Federation vs. US principles

[ninetofive]

I've always been puzzled by the apparent discrepancy between Starfleet (and or Federation) and American principles/philosophy. Namely: the Prime Directive is antithetical to US foreign policy;based on Picard's comments to Lily in First Contact, and several DS9 episodes, Earth, if not the federation as a whole, is some kind of communist techno-utopia.

I live in Australia, and while Star Trek has a strong following, it's certainly not mainstream. But I get the impression in America it has a much broader audience (not just 'nerds' and so on). Do American star trek fans represent the more leftish, liberal facet of the nation, or do most just fail to make the connection between say US involvement in the middle east and latin america etc. and 'non inteference in the internal affairs of other planets' ?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

First off, Star Trek fans are not all in ideological lockstep. There are fans with many different beliefs, both left AND right.

As for Roddenberry, he represents the far left, and his influence affected the show's direction.

 

[T'Girl]

... and 'non inteference in the internal affairs of other planets' ?

.
As I understand the story, the non-interference policy was based upon the United States "interference" in South Vietnam. Apparently North Vietnam's interference in South Vietnam didn't bother Gene Roddenberry in the least.

 

[Admiral Shran]

I wouldn't say that the left in the U.S. is predisposed to a policy of non-interference. Liberals have gotten the U.S. involved in many international interventions - World War I, World II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Balkan conflicts, Somalia, and Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan.

That's not to say conservatives haven't done the same thing. They escalated the Vietnam War. They got us into numerous interventions in Latin America. And, they gave us the First Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

I'm a Trek fan who finds himself on the conservative side of the political spectrum. Though, I'm not a Republican - I'm a Ron Paul style libertarian. I have no problem with a policy like the Prime Directive. I believe that the U.S. foreign policy should be based on "Commerce with all, Alliance with none."

I do think, however, that the vast majority of U.S. Trek fans are left-leaning. But, as Nerys Ghemor said, we're not all in ideological lockstep and can each find certain things we like about Trek and certain things we don't like.

 

[Tharsis]

I really think that the reason we see so much instability in some countries is due to involvement of "more advanced" countries in their affairs. The U.S. shouldn't be singled out in this. Africa is a prime example of where superpowers have interfered with cultures that were not ready for their advanced technologies or new philosophies. During the time of imperialist Europe...Britain, France, the Netherlands all had their hand in dividing up the continent into random countries, without paying attention to tribal or cultural differences or boundaries. The result, is a continent that has been unstable for almost 4 centuries. You think the US would learn from these past mistakes, and not involve ourselves with less-developed countries (e.g. supplying arms to Afghanistan or Iraq in the 80's). However, it is one world, not several isolated worlds as in Star Trek, and its a bit difficult to ignore someone when they are waging a holy war against you.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I really think that the reason we see so much instability in some countries is due to involvement of "more advanced" countries in their affairs. The U.S. shouldn't be singled out in this. Africa is a prime example of where superpowers have interfered with cultures that were not ready for their advanced technologies or new philosophies. During the time of imperialist Europe...Britain, France, the Netherlands all had their hand in dividing up the continent into random countries, without paying attention to tribal or cultural differences or boundaries. The result, is a continent that has been unstable for almost 4 centuries. You think the US would learn from these past mistakes, and not involve ourselves with less-developed countries (e.g. supplying arms to Afghanistan or Iraq in the 80's). However, it is one world, not several isolated worlds as in Star Trek, and its a bit difficult to ignore someone when they are waging a holy war against you.

There is a difference between, on one hand, conquering or trying to forcibly modify the social institutions of another society with the political/military equivalent of a chainsaw and, on the other hand, involving oneself in the affairs of a foreign culture, trying to help them, not imposing anything.

All the historical examples of imperialism you mentioned are included in the former cathegory.

 

[TheGodBen]

As I understand the story, the non-interference policy was based upon the United States "interference" in South Vietnam. Apparently North Vietnam's interference in South Vietnam didn't bother Gene Roddenberry in the least.

