Typhon Pact: Political Analysis

[flemm]

So, I'm assuming everyone else liked Counsellor House on Voyager, too, since he's not getting any grief?

Well, as my earlier post suggested, that is one of the few aspects of the recent Voyager books that I'm not crazy about, though I find it hard to be at all negative about those books given the overall quality (and especially their level of character development as compared to the actual show).

Why do I find this type of thing annoying? Well, I guess it has to to with why I read Trek Lit. Mostly I am looking for a mix of familiar Trek faces and new Trek faces, so when I get a new face that feels like a familiar face from another IP, I tend to roll my eyes. I mean, I can see House anytime I want, so what is the point of having him turn up in a Star Trek novel? But anyway, it is a minor point. More like a pet peeve really, as it doesn't happen that often.

I do think President Bacco was somewhat of a missed opportunity in that she feels so familiar, like a character straight out of a hollywood depiction of modern American politics.

 

[KRAD]

FWIW, I created Nan Bacco and wrote three of her appearances, and I'm completely okay with Bishop76's assessment and dislike of her character.

So there!

 

[Thestral]

After Rough Beasts, I'd say I'm... really not sure where the Typhon Pact/Khitomer powers are headed. I get the feeling Paths of Disharmony might clear some of that up.

Which is to say nothing of the fact that Federation Starfleet officers installed the last two Klingon Chancellors.

Now in fairness - one time, they were specifically asked to do so, and the other time, a Starfleet officer pointedly refused to accept the Chancellorship himself in favor of a Klingon general.

 

[Sci]

Well, thanks all for the semantic argument. The lessons I've learned here will help me always. I feel wiser for being told how to think and that if my words on a Star Trek message board aren't precise, that I'll then have to argue about it for 4 pages, when my only real point was that I don't like a character. Thank you for telling me why my reasons are wrong. This place has been made much more fun for it.

Most importantly, Sci, if I tell you you win, will you stop responding to my posts? Can I make that work in perpetuity?

I hate to tell you this, Bishop76, but it's not about winning or losing, and it's nothing personal. In point of fact, I didn't even realize you were the same poster I'd spoken to in the "Using Star Trek to Solve Today's Problems" thread, as you seemed to imply my actions were a continuation of that debate. Nor, if you read my comments, did I tell you you were wrong to dislike Bacco.

But when you put something out there that's an erroneous assertion of fact or which does not allow for contradictory facts within a given assessment, expect someone to take that statement apart. I don't dish out what I can't take, and I expect others to do the same to me -- and they have, on numerous occasions. And I don't take it as a personal attack when they do -- and, indeed, I did not attack you at any point.

And no, I'm not going to simply not reply to something you say because you dislike debating with me. I'm not going to make the effort to remember that this one specific poster doesn't want to talk to me, and it is not my responsibility to do so so long as I am following board rules. If you find me sufficiently unpleasant, either refrain from replying yourself, or put me on ignore.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Which is to say nothing of the fact that Federation Starfleet officers installed the last two Klingon Chancellors.

Now in fairness - one time, they were specifically asked to do so, and the other time, a Starfleet officer pointedly refused to accept the Chancellorship himself in favor of a Klingon general.

Quite true, but I'm sure the Typhon Pact powers simply see the Federation's direct involvement with the installation of said chancellors.

 

[DimesDan]

FWIW, I created Nan Bacco and wrote three of her appearances, and I'm completely okay with Bishop76's assessment and dislike of her character.

So there!

And that, as creator of the character matters the most.

 

[BrotherBenny]

The Typhon Pact are hardly enamored with each other as:

Spoiler: the Tzenkethi

the Tzenkethi deliberately engineered the change in leadership for the Romulan Empire. In fact, the Tzenkethi actually ASSASSINATED the Praetor so they could have the person they favored in her place

.

Would the Romulans go to war if that was uncovered?

Who knows.

 

[Stoek]

Wow. What a thread. Honestly too much to quote so I will simply offer some broad comments.

Personally I feel the Typhon Pact idea continues to do one of the things that I love best about Star Trek...

Who are the bad guys? Well the Klingons are. Except they're not. So who are the bad guys? Well the Cardassians are. Except they're not. So who are THE bad guys? Well the Borg are. Except they're not.

