Can Conservative Star Trek Fans Exist?

[Armored Saint]

I don't remember having heard of political stereotypes about Star Trek fans.
There's a progressive message in Star Trek, but I don't see Star Trek as too politically hermetic for more conservative peoples. If not, it would have been also boring for a part of the progressive audience.

By "Conservative," I don't mean that you have to be Republican or a Tea Party member to be considered "Conservative" (I'm not actually either one) or that it has to have anything to do with politics. That said I'd have to admit it could and many might take it that way.

Well... most of your liberals are to the right of what we in Europe would consider liberal, so the answer is surely yes.

Funny. Here in America, anyone to the left of Ayn Rand gets labelled a socialist.

I just remembered this: A couple of weeks ago, I was having a discussion with my ultra-conservative father. In a tongue-in-cheek way, I quoted Spock's "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". He glared at me without a hint of humor and told me to stop talking like a g******n Marxist.

I'm from Quebec City and that's remind me a guy I know. He's one those people who described themselves as Libertarians and misunderstand some facts about Quebec and Canads politics because they don't transpose properly their american influences. So for him, if a party called Liberal party is clearly leftist. So, if the Quebec Liberal Party is currently tagged as Centre-right, it's because we are excessively socialist in Quebec.

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

In political language, I'll have to "pull an Alan Keyes" and answer by questioning the premise of the question!

I don't see how it is that a "conservative" can be viewed as not likely to be a Star Trek viewer. The issues and adventures of the crew(s) have no bearing on the modern-day world-view whatsoever, save for in a metaphorical way.

Very often in the media (almost always, actually), the alleged "two sides" are portrayed as an either/or situation, where everyone "must" fall into one camp or the other. Red State, Blue State...nonsense, I say! It's like the argument that Star Trek itself broad-brushes its portrayal of Klingons, Romulans or Vulcans as homogenous wholes.

It's been my experience that while the portrayal of a 50-50 split persists, in the real world probably ten percent of the population, if that, can truly be called party "loyalists". The other eighty to ninety percent of us fall all over the place in our views and beliefs. Hence, we have tree-hugging gun rights supporters and gay rights anti-abortionists all over the place. They're called 'real people'.

And I wouldn't want it any other way. People thinking for themselves!

 

[plynch]

It doesn't bother or effect me at all.

Affect, not effect.

People correcting others' grammar effects in me a quite negative response. And I love grammar.

(sentence fragment intended)

2. I usually agree with the words the PC folks suggest; yet I understand how some people can think they sound silly . . . or as if the people-who-think-they-are-smarter-or-more-caring are once again telling "us" how to think and speak. Again, I usually agree with the changes, but I understand how it all can make some people feel.

 

[iguana_tonante]

even though all UK parties are incompetent.

That's not just in the UK. All parties everywhere are incompetent

Yeah. Why can't we get one of those nice dictators?

 

[Elias Vaughn]

One of my best friends is a conservative Trek fan.

His favorite Trek is Enterprise, though, so naturally I don't associate with him anymore.

 

[Push The Button]

I consider myself a conservative, but have always had a hard time dealing with far-right people that believe the earth is only 6000 years old, that homosexuality is evil, and that want to mix government and religion.

For humanity to have anything close to the future that was imagined in Star Trek, we have to start making smarter, more tolerant people, and promoting absurd things like "creation science", for example, is taking about 5 steps in the wrong direction.

 

[TheSubCommander]

For the record, I am left of center, but my political leanings really depend on the issue at hand. The very idea that only leftists can possibly enjoy Star Trek is absurd, and I find this implication insulting to some conservative fans of Star Trek friends of mine. I think it is ridiculous to even bring politics of fans into Star Trek. TV and movies like Star Trek are the one place where one can get away from the real world, and escape the mundane bickerings of religion and politics and just the general shitty things of life, and where Star trek fans can share something in common without the trappings of who is left or right or what their religious or political affiliation is, or having to worry about getting into an argument over who one voted for in the last election.

 

[T'Girl]

Yeah. Why can't we get one of those nice dictators?

A snappy dresser with a good looking wife. And a better looking mistress.

There was a thread discussing when you would break out a Sam Adams Utopias if you had one. (This is a 20+% alcohol beer that costs $200 a bottle, and tastes ridiculously good).

If you can lay your hands on some, try some Red Horse beer from the Philippines, it's about 20% and doesn't cost no $200 (actually about 3 bucks a litre).

... and the churches should keep their noses out of government.

I agree with most of what you have to say, the problem I have with this is, churches aren't just their leadership, it the membership too, and by saying that churches should stay out of politics (at least in America) you talking about a health chunk of the adult populace.

To the OP, I'm a right of center (American scale) independent. Conservative on many positions, although I did plan on voting for Hilary Clinton in 2008 before she lost the nomination, switched to McCain (never considered voting for future President Amateur Hour). Very much a Star Trek fan.

