see: Kirk's rejection of the bliss given by the Omicron Ceti spores, the crew's rejection of the idle luxury offered by Mudd's androids, and so on. Trek canon also involves the concept that life can be separate from physical form... in other words, souls are a thing in the Trek universe. That's a concept taken from religion.
So, really, I reject the idea that Trek stands in opposition to what we call conservatism.
I would argue that instead of rejecting the idea of an obtainable utopia,
Star Trek rejects
false utopias and any societal system where the order is predicated in irrational belief or ideology.
Any situation that isn't based in a reality or facts is fundamentally rejected in a sort of atheistic position that rejects the idea that people need to serve a higher entity in ways that defy common sense (e.g., "What does God need with a starship?"). It's the equivalent of any time someone says we have to do it this way or pass a law because Jesus/Muhammad/Xenu wants it that way, and people pointing out that it doesn't make any damn sense. Questioning traditional arrangements and wondering why we have to do things the way we've always done it is about as antithetical to social conservativism as something could be.
Beyond that, whether or not Trek believes utopia/paradise is possible is debatable, but the franchise
does believe in the evolution of humanity itself towards perfection.
Q: Perhaps maybe a little Hamlet?
PICARD: Oh, no. I know Hamlet. And what he might said with irony, I say with conviction: What a piece of work is man. How noble in reason. How infinite in faculty. In form, in moving, how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god.
Q: Surely you don't really see your species like that, do you?
PICARD: I see us one day becoming that, Q. Is it that what concerns you?
*Q Rage Quits*
The Networks actually wanted non-white people on their shows in the 60s at the behest of corporations believing it would encourage non-white people to watch the show and buy things advertised in the commercials, as corporations were realizing at the time they couldn't thrive only catering to white people.
That might have been a stated goal, but I have a hard time taking any pronouncement by NBC or other TV networks and studios in the 1960s seriously given that here in the 21st century adequate representation of people of color on TV and in movies is still an issue.
There's a difference between putting out a memo that's good PR which placates interest groups that you're "trying" to do something, and the conversations that happen behind-the-scenes when actually doing it. My feeling is that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Roddenberry probably exaggerated his importance in getting a diverse cast, but it would not surprise me if there were arguments about
how diverse the cast should be, and I would not be surprised if there were conversations about whether the series needed as much diversity as it had.
