What's with conservative Trekkies?

[RJDiogenes]

Well, that's true; people are better behaved when things are going well. But the economic aspect of Trek was always an inconsistent background feature. It's more liberal aspects were always its advocacy of tolerance, aversion to violence, et cetera-- though violence became more commonplace in later years, as the show tried to appeal to an increasingly jaded audience.

 

[Pingfah]

True, although I think perhaps Republicans have just been giving Conservatism a bad name on the tolerance front

 

[Gertch]

yes, those evil conservatives.

"Conservatives tend to be happier than liberals in general," said Dr. Rod Martin, a psychologist at the University of Western Ontario. "A conservative outlook [comprehends] social inequality, accepting the world as it is, and making it less of a threat to one’s well-being, whereas a liberal outlook leads to dissatisfaction with the world as it is, and a sense that things need to change before one can be really happy."

Obama and McCain Walk Into a Bar ...

I'm just a noob around here, for sure, but I can't help noticing - mostly through avatars - that there are a lot of conservative trekkies. And I'm wondering how that could be?

As noted earlier, there are many times more liberals here than conservatives. This may or may not extend to the general population.

I don't see where Star Trek goes against conservative principals. Take the prime directive for example; a strong moral core to live by. Gathering knowledge before making a decision rather than forcing a chance simply to make a change. In TNG we see the importance of the family. So important as to make room for them in the Enterprise.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

The idea of saying that Trek should only be enjoyed by one type of people would seem to be contradictory to the very tenets of the franchise, would it not?

Not really, because the question is not about a franchise that advocates tolerance, it's about a demographic that is inherently intolerant.

My question was directed at Gary Sebben, who seemed to be taking a tack that itself was contradictory to Trek while being surprised that others who also have some contradictory views might enjoy it.

I don't see where Star Trek goes against conservative principals. Take the prime directive for example; a strong moral core to live by. Gathering knowledge before making a decision rather than forcing a chance simply to make a change. In TNG we see the importance of the family. So important as to make room for them in the Enterprise.

Right, because morality, gathering information to make an informed decision, and caring for family are exclusively conservative ideals. Give me a break.

Zero tolerance policies that make blanket rules without considering the situation at hand and balancing the ethics of it (is it moral to not interfere with a culture's natural development to the point of letting it go extinct?), and putting children into the center of a consistently dangerous situation are both questionable actions in themselves.

 

[The Old Mixer]

To answer the OP, I think like all entertainment, if a show really entertains, you don't have to agree with its politics to enjoy it. I'm sure a lot of people like Boston Legal who disagree with some of its soapboxing.

True...I consider myself a left-leaning moderate, but I greatly enjoy Tom Clancy novels, in spite of the author's rather conservative worldview. (In one of the later novels, he even manages to get in some digs about the scandals of the Clinton presidency, though there's no room for Clinton to have been president in a lineage of fictional presidents that goes back at least to the mid-'80s....)

"Conservatives tend to be happier than liberals in general," said Dr. Rod Martin, a psychologist at the University of Western Ontario. "A conservative outlook [comprehends] social inequality, accepting the world as it is, and making it less of a threat to one’s well-being, whereas a liberal outlook leads to dissatisfaction with the world as it is, and a sense that things need to change before one can be really happy."

In early 2007, John McCain sat down to breakfast at a back table in the Senate Dining Room with Ken Duberstein, Ronald Reagan's last White House chief of staff and one of the few big-name Republicans to have supported McCain rather than George W. Bush in 2000. It stood to reason that the fabled Washington wise man would back McCain again. Instead, Duberstein said he was troubled by McCain's efforts to ingratiate himself with the conservative wing of their party. He cited a fence-mending commencement address McCain had given at the Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University and his hawkish stand on the war in Iraq. "I told John the right wing never wants to be satisfied; they're professional whiners," Duberstein remembers now. "They are never happy. So don't kill yourself trying. They will never trust you, no matter what you do for them.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1856613,00.html

And talk radio hosts sure aren't known for putting on a cheery front...they manage to find things to bitch about day in and day out even when the Republicans are in control of everything for years....