I always considered "PC" to be whatever was in vogue with the majority party in D.C. at any one time. So sometimes I'm PC, other times no.

 

[Cyke101]

The thing about the term "politically correct" and why it's so problematic is that it often elicits two responses: 1. either raised awareness about why a term is offensive, or 2. defensiveness meant to try and preserve power over a traditionally oppressed group, no matter how small and minute that power may be -- in other words, microaggression. Any terms that are currently considered offensive didn't become so over night, it was after decades of exchange and thought and negotiation, so that gradually the true intent and history of the word is made known.

So yeah, when there's a term that's used as code for "don't be a dick to people," that's what it boils down to. Folks trying to handwave complaints or concerns as being oversensitive often don't even try to understand the history behind those terms. Words are the currency of the mind, after all, and they do indeed have power. Words are how we live life, express concerns. And words have often been used to control people for negative reasons, too. Even if offense isn't intended, at the very least, be open to what those terms actually and historically mean. 15 seconds of your day to learn something isn't that hard to do; trying to assert privilege for the sake of shits and giggles costs far more energy, and it ultimately seeks to dehumanize the target and make them into an 'other.'

Anyway, I say that and there are plenty of socially aware conservatives. My basic philosophy for conservatives, liberals, and everyone between and beyond is, as long as your politics aren't based on putting others down for who they are as people, then go knock yourself out. Unfortunately, for many, anything that acknowledges others as human beings is "PC." Likewise, telling someone to "lighten up" or calm down -- especially if you're not from the same background and experiences as that person -- is virtually trying to give someone else permission to feel offended and erase their experiences in the process, and that's exerting more control than being socially aware could ever claim.

 

[CoveTom]

I just remembered this: A couple of weeks ago, I was having a discussion with my ultra-conservative father. In a tongue-in-cheek way, I quoted Spock's "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". He glared at me without a hint of humor and told me to stop talking like a g******n Marxist.

The ironic part of that is that if you look at the trilogy of II-III-IV, the ultimate message is that in the reality of how human beings act, Spock was wrong, and that the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. Kirk even says so at the end of III when explaining to Spock why they came back to retrieve him. Clearly, many groups of people will often put themselves on the line to help one individual, and Trek's message seems to be clearly in support of that.

Say what you want about Trek's leanings, but I've never seen evidence of a philosophy of subservience to the state. Picard's actions in "The Child" are another such example. He jeopardized his entire career to keep Data from being ordered to hand over his child to the state.

And do we need any better example than the Borg?

No, the Federation seems to be very anti-collectivist.

 

[Amaris]

Certainly, conservative Star Trek fans exist. I know a number of conservative Star Trek fans (not counting the people I know here!). A show like Star Trek offers a lot to everyone, whether they be liberal, or conservative, or somewhere else along the political and social spectrum. Each person takes away something unique that they glean from the show.

 

[CoveTom]

It depends.

Conservative as in: family values, strong military, fiscal responsibility, limited government...sure.

Conservative as in: homosexuality is "filth"....probably not.

I oppose same sex marriage. Does that mean, then, that there is no room in the IDIC philosophy to tolerate the likes of me?

 

[MacLeod]

I just remembered this: A couple of weeks ago, I was having a discussion with my ultra-conservative father. In a tongue-in-cheek way, I quoted Spock's "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". He glared at me without a hint of humor and told me to stop talking like a g******n Marxist.

The ironic part of that is that if you look at the trilogy of II-III-IV, the ultimate message is that in the reality of how human beings act, Spock was wrong, and that the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. Kirk even says so at the end of III when explaining to Spock why they came back to retrieve him. Clearly, many groups of people will often put themselves on the line to help one individual, and Trek's message seems to be clearly in support of that.

Say what you want about Trek's leanings, but I've never seen evidence of a philosophy of subservience to the state. Picard's actions in "The Child" are another such example. He jeopardized his entire career to keep Data from being ordered to hand over his child to the state.

And do we need any better example than the Borg?

No, the Federation seems to be very anti-collectivist.

It was actually the episode "The Offspring". But isn't that true today in many countries there is no philosophy of suber-serviance to the state? And some people will do things that they are told to do or not to do because they believe it is the right thing not to do or to do?

 

[AgentCoop]

I just remembered this: A couple of weeks ago, I was having a discussion with my ultra-conservative father. In a tongue-in-cheek way, I quoted Spock's "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". He glared at me without a hint of humor and told me to stop talking like a g******n Marxist.

The ironic part of that is that if you look at the trilogy of II-III-IV, the ultimate message is that in the reality of how human beings act, Spock was wrong, and that the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. Kirk even says so at the end of III when explaining to Spock why they came back to retrieve him. Clearly, many groups of people will often put themselves on the line to help one individual, and Trek's message seems to be clearly in support of that.

Say what you want about Trek's leanings, but I've never seen evidence of a philosophy of subservience to the state. Picard's actions in "The Child" are another such example. He jeopardized his entire career to keep Data from being ordered to hand over his child to the state.