Every time we begin to assume that any particular race or group are the minions of galactic evil, that assumption gets turned on its head.

I for one LOVE it.

As for President Bacco?

Well, isn't Star Trek about the idea that we can, and have become better as a people? Sure we are still flawed, still make mistakes, still do the wrong thing. But we care more, try harder, and get it right more often.

I see Bacco as an extension of that idea. Has she made mistakes? Yes. Has she made wrong choices for what she considers good reasons? Yes. Is her only concern about getting reelected? No. Is she beholden to monolithic corporations? No. In fact one of the most telling things from KRAD's writing regarding the election was that IIRC there was no statement of political affiliation. No political parties, just individuals with differing ideas, and ideals.

Now characters and character types from other venues appearing in Trek...

I'm only going to touch on this lightly because personally I think it deserves it's own thread.

But personally I'm fine with it. I usually find it interesting and amusing. I LMMFAO when a pair of crew people one of whom wasn't even supposed to be there that day appeared in some of the Vanguard novels.

As for the Counselor from Voyager, I honestly didn't, and don't think of him as a House Analog. For one thing he's much too likeable (I mean I love House when he's in the magic box, but in real life? It would be about five minutes before I wanted to knock his block off) Personally I cast Ian McShane (Lovejoy) in the role.

Anyway, while I'm disturbed by some of the content in the TP novels (and by disturbed I don't mean that I think it's bad, just well for someone whom Trek has the same meaning to me as religious myths have to some it's hard to see the UFP and it's members going through some of the things they are going through right now) I definitely appreciate the attempt to bring greater depth and subtlety to the Trek Novelverse. In some ways I think the end of TNG movies may be the best thing to have happened because it allows greater cohesion within said 'verse, since at the moment there are no movies/tv shows to have to work around.

 

[LightningStorm]

That's exactly what I'm saying. It was a first impression, and like most first impressions, it can color your thoughts about something. She was also written as the same character who had the same experiences in the novel-verse by an author who writes in that same time period, so I don't think it's that ridiculous. But thank you for continuing to be an insufferable prick.

On a completely related topic, how do you add people to your ignore list?

"insufferable prick." gets you a warning for flaming.

Comments to PM.

 

[KRAD]

In fact one of the most telling things from KRAD's writing regarding the election was that IIRC there was no statement of political affiliation. No political parties, just individuals with differing ideas, and ideals.

Oh, that was quite deliberate, believe me. I think political parties do a great deal to keep governments from actually getting any work done, and I say that as someone who's been a registered Democrat for 23 years. To my mind, an ideal society like the Federation would've long since lost political parties as unnecessary, cumbersome, limiting, and contrary to getting stuff done.

 

[Christopher]

As I recall, George Washington didn't want America to have political parties.

 

[Thestral]

Now in fairness - one time, they were specifically asked to do so, and the other time, a Starfleet officer pointedly refused to accept the Chancellorship himself in favor of a Klingon general.

Quite true, but I'm sure the Typhon Pact powers simply see the Federation's direct involvement with the installation of said chancellors.

Maybe, but an intelligent and nuanced look at the circumstances surrounding them (especially Gowron's installation) would indicate they were in no way a case of Federation imperialism. The Romulans and Gorn at least would almost certainly agree on that point.

 

[Sci]

As I recall, George Washington didn't want America to have political parties.

Most of the Founding Fathers were opposed to the idea of political parties (or "factions," as they were often called). They believed the standard anti-partisan arguments.

And then they all went and founded the first political parties before the ink was dry on the Constitution.

Spoiler: Off-Topic Argument About the Role of Political Parties in a Democracy

As well they should have -- the only democracies that have no political parties are the ones that aren't real democracies at all.

Democracy requires political parties to function. Much as we might not like it, it's a fact of life that non-partisan elections (where there's no party name next to the candidate's name on the ballot) almost always receive much lower voter turnout, because most voters rely on a candidate's partisan affiliation to at least give them a clue as to the candidate's general political disposition. And it's virtually impossible for a candidate to marshal the manpower and resources necessary to run for office without the help of standing private political organizations -- i.e., parties. People need to form standing alliances in order for democracy to function.