One more things to keep conservatives happy: The Official End of the Reagan Era

...which contains a message for Palinite conservatives:

McCain is a better man than his robocalls. Yet he became enmeshed in the red-state-vs.-blue-state, hot-button, wedge-issue, 50%-plus-one formula that has dominated and degraded our politics in these locust years of racial, regional and cultural polarization. Reagan at his best was a happy warrior, who put a smile on the sometimes dour face of conservatism and recast his political faith as both optimistic and futuristic. He was no hater, and cultural scapegoating wasn't his style. Indeed, in 1978 Reagan courageously opposed a California referendum that would have made it easier to fire gay schoolteachers simply on account of their sexual orientation.

Conservatives wishing to honor their modern founding father might begin by practicing what Reagan preached in his valedictory address to the 1992 GOP Convention in Houston. "Whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone," he told us, "I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts." Some things are ageless.

 

[RJDiogenes]

True, although I think perhaps Republicans have just been giving Conservatism a bad name on the tolerance front

Yes, which is exactly why I distinguish between Right Wing/Left Wing and conservative/liberal.

"Conservatives tend to be happier than liberals in general," said Dr. Rod Martin, a psychologist at the University of Western Ontario. "A conservative outlook [comprehends] social inequality, accepting the world as it is, and making it less of a threat to one’s well-being, whereas a liberal outlook leads to dissatisfaction with the world as it is, and a sense that things need to change before one can be really happy."

That's it exactly. Conservative means sticking with the bad old days, liberalism works for a better future.

I don't see where Star Trek goes against conservative principals. Take the prime directive for example; a strong moral core to live by. Gathering knowledge before making a decision rather than forcing a chance simply to make a change.

Which is a description of liberal thinking.

My question was directed at Gary Sebben, who seemed to be taking a tack that itself was contradictory to Trek while being surprised that others who also have some contradictory views might enjoy it.

Okay, gotcha.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

First of all, it's more accurate to say that this question is about Right Wing versus Left Wing, not conservative and liberal.

Having said that, I was shocked when I first came online and discovered that there were Right Wing Trekkies. Of course, having grown up in the Civil Rights Era, I'm shocked that there's still a Right Wing....

The idea of saying that Trek should only be enjoyed by one type of people would seem to be contradictory to the very tenets of the franchise, would it not?

Not really, because the question is not about a franchise that advocates tolerance, it's about a demographic that is inherently intolerant.

The trouble is that you belie the very point you attempt to make, with a statement like that. To automatically equate conservatives with sexism and racism is the exact sort of broadbrushing you point to the extreme right and say you don't like.

This, to me, is the difference between the extreme right and the extreme left. The extreme right, however repugnant its views, will make no bones about what they are (think Ann Coulter)--they will come right out and say whatever offensive thing is on their mind. The extreme left, however, will veil it in PC terms, and then when someone objects, paint them out to be anti-whatever-it-is-that-will-make-them-look-bad--basically, demonize them instead of answering their point.

This is the same tactic I see being used right here--rather than acknowledging that conservatives may get something out of Trek, even if it's something different from what a liberal might get, I see you reacting as though liberals' exclusive territory has been violated and making a statement intended to paint all conservatives as something pathetic.

Here is one of the things I get out of Trek--specifically Deep Space Nine. We may pretend to be refined in our morals but the truth is that when our backs are up against the wall, we're going to find out that all the "ugly" parts of human nature we thought we'd done away with come right back with a vengeance.

 

[Evil_Kirkneivel]

I like the TrekBBS because it includes a diverse range of individuals. The only thing we have in common is an interest in Trek. We don't even agree on whether Trek is good or not - we're certainly not going to agree on matters like religion and politics.

Myself...I am a 'liberal', I suppose - but I accept that if we are going to reach the Utopian society imagined in Trek, we are all going to have to stop arguing and pointing fingers and learn how to work together for the common good.

I like the theory mentioned earlier in the thread that the power of technology may drive this.

 

[RJDiogenes]

The trouble is that you belie the very point you attempt to make, with a statement like that. To automatically equate conservatives with sexism and racism is the exact sort of broadbrushing you point to the extreme right and say you don't like.

Sexism, racism and other forms of intolerance are well-known attributes of Right Wing ideology and have been for a long time. Don't blame me.

This, to me, is the difference between the extreme right and the extreme left. The extreme right, however repugnant its views, will make no bones about what they are (think Ann Coulter)--they will come right out and say whatever offensive thing is on their mind.