I wouldn't say that, Gene did write the screenplay for A Private Little War, which was a Vietnam analogy that ended on a very non-Trekkian message about how interference was required. I could barely believe that he wrote it when I saw it, but then I remembered the witch that used a love potion on Kirk, and the spiky yeti monster, and I realised that was the kind of crazy shit Gene used to come up with.

 

[Myasishchev]

I believe that the U.S. foreign policy should be based on "Commerce with all, Alliance with none."

The free republics of Germany, France, Italy, and China would like to thank you for paying your income taxes anyway.

In any event, there's some indication that although the Fed has some military and civil laws against messing with the primitives, they also annex the space around it. This is what seems to be happening in Insurrection, anyway, where the Sona, for some reason, need Federation permission to sterilize a non-aligned planet. (On the other hand, requiring that permission was also interfering, since it was a civil war... and that's one reason why that movie sucked.)

 

[EmperorTiberius]

Non interference has to do primarily with planets that haven't developed warp drive and are not aware of the universe around them; not non-interference in general, which some of you seem to be implying. A good analogy would be tribes in Amazon. The show has been pretty consistent about this.

 

[T'Girl]

The show has been pretty consistent about this.

Did you mean post-TOS?

 

[Praxius]

I've always been puzzled by the apparent discrepancy between Starfleet (and or Federation) and American principles/philosophy. Namely: the Prime Directive is antithetical to US foreign policy;based on Picard's comments to Lily in First Contact, and several DS9 episodes, Earth, if not the federation as a whole, is some kind of communist techno-utopia.

I live in Australia, and while Star Trek has a strong following, it's certainly not mainstream. But I get the impression in America it has a much broader audience (not just 'nerds' and so on). Do American star trek fans represent the more leftish, liberal facet of the nation, or do most just fail to make the connection between say US involvement in the middle east and latin america etc. and 'non inteference in the internal affairs of other planets' ?

I can not speak for US Politics and how they relate to the Star Trek Federation since I'm in Canada, but I never got why people have to continually place ideologies to the Federation like Socialist, Communist, Democratic, etc..... I would suspect that after so many different alien species and planets joined.... none of these human terminologies would apply and what the Federation would be, would be something completely different.

People quickly jump to the conclusion that the Federation is Communist because there's no money and capitalism went the way of the dodo (which it should, but that's another subject) but keep in mind that even in today's communism, there is still money, it's just controlled by the government and out of citizen's hands for the most part. (The government distributes wealth equally or as it sees fit.)

In the federation, there is no money, but you also have total freedom to choose the path in life you wish to take, to learn and to grow without a government approving or being limited by how much money you make.... you are to better yourself as a human being (or whatever alien you may be)

And calling it some sort of Utopia is also inaccurate because the term Utopia represents a society of perfection.... the Federation and Earth itself at that time is not a Utopia, there are still problems, there are still struggles.... there are still conflicts between member planets and species with different ideals and concepts/beliefs of their own. I see the Star Trek Future more like how our way of life is today, except on a larger scale, where countries with different ways of life and beliefs are now planets..... Earth is like one community like one country or one town where everybody knows everybody.... when eventually the Klingons from the next county come over and cause trouble, etc.

The Federation life is a hell of a lot better then what we're living in today, sure.... but our way of life today is a hell of a lot better then the days of the Roman or British Empire..... it's a continual sociological evolution and growth.

But I have come across many fans of Star Trek (many in these forums) who do not follow the same political beliefs and concepts I follow.... people like Star Trek for varying reasons..... and whatever political beliefs one has, we all have a level of belief that the political structures we hold to will eventually bring us to a better way of life, while blaming the other political ideals that exist for thwarting/delaying this goal.

 

[indolover]

I think personally the geekdom of Trek depends on how into it one is. Watching DVDs of it is fine, but dressing up on a daily basis in a Starfleet uniform is IMO another lol.