And do we need any better example than the Borg?

No, the Federation seems to be very anti-collectivist.

I think you're assigning an overall theme to a series of movies that are clearly the result of seat-of-the-pants writing. The franchise needed Spock back, and "the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many" provided a nice callback to TWOK. I see no evidence that it goes deeper than that.

I'm also going to politely ignore your implication that Liberals are somehow equivalent to the Borg.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The funny thing about IDIC is that it originates with a fictional culture whose members all look alike, all dress alike, all have the exact same "personality", such as it is. The casual fan could be forgiven for thinking that Vulcans are all clones. When a character starts preaching about the merits of IDIC, I can't help but think that the writers are pulling our collective leg.

Actually IDIC originated purely with Gene Roddenberry as an excuse to sell the logo as a cheap trinket.

 

[CTGuyton]

I just remembered this: A couple of weeks ago, I was having a discussion with my ultra-conservative father. In a tongue-in-cheek way, I quoted Spock's "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". He glared at me without a hint of humor and told me to stop talking like a g******n Marxist.

Obviously I have no knowledge of your conversation or the context. The quote itself isn't marxist, or socialist, or however else you'd like to describe it. I don't know that I've ever come in contact with anyone who would disagree with it. However the implementation of it can be. Take Spock at the end of TWOK for example. Spock sacrificed himself on that principle. Kirk couldn't use it to justify ordering Spock to do it though.

There's a lot of baggage with the Tea Party that is very obviously opposed to the inclusive and accepting ideals and values espoused in Trek.

I'm a tea partier. I believe you've fallen victim to the opposition's characterization of us. We're a pretty inclusive unit. The TP's primary focus is on the economy and the insane about of spending coming from our government.

Yeah, you can certainly have conservative views and enjoy Star Trek. So long as you don't believe in exclusion or disenfranchisement of people who disagree with you. Most conservatives in the US don't believe in that, it's only the Fox News conservatives who do.

Ha, I was posting on a craft beer forum the other day. There was a thread discussing when you would break out a Sam Adams Utopias if you had one. (This is a 20+% alcohol beer that costs $200 a bottle, and tastes ridiculously good). I said I would break it out in a 'Ski weekend' situation where it was just me and friends hanging out for hours with nothing to do but enjoy each others' company.

Somebody responded to my post with this:

"P****".

I thought to myself, how could this be? That my masculinity would be questioned on the basis of wanting to hang out and drink beer. But that wasn't it. Just the idea that I would express fondness for the company of other human beings was enough, in the eyes of a far right conservative, to make me unmasculine.

A vast majority of American conservatives aren't like that, but those among the audience of folks like Sean Hannity have created this peculiar religion around personal selfishness that even giving the slightest bit of effort to benefit other human beings when it does not benefit you is weak and treasonous. Those are the fringe conservatives who would probably hate Trek. The majority of conservatives who believe in voluntary philanthropy and just not government enforced philanthropy could connect with its message just fine.

I watch FNC and Hannity. I consider myself a far right conservative. Yet I don't believe any of what you're trying to attribute to me. Again, I feel like you've fallen victim to the characterization given by the opposition. Conservatives aren't trying to exclude or disenfranchise anyone. (Do some research into the IRS scandal and you'll see its the current administration that is using the power to quiet opponents.) The guy who called you a "p****" isn't a conservative. he's a jack ass. they exist on all points of the spectrum

I consider myself a conservative, but have always had a hard time dealing with far-right people that believe the earth is only 6000 years old, that homosexuality is evil, and that want to mix government and religion.

You're describing someone very religious. That isn't far right. It doesn't really fit on the Left-Right scale at all. Nazi's and the KKK both used religion as they're basis, but they used government force and laws to enforce their idealogy which is very anti-conservative.





This conversation at this point probably should relocate to TNZ or something, this forum isn't really the place for it.

 

[CoveTom]

I'm also going to politely ignore your implication that Liberals are somehow equivalent to the Borg.

First off, since you specifically commented on it, you did not, in fact, ignore it.

Be that as it may, that was not my implication. My post was in response to the fact that your ultra-conservative father felt that a line from Star Trek sounded like Marxist philosophy. My point was that Star Trek is actually quite opposed in philosophy to Marxism in many ways, and I cited the Borg as the ultimate example of that. My comment did not mention, and had no relation to, modern day liberals in the United States.

 

[Greg Cox]

I admit that I am sometimes puzzled when conservative readers object to finding liberal politics in Star Trek novels, as though Star Trek has always been been apolitical and has never had a progressive point of view before.

I mean, the fourth movie was about saving the whales for Pete's sakes!

 

[AgentCoop]

^The point being that the Borg could just as easily be seen as a metaphor for single-minded conservatism. Or militarism. Or consumerism (which I believe was the original intent).

 

[Roddenberry]

I have views that could be considered left wing, some right and some in the middle. I could never in good conciousness affiliate with any political party and my opinions are subject to change, if new information alters it.