The Federation's economy and state of abundance does present an interesting question about how campaigns are organized -- and, by the way, KRAD deserves major congratulations for having found a way to write an entire novel about politics without talking about money and budgets! -- but I'd argue that, if we're being realistic, even an idealized society like the Federation would have political parties. They'd probably just be less belligerent towards one-another than they are today.

ETA:

Now in fairness - one time, they were specifically asked to do so, and the other time, a Starfleet officer pointedly refused to accept the Chancellorship himself in favor of a Klingon general.

Quite true, but I'm sure the Typhon Pact powers simply see the Federation's direct involvement with the installation of said chancellors.

Maybe, but an intelligent and nuanced look at the circumstances surrounding them (especially Gowron's installation) would indicate they were in no way a case of Federation imperialism.

Especially Gowron's installation?

You mean the one where a Federation Starfleet officer killed one of the leading candidates for the chancellorship? That one?

 

[Thestral]

Especially Gowron's installation?

You mean the one where a Federation Starfleet officer killed one of the leading candidates for the chancellorship? That one?

Yes, the one where the Klingon Chancellor invited a Starfleet Captain to serve as Arbiter of Succession (who initially refused the role and had to be convinced).

Duras' failure to be chosen as Chancellor was due to his own actions and his death in honorable combat with Worf. Worf's action was undertaken entirely separate of the Succession proceedings and was completely legal under Klingon law. Worf was persona non grata, but the High Council offered no challenge (initially) to Gowron's succession. That's not Federation meddling, that's Duras' own murder of Worf's mate and his incompetence to defend his honor.

We'll never know who would have been chosen as Chancellor - or for that matter if Gowron may in fact have poisoned K'mpec in the first place and used a Romulan-style bomb to frame Duras.

And it would ill-behoove the Pact to cry about the Klingon Civil War that followed, since the Romulans were themselves exposed as interfering in Klingon Succession.

 

[Sxottlan]

I'll echo others who have said Sorkinesque dialogue doesn't exactly translate to Sorkin dialogue and that's a huge part of what hurts the Bacco character (and by extension, her relationships with her whole staff) in my eyes.

And so help me, if we get one more admiral or leader who complains about any development giving them a headache.

Personally I feel the Typhon Pact idea continues to do one of the things that I love best about Star Trek...

Who are the bad guys? Well the Klingons are. Except they're not. So who are the bad guys? Well the Cardassians are. Except they're not. So who are THE bad guys? Well the Borg are. Except they're not.

Every time we begin to assume that any particular race or group are the minions of galactic evil, that assumption gets turned on its head.

I for one LOVE it.

Nicely put although I'm not so sure that's exactly been a planned development. The Tholians are still unreasonably adversarial after all this time and they're the ones I want to see detente with the absolute most.

 

[Bishop76]

And so help me, if we get one more admiral or leader who complains about any development giving them a headache.

No kidding!

 

[Shon T'Hara]

* I admit that there have been individuals in both the civilian government and in Starfleet, that have put their own selfish needs before those of others,

That's what the Federation says. But imagine you're an alien looking at the Federation from the outside -- why would you believe that? Doesn't it look like the Federation is engaged in all sorts of underhanded activities, and if the get caught they put the blame on some admiral for acting on his own.

And for that matter, were the events in Insurrection the result of rogue elements? I thought the Admiral had approval from the Federation Council. Was Picard a rogue when he conquered Tezwa? And what about all of Section 31's shenanigans?

but no political government in the galaxy that wants to peacefully explore the galaxy and interact with others in the same manner, has anything to worry about regarding the Federation.

So the Federation says. Why should the Breen or Gorn believe that?

Ever since its inception, the Federation has been the one galactic power that has protected and secured the galaxy from governments like the Romulans and the Dominion, who have historically sought only conqest and expansion(the only Romulans that have seen the error of their government and military's way, is the IRS).

Are the Romulans actually expansionist? Sure, they have a long-standing conflict with the Klingons, but can you blame them -- I mean, the Federation and Klingons are allies and they still fight. The Romulans supported one faction in the Klingon Civil War, but is that so wrong -- the other side was led by a Chancellor installed by the Federation, and if not for the Prime Directive, Starfleet would've aided Gowron directly.