I think also that people of all stripes like Trek, and it's the message/ethos of Trek that makes it liked, respected and popular.

 

[EmperorTiberius]

The show has been pretty consistent about this.

Did you mean post-TOS?

Yeah, I'm not good with TOS episodes, I've seen them years ago.

 

[Rush Limborg]

While my regeneration module undergoes remaining technological and philisophical upgrades, I therefore return to the BBS temporarily:

Okay. Hey, folks! Now, down to business:

I've always been puzzled by the apparent discrepancy between Starfleet (and or Federation) and American principles/philosophy. Namely: the Prime Directive is antithetical to US foreign policy;based on Picard's comments to Lily in First Contact, and several DS9 episodes, Earth, if not the federation as a whole, is some kind of communist techno-utopia.

I wouldn't say communist, per se. Picard's lines were, "The aquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity."

Communism is strictly "bettering the rest"--As Marx would say, "From Each According To His Ability, To Each According To His Need".

Capitalism is basically "bettering ourselves", with "bettering the rest of humanity" being a nice side effect of the Invisible Hand of the market forces.

What the UFP seems to have is some sort of future "meritocracy". There are certainly some elements of capitalism in the UFP economy--Bashir's father, for example, seems to illustrate the "Freedom To Fail" aspect, as well as a nice bit of rugged individualism. Still, the "moneyless" aspect indicates that, while we could call the Federation a "free economy", it's not capitalism as we know it.

Do American star trek fans represent the more leftish, liberal facet of the nation,

Not specifically. I, and Nerys and Shran, are living proof of that.

For the most part, the principles of Trek are broad and general enough so that both the Left and the Right can sit and enjoy its wonderfully thought-provoking messages.

or do most just fail to make the connection between say US involvement in the middle east and latin america etc. and 'non inteference in the internal affairs of other planets' ?

As Shran has pointed out, much (albiet not all) of the interventionalism (some would say imperialism) of the US has been conducted by the Left--or, at the very least, the (clears throat) "Progressive" Movement.

Teddy Rosevelt, I believe, was the one who started the whole "world's policeman" thing. And of course, The-One-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named got the US into WWI with the attude of "making the world safe for democracy".

(What the world got was the Treaty of Versailles, the gutting of the British fleet, and Hitler and Mussolini. But I digress....)

Anyhow--about Roddenberry.

While The Bird did often times style himself as a "Progressive"--such as that "monyless society" thing--still, there were times when TOS's messages of freedom and indiviual liberty seemed almost...libertarian. Note Spock's remarks about and to Khan in "Space Seed".

Also...how many times have Kirk and Co. "intervened" in order to set the inhabitants of a world free from a (usually machine) oppressor--"The Apple" being a major example? I duuno...but it seems very much like "imperialistic nation building" to me.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Good to see you back Rush, if only temporarily.

Teddy Rosevelt, I believe, was the one who started the whole "world's policeman" thing.

One could argue that it was William McKinley who started the U.S. on that path, with the U.S. involvement in the Spanish American War. Teddy Roosevelt was, however, a major figure in the McKinley Administration, eventually becoming his Vice President.

Anyhow--about Roddenberry.

Here's my views on the Great Bird....

During TOS he appears to have had a libertarian inclination - a left-leaning libertarianism, sure, but libertarian none the less. In the period between TOS and The Motion Picture he moved much further to the left politically.

You can see leftist attitudes in TMP, if you can get past its slow-as-molasses-in-January plot. Decker loses his command without even being consulted because the state felt it was in the best interests of society. McCoy is "drafted" back into Starfleet against his will, again because the state thinks it is in society's best interest.

After Roddenberry was kicked upstairs and new people were brought on to run Trek for the movies, these attitudes were downplayed. At the same time, he moved even further to the left. Then after he was given another chance to run his version of Trek, on TNG, we saw his leftist philosophy in full bloom. We got stories where abortion was defended as a fundamental/unquestionable right (Up the Long Ladder), the answer to drug addiction was to ignore the problem and let addicts and dealers work it out themselves (Symbiosis), and where religion in general is depicted as nothing more than superstitous nonsense with no redeeming value (Who Watches the Watchers).

