Star Trek and Liberalism....
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
As an adult looking at the character, I can see where Kirk is a bit dysfunctional. Especially, where relationships with women are concerned.
Doesn't make me like the character any less (probably makes me understand him a bit more), he was a childhood hero of mine. But, as an adult, I can appreciate that the character is a bit deeper than your average 60's 2D character.
YMMV.
Then there should be nothing wrong with the Federation and Klingons making peace as it didn't require either to give up their freedoms.
There is no such thing as absolute right and wrong with politics. Your entire screed professes that "we" have collectively learned who was right or wrong. While it's true that a majority may side one way or the other, there's always some who disagree.
Witness the recent dispute over the use of the confederate flag (people still bitter over the Civil War) or the recent GOP debates that keep harping on abortion despite Roe v. Wade being what, 40+ years ago? There is never any final verdict on ideology.
So to characterize's TOS's JFK style foreign policy as romanticizing and cartoonish is just your opinion, and not a universal truth. It may seem a little outdated but it's not like people have completely rejected the idea of more interventionist foreign-policy (witness the resistance to a Trek VI compromise with Iran).
Part of the point of "The Man in the Hero Suit" (I swear, that sounds like a Stieg Larsson novel!) is that Kirk sees the Enterprise and her crew as his personal property rather than that of Starfleet. That attitude could be considered dysfunctional--if not by viewers, then certainly by Starfleet Command. Look no further than his exchanges with Matt Decker in "The Doomsday Machine" to see an example of this.
Last edited:
Which sounds idiotic if you actually watch the damned show.
It sounds more like Kirk just has a problem with his superiors potential causing people to die for trivial reasons.
You mean Kirk not being happy to have him and his subordinates being dragged into an unstable flag officer's suicide mission that doesn't have a hope in hell of actually accomplishing anything.
You're more than welcome to take that point up with the writer of the article; I merely presented it for observation. (shrugs)
Which is legitimate. The problem is that Kirk and his superiors sometimes differ about what a trivial reason is. He does get crossways with a lot of higher-ups over the course of the series.
Granted. In that instance, he's right, but he isn't always right, and he runs the risk of being seen as less than objective by his superiors. Remember how close a call he had with Komack in "Amok Time"?
Kirk was going to piss off Starfleet, either way there. Go to Vulcan, you miss your scheduled duties at Altair. Go to Altair, and you end up having to explain why your First Officer is on ice in the ship's morgue.
Besides Kirk thought Komack would have been okay with it if you could actually explain the situation to him but Vulcan secrecy got in the way. Plus Kirk had a major political figure vouching for him in the end.
True, BillJ. Very true. In-universe, I have to wonder why Spock didn't think that through before enjoining secrecy. (Although I suppose one could blame his pon farr for clouded mental processes.) Ex-universe, the writers had to fill the time, so they engineered a spat with Starfleet to do it. I would rather have seen the rest of the wedding ceremony myself.
Kirk got lucky. Again.
Last edited:
And some folk would rather be lucky than good. 
That has both right and wrong elements to it.
Jim does feel personally responsible for his ship and his people. Very responsible. It's shaped his life and he's forsaken a lot of things many people take for granted. He's certainly not like that Greek captain that was the first one off the ship when it hit a rock.
I look at Doomsday Machine and see a calm but concerned Kirk refusing to have Crazy Matt kill his crew like he already did for his own. For Adm. Komack in Amok Time, while I again can see it as disobeying an order it was an emergency situation as BillJ said just before. Just change that Spock needed a medicine that was only on Vulcan or he would die and I doubt there would be too much consternation. Also, it was a ceremonial function. It wasn't a distress call or battle alert. That would have been a very difficult situation indeed.
And some folk would rather be lucky than good.
Then there's James Tiberius Kirk, who is both lucky and good.
And some folk would rather be lucky than good.
Then there's James Tiberius Kirk, who is both lucky and good.
Indeed.
I think this is worth posting again...
If anything, I think the author only highlights the evolution (not the downfall) of liberal ideology between the 60's and today. The Cold War was all about "Us vs Them." Issues were portrayed mostly in black and white. The world today is much more nuanced.
What the author failed to mention is the largely unknown aftermath of delivering "freedom" in the 60's. What happened after Kirk delivered Star-Spangled Awesomeness to planets across the galaxy? What happened after Kirk destroyed Vaal? Well, seeing how Vaal only taught its people one useful still (to kill), I have a pretty good idea what happened next (see Recent History, Iraq and Afghanistan).
I think TNG's affirmation of tolerance and its insistence that we can't just give people freedom and assume they know what to do with it was prophetic.
I am of the opinion that concepts like freedom, democracy, or progress is not ours to give. I also think that when we try to "give" these concepts to cultures that aren't willing to embrace it or assert it themselves, it's just another form of imposing our will on to others.
IMO exposure to these concepts, facilitated by peace, is the best way to affect the kind of permanent cultural shifts we desire.
Forcibly imposed democracy has become the 21st century's version of a tragic irony.We can't be afraid to let other cultures discover the merits of freedom and democracy on their own terms. We should have more faith that these core American values will propagate themselves.
If anything, I think the author only highlights the evolution (not the downfall) of liberal ideology between the 60's and today. The Cold War was all about "Us vs Them." Issues were portrayed mostly in black and white. The world today is much more nuanced.
What the author failed to mention is the largely unknown aftermath of delivering "freedom" in the 60's. What happened after Kirk delivered Star-Spangled Awesomeness to planets across the galaxy? What happened after Kirk destroyed Vaal? Well, seeing how Vaal only taught its people one useful still (to kill), I have a pretty good idea what happened next (see Recent History, Iraq and Afghanistan).
I think TNG's affirmation of tolerance and its insistence that we can't just give people freedom and assume they know what to do with it was prophetic.
I am of the opinion that concepts like freedom, democracy, or progress is not ours to give. I also think that when we try to "give" these concepts to cultures that aren't willing to embrace it or assert it themselves, it's just another form of imposing our will on to others.
IMO exposure to these concepts, facilitated by peace, is the best way to affect the kind of permanent cultural shifts we desire.
Forcibly imposed democracy has become the 21st century's version of a tragic irony.We can't be afraid to let other cultures discover the merits of freedom and democracy on their own terms. We should have more faith that these core American values will propagate themselves.
It was always my personal speculation that the war on "Tyree's planet" did proceed as McCoy predicted, being finally settled only once the greater conflict that spawned it was settled.
Tie that one into the greater discussion any way you'd like. But it does relate analogously to the whole "proxy" war aspect of the cold war.
Tie that one into the greater discussion any way you'd like. But it does relate analogously to the whole "proxy" war aspect of the cold war.
If I remember correctly, from somewhere, the original script for "A Private Little War" was intended to take a stand against involvement in Vietnam, but Roddenberry re-wrote it such that Kirk was strongly advocating in favor of getting involved. Writer Don Ingalls was unhappy about it and used a pseudonym in the credits.
Last edited:
Ironically the Klingons screwing around with "Tyree's planet" was in defiance of the treaty between the Federation and the Klingons that was supposed to settle said greater conflict.
Its also kind of makes the Organians dicks for not making sure the treaty the got signed by threat of a cosmic ass kicking was actually obeyed.
I really need to finish writing my fact check on this.
This is a myth.
I'm thinking I got it from an interview of Don Ingalls in Starlog magazine. I'm at work now, and might not have a chance for a couple of days to find it or fail to find it.
Similar threads
- Locked
