^ If there's no TAS, there's no problem. Having tried watching TAS, I don't think it would really be much of a loss.
I never understand what this means. Politics -- by which, in the case, I take it you mean, the process of governing society -- is not fundamentally different than any other form of human interaction and decision-making. To condemn politics specifically is in essence to condemn human social interaction and decision-making in general.
Politics as expressed in general culture - and in general practice - is unusually craven and banal. It's often full of small evils,
Congratulations, you've just described human society in general. Or, rather, one particular view of human society in general.
Politics is also often courageous and principled, full of acts of decency both big and small. I interned for a year in a Member of Congress's office, and I just left recently. I saw the office try to bend over backwards to figure out how to help a single constituent who wrote in because she was losing her job, and our Member voted against a number of very popular bills because of his principled beliefs that those bills were unjust.
There are certainly corrupt politicians, and there are certainly principled politicians. And sometimes corrupt people take principled stands, and sometimes principled people succumb to petty corruptions. Politicians, at the end of the day, are just people, no better as a group but also no worse, than anyone else.
I've known several excellent U.S. Representatives (and some lower officeholders) who were tremendously dedicated and hard-working. I've known one who was a fundamentally decent person whose heart was entirely in space exploration, but whose support for his party led to him to vote against what otherwise seemed his conscience (he's now a senator). I've even known a reliable republican who sponsors Democratic representatives in his state's unpaid legislature.
But politics, ultimately, is the art of the possible. And the possible - particularly when gained against the dully implacable - seldom provides good drama.
George Patton, not entirely wrongly remarked that "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. . . . Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans." Politics, all to often, results in conditions inferior to victory - sometimes a draw, sometimes defeat. So politics, in its usual form, is not something that Americans would tend to appreciate: either its bureaucratic, or its a pointlessly difficult fight to achieve some small (on a national scale) good.
Politics is just humanity, that's all.
I disagree. I've seen politics conducted by ordinary persons who were drafted into it (e.g. on "disappearing task forces," etc.), and it is a far better process than politics as conducted by politicians. The usual politics is influence set against justice. It can be better, but it usually is not. (Even so, the process of good politics is seldom more riveting than the process of bad politics; the best political stories involve bold action, which isn't the hallmark of a generally staid system.)
The intense, unyielding, unforgiving pressure that demands that every leader be perfect and no leader ever admit a mistake? That's a major part of our political culture, sorry.
I believe that's a part that is easily surmounted. While the political classes require infallibility, the American public admires honesty (so long as honesty appears to come from strength). I don't think that a President's honest report of their successes and failures would be anything but an asset with the public.
And so's the presence of an American aristocracy and the favoritism shown to the wealthy elite. There is no Federation Wall Street or City of London, thank goodness.
That I agree with. I thought you were comparing the U.S. against other nations, not against the Federation's improved situation.
The problem is that a mere military alliance wouldn't get to declare a state of emergency and put troops on every streetcorner, nor to negotiate peace treaties, nor to grant territorial concessions, nor to do any number of things we've seen the Federation do that mark it as a super-state.
I don't think it's a mere military alliance, but a unified defense and humanitarian organization. It would be akin to the NATO powers uniting their militaries, their diplomatic corps, and their humanitarian efforts under a single, independent command structure (so that, say, the Polish Land Forces and the Canadian Army were one and the same, so too the American Department of State and the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Such an organization would necessarily have the power to negotiate treaties and make territorial concessions.
A Federation created along these lines would undoubtedly grow more uniform and more state-like over time. Once granted and exercised, power tends to accumulate.
As I argued
several years ago, ultimately the confusing evidence stems from the writers having changed their model for the Federation over time, from evolving ideas about what the Federation
is behind the scenes.
Your argument there is very well-argued (certainly, the behind-the-scenes idea of the Federation has evolved over time; I think presently to something less than a state), but I don't think that anything you cite substantially conflicts with a super-NATO type model. The Astronomical Committee, Bureau of Agricultural Affairs, Federation Supreme Court, etc. might be assistant or coordinating bodies rather than governing ones - like the IAU,
International Fund for Agricultural Development, and International Court of Justice, for instance.
The situation in "Homefront" is expressly a "state of emergency" declared by the Federation President. It's a defense-related emergency, which wouldn't place it at all out of bounds for a primarily defensive and humanitarian organization to declare and then enforce. If Starfleet were responsible for the common defense of generally independent Federation members, it would necessarily have the authority to conduct the defense of any member world at a moment's notice.
I'd never noticed before, but "Doctor Bashir, I Presume" never seems to say that Federation law, rather than United Earth law was violated when Bashir was genetically enhanced. The rationale given is Earth-centric (the dangers of another Khan Singh). Even the line "any genetically enhanced human being is barred from serving in Starfleet or practicing medicine" specifically references humans, rather than Federation citizens. Perhaps the Federation Supreme Court would address an issue of Earth law conflicting with the shared guarantees of the Federation Consitution?
And that some of the novelists are quite dismissive of the idea that the view on the matte painting should be seen as binding canon for where the Federation President's office is.
But their objections appear to stem almost entirely from the extant choice of the
Place de la Concorde in Articles and a number of related novels - hence I would include them among persons who are attached to what has been portrayed in the novels. (One of the drawbacks of ongoing continuity, and of Star Trek tie-in writing by longtime, die hard fans. If I never heard mention of TAS or FASA again, I would be tremendously happy.)
I strongly disagree with you about
Articles of the Federation -- but that's neither here nor there, because the Palais de la Concorde did not originate from
Articles. While Keith R.A. DeCandido did develop many of the details of the building and its history, the Palais de la Concorde itself was first established by David Mack in his 2004 novel
A Time to Kill.
(I do maintain, though, that the Place de la Concorde was poorly chosen as a location for the silvery building seen in establishing shots of Paris, which is was meant to be
Well, let's ask.
David Mack, why did you chose to put the Palais on the Place de la Concorde? Did you intend for it to be the silvery building seen in DS9's "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost?"
He did (or
KRAD did, for
A Time For War, A Time For Peace, and
David Mack's book was published first). Whoever chose the Place de la Concorde explained why they chose it in a thread here just after the book was published (since pruned). IIRC, it was selected because it was a conveniently located open space, and the history of the site was an unknown bonus until a reader asked about it.
interior view issues aside. I also think it would be a terrible waste to cover it with a building.)
That's fair enough. On the other hand, there's something to be said for the idea that things change over time, even when some people think they shouldn't. Plenty of people objected to placing the National World War II Memorial on the National Mall at the end of the Reflecting Pool, for instance, but it's there now. So I do think that objection, while fair, is also somewhat subjective.
I never understood that objection. The part of the mall the monument sits on was somewhat blighted before it was constructed. I remember visiting it two years or so before construction began, and being struck by its poor condition - there was essentially nothing there, and what was their reflected poorly on our capital.