No, they make extensive use of rhetoric, doubletalk, newspeak and all other forms of dissembling.

 

[sidious618]

I enjoy 'The Shield,' yet I don't support murder, robbery, police corruption, or gang wars.

Yeah, but the show doesn't support that. If anything it speaks against it. The shows message is showing how living a life like Vic's will screw you over.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I don't see why it's an issue.

Anyone whose life philosophy and home on the political spectrum is dictated by a television show needs to go away.

 

[Thurisaz]

I just like the stories. I tend to lean more right, but I must admit that some of my favorite episodes are the non-violent "thinker" episodes. I have always been fascinated by space travel, and ST is like an escape. Trek has always given me an hour out of my day where I can forget all my political beliefs. This is also another reason I like this forum. No matter how far to the right I am, or how far to the left you are, I'd still have a hell of a time having a beer and discussing Star Trek with anyone of you.

 

[The Old Mixer]

The only thing we have in common is an interest in Trek. We don't even agree on whether Trek is good or not

Certainly we don't agree on which Trek is good...but we must all be here because we each like some Trek, I'd think.

but I accept that if we are going to reach the Utopian society imagined in Trek, we are all going to have to stop arguing and pointing fingers and learn how to work together for the common good.

Or we could just have World War III and wait for the Vulcans to show up....

 

[Dayton3]

Star Trek is focused around a military organization. High technology and weapons along with the military ranking structure is very prominent.

Military organizations tend to be conservative by nature.

Plus, Star Trek as a whole is pretty "America centric".

 

[Hermiod]

That's it exactly. Conservative means sticking with the bad old days, liberalism works for a better future.

Not so much, even as a L/liberal (big and small L) I can see that C/conservative can just mean not fixing what's not broke.

 

[Elmo Dukat]

First of all, it's more accurate to say that this question is about Right Wing versus Left Wing, not conservative and liberal.

Having said that, I was shocked when I first came online and discovered that there were Right Wing Trekkies. Of course, having grown up in the Civil Rights Era, I'm shocked that there's still a Right Wing....

Now, as for why a neo-con/modern Republican would like Trek? I dunno... space battles and hot chicks?

No, they want the hot chicks censored. They do like violence, though.

The idea of saying that Trek should only be enjoyed by one type of people would seem to be contradictory to the very tenets of the franchise, would it not?

Not really, because the question is not about a franchise that advocates tolerance, it's about a demographic that is inherently intolerant.

This is such a difficult question for us Northies or Southies. That is, not the Lefties or Righties. On the two-dimensional political map, I'm a Northie (libertarian), which means social and economic liberalism, in the classic sense of liberalism which means free, pertaining to liberty, etc (before the term was hijacked by Progressives in the 30s). That is, civil and market freedoms.

As a Northie, I think there's a lot in Trek we enjoy. While there seems to be odd disincentives in the Federation economic system (which don't seem to disincentivize people), for the most part it's pretty free --- if you are a good tailor, you will get more business, if you are a good captain you will be promoted, and so forth. Merit-based. So there's that.

As for social liberalism, that exists as well, through the merit system. Regardless of your species, you can too be Starfleet officer, as long as you prove yourself worthy via the same route as anyone else. It's interesting that Roddenberry identified as a Progressive, because there wasn't a hint of positive discrimination in Trek --- that is, special conciliations to a certain group or class (outside of war or refugee protections), but there was a very strong merit system.

So Northies have a lot in Trek to enjoy. In fact, I'd argue it's more of a Northie series than any other quadrant.

 

[Elmo Dukat]

The trouble is that you belie the very point you attempt to make, with a statement like that. To automatically equate conservatives with sexism and racism is the exact sort of broadbrushing you point to the extreme right and say you don't like.

Sexism, racism and other forms of intolerance are well-known attributes of Right Wing ideology and have been for a long time. Don't blame me.

While I understand that to which you refer, let's not forget that it was the Republican party which fought against slavery. And I find a good deal of Progressive elitism highly intolerant. They condescend to nearly everyone except themselves. They consider nearly anyone except for their small group to be stupid, and view the masses as children which need constant control and direction. So intolerance cuts both ways, RJ.

 

[kv1at3485]

Star Trek is focused around a military organization. High technology and weapons along with the military ranking structure is very prominent.