Then, again after new people were brought in to run the day to day operations of Trek, these aspects were again downplayed (most notably in DS9 and ENT Season Three).

So, to claim that Trek is this presentation of utopia that only people of the left can appreciate is a little off the mark, IMO.

Also, the whole concept of a money-less Federation is a vestige of Roddenberry's leftist attitudes in the early days of TNG that the later producers/writers were unable (or various reasons) to jettison. In fact, I think the very first reference to money being a thing of the past is in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (which was made just before TNG went into production) (in fact, IIRC, it was that movie's success that led Paramount to greenlight a new small screen version of Trek). In TOS, however, there are countless references to money. People use Federation Credits, characters refer to getting paid, and people buy and sell things.

 

[Photon]

I've always been puzzled by the apparent discrepancy between Starfleet (and or Federation) and American principles/philosophy. Namely: the Prime Directive is antithetical to US foreign policy;based on Picard's comments to Lily in First Contact, and several DS9 episodes, Earth, if not the federation as a whole, is some kind of communist techno-utopia.

I live in Australia, and while Star Trek has a strong following, it's certainly not mainstream. But I get the impression in America it has a much broader audience (not just 'nerds' and so on). Do American star trek fans represent the more leftish, liberal facet of the nation, or do most just fail to make the connection between say US involvement in the middle east and latin america etc. and 'non inteference in the internal affairs of other planets' ?

Not me. Reagan conservative.

 

[JarodRussell]

Decker loses his command without even being consulted because the state felt it was in the best interests of society. McCoy is "drafted" back into Starfleet against his will, again because the state thinks it is in society's best interest.

Kirk is the state?

 

[Admiral Shran]

^ Kirk is, in some ways, the embodiment of the state.

 

[sonak]

No real great power could abide by a Prime Directive, principally because RIVAL POWERS WOULDN'T BE BOUND BY IT! Seriously, there's nothing to stop Cardassians, Romulans, or Klingons from interfering with a culture that the UFP had decided to leave alone to let develop.

Also, the Prime Directive as interpreted post-TOS is a brutal social darwinist doctrine that has no place in an ethical society.


And just to rebut a previous post: Woodrow Wilson's decision to involve the U.S. in WWI did not in any way make him responsible for the collapse of that post-war settlement. It was more the rise of isolationism in the U.S. and the refusal to contribute to the enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles by the victorious powers of WWI.

 

[DevilEyes]

We got stories where abortion was defended as a fundamental/unquestionable right (Up the Long Ladder).

That's what it was supposed to be?! If that were the case, then it shows an alarming lack of intelligence on the part of the writers, unless they actually were secretly pushing an anti-abortion agenda. The situation in question is absolutely NOTHING like the abortion issue, and I can't imagine anyone comparing it to abortion unless they were an ultra-conservative pro-lifer tweaking the facts and making a completely incorrect analogy in order to drive home the idea of abortion as murder.

The whole issue of abortion is about a person having the right to decide what happens to THEIR OWN BODY. A pregnant woman has another entity in her own body, feeding off her for 9 months, presenting a potential danger (including dying during childbirth)... A friend of mine who has an infant (which she adores and is completely devoted to) compared pregnancy to having a parasite in your body - which, when you come down to it, is basically accurate. Comparing it to someone losing a few hairs and then being infuriated that someone used it to create another lifeform out of it, is absurd and ludicrous. If you're going to make a child analogy of it, it comes off as "I have the right to kill my baby after I've given birth" or "I have the right to kill my baby after it has been removed from my body and placed in an incubator". Or maybe "I found out that this woman I had sex with has given birth; nobody asked me about it, I feel violated, so I'm going to go and kill the baby".