Why were there some corrupt admirals in Star Trek?

[The Rock]

I always found it funny, yet strange, that we saw a good amount of corrupt admirals in the Star Trek shows. You would figure that at that point in human history, when humans have decided to put aside their petty differences towards a better future for the human race, humanity would have evolved to a point where selfless interests would come first rather than selfish interests.

Was it being implied that no matter how enlightened humanity gets, there will always be some degree of corruption among us?

 

[Space Cowboy]

Yeah, I see it as while society as a whole is great and good, there'll always be a few bad apples. Unfortunately, the bad apples tend to be ambitious and frequently make flag rank.

 

[Dale]

Power corrupts, and the corrupt often seek power... even in the "enlightened 24th."

 

[Bacl]

Star Trek always had an undercurrent of "Once you get behind a desk...you lose touch, and lose yourself."

The uninformed or detached admiral was common as a result of this philosophy. The perfect foil to Picard or Kirk is a superior who "Just doesn't see it that way" from their comfy desk on Earth.

 

[Nedersong]

If you listen to their justifications for their corruption, they always feel as if they're being selfless and doing it for a much larger issue, such as the Admiral in Insurrection. But I feel as if that particular admiral had known about the bloodfeud he might have called it off.

 

[Cyke101]

In TNG and DS9, to me it seemed that for every bad Admiral, there was a good Admiral. Oh, and Hansen can kick the crud out of Leyton ANY day.

Admiral Ross is a whole other can of worms. I'll leave that up to all of you.

 

[TGTheodore]

The nuts and bolts answer: later creative folks found it hard (or boring) to keep the "we've solved all our problems" aspect of Trek intact. It's much easier to break a rule than to uphold it.

So they decided to start putting chinks into the Federation and Starfleet's shining armor.

For better or worse.

--Ted

 

[Dale]

The nuts and bolts answer: later creative folks found it hard (or boring) to keep the "we've solved all our problems" aspect of Trek intact. It's much easier to break a rule than to uphold it.

So they decided to start putting chinks into the Federation and Starfleet's shining armor.

For better or worse.

--Ted

Insert racist joke here.

He's right, though... an internal antagonist can make for some good storytelling and avoid "forehead of the week" problems.

 

[JNG]

I never thought any of the admirals seemed to be acting out of "selfish interests," exactly; I believed they were just more willing to use their influence to push through agendas that, while understandable, sometimes ran counter to the deeply held beliefs of Our Heroes. Pressman in "The Pegasus" is an interesting example; I believe he really thought he needed to push through that phase cloak research to protect the Federation, even though I also think he was wrong to break the treaty. Dougherty wanted to save lives and I think that just spiraled out of control, albeit inevitably from the moment the Federation first compromised its principles out of expediency. In "I, Borg" Picard was kind of acting like this until his crew convinced him the planned anti-Borg measures, while arguably necessary, had a moral cost that was too high.

And sure, on top of that there are going to be a few bad apples. I just find it hard to believe that any of them could make it to starship captain or similar position, let alone admiral. Trek often falls back on mental illness for the reason people misbehave.

 

[Arpy]

This kind of annoyed me as well...wouldn't admirals be even better human beings than those below them? I always thought it should be the ensigns that were the ones making the biggest mistakes - were the ones who'd stray furthest from the evolved pack.

At the very least, we should have occasionally seen an admiral or someone at HQ that showed us why he's there and our heroes haven't achieved his level of advancement. I always liked the idea of a Federation councilor being like one of Socrates's philosopher kings.

Sincerely,
An idealistic fool.

 

[Krieg1981]

I'm glad there is a certain amount of corruption, it wouldn't be nearly as believable without human foibles! Besides, nefarious plots always work better when high ranking officers are involved. Opens more doors!

 

[TGTheodore]

For me is was like they gave up. They couldn't maintain the ideal and use external antagonists, so they broke down and essentially said "We were just kidding. We still suck as a planetary race."

--Ted

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

In TNG and DS9, to me it seemed that for every bad Admiral, there was a good Admiral. Oh, and Hansen can kick the crud out of Leyton ANY day.

Admiral Ross is a whole other can of worms. I'll leave that up to all of you.

Forget all of those guys. Admiral Forrest was the best of the good ones. He's the Optimus Prime of admirals.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Well, in my opinion, the whole "humanity is perfect angle" was really really pretentious. Especially in Voyager and Enterprise, where every single alien race was wrong, and we were always right and they almost always learned their lesson. TOS and DS9 had the best approach to characters, IMO. They were evolved people, but had flaws, and didn't always make the right decision.

Internal conflicts are bound to happen, no matter how "perfect" your society is. Conflict is part of human nature, whether it be violent or not. We disagree with each other, because each and every single person out of the 6 billion beings on this planet has their own mind, with their own ideas and their own perception. If there was a world without conflict whatsoever, it would be a world without creativity, and without a dynamic. It would be dead, and it would be sterile.

 

[broberfett]

The Admirals are "The Man" and the Man is getting us down.

 

[LutherSloan]

I would have to agree with the explanation that they lose touch with the true state of the galaxy stuck behind a desk.

However, that doesn't make as much sense for admirals who are stationed on frontier outposts as it does Earth-bound ones.

There have been so few GOOD admirals on ST, we can pretty much count them on one hand.

-Kirk
-Ross
-Forrest
-Janeway?
-Hansen (although he wasn't seen for long)
-Quinn (debatable)

 

[drasche]

I would have to agree with the explanation that they lose touch with the true state of the galaxy stuck behind a desk.

However, that doesn't make as much sense for admirals who are stationed on frontier outposts as it does Earth-bound ones.

There have been so few GOOD admirals on ST, we can pretty much count them on one hand.

-Kirk
-Ross
-Forrest
-Janeway?
-Hansen (although he wasn't seen for long)
-Quinn (debatable)

You can add Admiral Henry (Starfleet Security), seen in TNG's The Drumhead. He leaves the room when retired admiral Satie verbally attacks Picard for using her father's name.

 

[LutherSloan]

I would have to agree with the explanation that they lose touch with the true state of the galaxy stuck behind a desk.

However, that doesn't make as much sense for admirals who are stationed on frontier outposts as it does Earth-bound ones.

There have been so few GOOD admirals on ST, we can pretty much count them on one hand.

-Kirk
-Ross
-Forrest
-Janeway?
-Hansen (although he wasn't seen for long)
-Quinn (debatable)

You can add Admiral Henry (Starfleet Security), seen in TNG's The Drumhead. He leaves the room when retired admiral Satie verbally attacks Picard for using her father's name.

Yeah. Did he have a speaking line?

 

[drasche]

Yeah. Did he have a speaking line?

None, but it worked very well that way.

 

[LutherSloan]

Yeah. Did he have a speaking line?

None, but it worked very well that way.

Good to see my memory of that episode is still accurate.