Military organizations tend to be conservative by nature.

Plus, Star Trek as a whole is pretty "America centric".

Not only that, but ST is also socially conservative. It's about people who've successfully resisted being changed by science and technology. One of the unfortunate consequences of a show which is essentially "20th century people in the 23rd century."

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

The trouble is that you belie the very point you attempt to make, with a statement like that. To automatically equate conservatives with sexism and racism is the exact sort of broadbrushing you point to the extreme right and say you don't like.

Sexism, racism and other forms of intolerance are well-known attributes of Right Wing ideology and have been for a long time. Don't blame me.

And that's quite narrow of you to dismiss every conservative's view in that manner. There are extremists of whom that would be true, but what I see you doing is demonstrating intolerance towards those who disagree with your views and making unwarranted, stereotype-based assumptions. What that does is create a straw man you can beat up on instead of having to actually give consideration to the fact that another viewpoint may have something to it.

As a woman from a conservative family, I was never kept down or oppressed in any manner. I was never, ever raised in such a way to believe that all I was good for was to be "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen," or that a marriage was supposed to be anything but equal. Or that I even have to marry to be a worthwhile person.

But I also do not believe in dropping accusations of sexism to get my way. That's the conservative in me: if I win, I want to win fair, because I was the most capable and qualified, not because I was somebody's diversity pick or because someone was afraid I might drag their reputation through the mud if they displease me. I may not make much, but what I make, I'm going to make by hard work and I intend to earn every dime I take home with that work, not by any other means.

Nor is bigotry part and parcel with the conservative ideology. Being of a right-wing ideology does not mean I want to dance around with a sheet on my head and burn crosses on people's lawn OR even that I must harbor some pernicious, subconscious desire to do so.

That you would make such an assumption I find quite offensive and, I must say, intolerant.

This, to me, is the difference between the extreme right and the extreme left. The extreme right, however repugnant its views, will make no bones about what they are (think Ann Coulter)--they will come right out and say whatever offensive thing is on their mind.

No, they make extensive use of rhetoric, doubletalk, newspeak and all other forms of dissembling.

I hate to break it to you, but that's a darned-near universal trait of politicians, not a left-right thing. Any politician that's not an extremist is going to use the doubletalk. But when you look at the extreme right--your Coulters and Falwells and Robertsons and Westboro Churches--you'll find their ugliness to be quite blatant and undisguised.

To have a little fun with this...here's the difference between the way people react to offensive statements from the left and from the right...

Let's say a conservative person walks in and drops a great big pile of poo in the middle of the table. The reaction is immediate: "That's crap and it stinks! Get it out of here!" That person is rightly castigated and made to atone for the mess.

Let's say a liberal person walks in and drops a great big pile of poo in the middle of the table. Somebody tries to criticize them. But the liberal person snaps back: "If you criticize this, than you're anti-manure and you want to destroy the environment!" And everybody gives a great big round of applause to the liberal and the person who objected suddenly becomes the bad guy.

The trouble is, both have been equally disrespectful and offensive, and one might say, intolerant of others' olfactory nerves...but only one actually gets called on it, and in the second case, the person who spoke out against it is the one who gets in trouble!

 

[Peach Wookiee]

I'm just a noob around here, for sure, but I can't help noticing - mostly through avatars - that there are a lot of conservative trekkies. And I'm wondering how that could be?

I mean Roddenberry was pretty much a miscegenating, atheist, commie at least by the time of TNG. Trek is pretty much all about progressive politics, with its on again, off again currency, socialized medicine, shunning of material gain, and rehab colonies. I know Enterprise was more "Bush Era" in its phylosophy, but it didn't really work out, possibly for those reasons.

So what do these Obama-fearing, right winging, some times homophobic Trekkies see in the series? Is it all about the tech and sci-fi and not about the culture and politics? I'm not saying get the F out or anything, Im just curious.

Your query is flawed, with all due respect. You assume that people who are conservative couldn't get anything out of Trek.

Now in answer, I like the optimism of a future that says we're all going to figure things out and get better as a whole world. It's a world where everyone lives and lets live. Terrorism is gone, unless aliens show up to do it. Poverty is gone and everything is a lot better. Sure, the future isn't perfect, but it is better because we found a way to heal.