The Romulans did try to conquer their ancestral homeworld, but only after a high ranking Vulcan infiltrated Romulan society and tried to subvert the government. Other than that, their relations with the Federation have been antagonistic but not expansionist.

Who else have the Romulans fought since they ended their period of isolation (very expansionistic policy there).

And speaking of the Tomed Incident, doesn't that rather undermine the Federation's claim to nobility in combating this alleged Romulan expansionism?

If the Tholians wanted peace and cared about others like most Federation citizens do, they wouldn't have joined a group with less-than-reputable governments like the Romulan Star Empire, and the Gorn should have joined the Federation that saved their people from near extinction. Either way you put it, the Federation is the way to go.

You're assuming that they view the Federation the same way you do.

 

[Thestral]

So the Federation says. Why should the Breen or Gorn believe that?

Well, there is the fact that Starfleet aided the Gorn Hegemony in restoring its rightful government. And they didn't pursue (so far as I know) sanctions against the Breen in the aftermath of the Dominion War.

The Romulans supported one faction in the Klingon Civil War, but is that so wrong -- the other side was led by a Chancellor installed by the Federation, and if not for the Prime Directive, Starfleet would've aided Gowron directly.

A Chancellor selected by a Starfleet officer upon invitation/insistence by the outgoing Chancellor. Until Duras got himself stupidly killed, the possibility remained that he would be selected. And the fact remains Starfleet didn't aid Gowron directly despite his appeal to the terms of Alliance.

 

[PrimeDirective]

* I admit that there have been individuals in both the civilian government and in Starfleet, that have put their own selfish needs before those of others,

That's what the Federation says. But imagine you're an alien looking at the Federation from the outside -- why would you believe that? Doesn't it look like the Federation is engaged in all sorts of underhanded activities, and if the get caught they put the blame on some admiral for acting on his own.

And for that matter, were the events in Insurrection the result of rogue elements? I thought the Admiral had approval from the Federation Council. Was Picard a rogue when he conquered Tezwa? And what about all of Section 31's shenanigans?

but no political government in the galaxy that wants to peacefully explore the galaxy and interact with others in the same manner, has anything to worry about regarding the Federation.

So the Federation says. Why should the Breen or Gorn believe that?

Ever since its inception, the Federation has been the one galactic power that has protected and secured the galaxy from governments like the Romulans and the Dominion, who have historically sought only conqest and expansion(the only Romulans that have seen the error of their government and military's way, is the IRS).

Are the Romulans actually expansionist? Sure, they have a long-standing conflict with the Klingons, but can you blame them -- I mean, the Federation and Klingons are allies and they still fight. The Romulans supported one faction in the Klingon Civil War, but is that so wrong -- the other side was led by a Chancellor installed by the Federation, and if not for the Prime Directive, Starfleet would've aided Gowron directly.

The Romulans did try to conquer their ancestral homeworld, but only after a high ranking Vulcan infiltrated Romulan society and tried to subvert the government. Other than that, their relations with the Federation have been antagonistic but not expansionist.

Who else have the Romulans fought since they ended their period of isolation (very expansionistic policy there).

And speaking of the Tomed Incident, doesn't that rather undermine the Federation's claim to nobility in combating this alleged Romulan expansionism?

If the Tholians wanted peace and cared about others like most Federation citizens do, they wouldn't have joined a group with less-than-reputable governments like the Romulan Star Empire, and the Gorn should have joined the Federation that saved their people from near extinction. Either way you put it, the Federation is the way to go.

You're assuming that they view the Federation the same way you do.

* Any alien sentient being can get to know the inner workings of the Federation and Starfleet, through diplomacy.

 

[flandry84]

When I said that I found the Bacco character wearisome I was referring not to any modern political analogies that may or may not be read into the character(as a non-American I find it odd that straight away people were reading "Bush-criticism or the like into it).
No,I was merely saying that I dislike the shorthand sarcasm and the pretty patronising attitude Bacco adopts towards non-Fed worlds.It smacks of arrogance and given all the Federation has suffered recently,arrogance is the last thing the universe needs.