Star Trek and the Decline of Liberalism

[Pong Messiah]

Found this article to be... fascinating. Despite the wooden acting and bad effects, I find the original series to be more exciting -- both intellectually and viscerally -- than anything from The Next Generation forward (even with the better acting, effects, and more recently: a lot more explosions).

And philosophically, too! I don't know if the "breakdown of the liberal principles that once guided the series" is the main culprit, but maybe there is something to be said about hard lines? Idealistic, perhaps even naive morality and unsubtle allegory sounds so boring on paper, but I can't deny that the original series still makes me think a heck of a lot more and more often than the other Trek iterations. Is this the product of a more cohesive philosophy behind the show?

This essay traces Star Trek's "fall" from a cohesive humanist, WWII and anti-communism-informed liberal philosophy (most of TOS) to relativism (Undiscovered Country and TNG forward) to a philosophical framework fueled by little more than babbling, animalistic urges (modern/Abramsverse Trek - possibly Enterprise?).

Whether you think it is bull**** or not, I think it is worth a read!

LINK

Personally, I agree with much in this article, though I think it is unfair to lionize Kirk so much -- he can be just as dangerously reckless as Picard was overly passive/observant/relativistic.

[Driver]

Star Trek is always better with political subtext, the less they used of it, the weaker the franchise became.

 

Each Trek show was politically a reflection of its time. TOS was from the era of the civil rights movement and the Cold War.

 

The movie era gave us a change in tone, making things more militaristic as Reagan double downed on the arms race, while also hitting social issues like SAVING THE WHALES, and challenging the rise of Evangelists on TV (TSFS and FF were totally about playing God). And the Klingon Empire and Soviet Union fell at the same time.

 

TNG started near the end of this era, but quickly morphed into being all about the PC 90s where every other episode was about the Prime Directive.

 

DS9 was about conflict in the middle east (though Ron Moore would push it further and better with BSG).

 

VOY was about... something

 

ENT was uhh... I don't think leaving social relevance behind helped make the last couple series stand out...

[Pong Messiah]

FF always pissed me off because there was so much wasted potential in that story. I mean, if, through the final product of an inexperienced director, bad (re)writing and strikes, weak effects and budget cuts, forced humor, incoherent second half, and a deliberately and cowardly watered-down message about religion, you can still see a really neat and thoughtful movie just crying to be made...

 

Star Trek is always better with political subtext, the less they used of it, the weaker the franchise became.

Couldn't agree more. Furthermore, in television, while I usually much prefer story arcs and the opportunity for depth and dramatic growth they provide over standalones, the more Star Trek moved toward larger story arcs, the more it lost me. That contradiction has always kinda puzzled me, but after reading this article, I think that it has to do with Star Trek being a television show about ideas wrapped in the garb of a sci-fi adventure series -- something that doesn't necessarily lend itself to sweeping long-form character drama. Star Trek works best as procedural space morality plays. When it becomes more of a space opera, it can't keep up with the SWs or BSGs.

 

Or not -- I also wonder how much of it is simply Star Trek wandering into the realms of relativism, identity politics, postmodernism, etc. -- the bleatings of which I find tiresome at best. But then again, there's a paradox: I usually find black-and-white/right-and-wrong moralizing to be dull, if not problematic, soooo...

[Driver]

I don't know where they could have gone. In addition to losing interesting political subtext-- or rather, the political climate was so inherently NOT Trek once the war on terror and decline of bipartisanism it didn't know what to do. The Xindi stuff on ENT was supposed to be an approach to a post 9/11 Star Trek... but like I said, BSG was going to crush that.

 

But yeah-- I hadn't thought of the transition to being character driven. Since that has become the favored path to BIG TV shows, along with being more serialized, I'm not sure if Trek could adapt to that in a satisfactory way.

 

The other major sin they committed was that they got so boring and static. One thing the reboot got right was to make Star Trek bombastic and fun and over the top again.

[Pong Messiah]

Agreed, though:

I don't know where they could have gone. In addition to losing interesting political subtext-- or rather, the political climate was so inherently NOT Trek once the war on terror and decline of bipartisanism it didn't know what to do. The Xindi stuff on ENT was supposed to be an approach to a post 9/11 Star Trek... but like I said, BSG was going to crush that.

This makes me wonder if it's less the format and political subtext available to Star Trek than the people handling it? The Xindi arc didn't have to be crushed by BSG, did it? It could have been honed into a great story, I think, and it's not like there was anything revolutionary in the story of BSG, aside from its quality and how the story was told, yes?

 

So, perhaps less a matter of format and lack of "suitable material" than level of craftsmanship?

 

One of my complaints about Season 4 of BSG is how it started to feel like Star Trek, but I wasn't referring to its subtext or ideas so much as the feeling of hand-waving in the writing, and a tighter focus on style (product) while simultaneously loosening the grip on narrative and characterization.

 

Also, since we're on Enterprise -- didn't they try to do current-event allegory, but just stink at it, because it was so clumsy and tepid and (worst of all) cautious? "Stigma" is legendarily bad -- like a Burger King tie-in for AIDS awareness or something. But again, the idea of cultural stigmas, careers being ruined over "immoral" or "deviant" acts that aren't objectively bad, etc... is not bad material, per se, it was just handled horribly.

 

omg epiphany

 

 

One thing the reboot got right was to make Star Trek bombastic and fun and over the top again.

True enough. I will grudgingly give it that.

[Ms. Spam]

I need help. which one is FF? I keep thinking it's final fantasy.

[Pong Messiah]

The Final Frontier, or: The Movie that Almost Killed Star Trek Forever

[Ms. Spam]

GAWDDAMMIT. I knew asking that would bring memories of that back up. Why do I do these things to myself?

[Driver]

Agreed, though:

 

I don't know where they could have gone. In addition to losing interesting political subtext-- or rather, the political climate was so inherently NOT Trek once the war on terror and decline of bipartisanism it didn't know what to do. The Xindi stuff on ENT was supposed to be an approach to a post 9/11 Star Trek... but like I said, BSG was going to crush that.

 

This makes me wonder if it's less the format and political subtext available to Star Trek than the people handling it? The Xindi arc didn't have to be crushed by BSG, did it? It could have been honed into a great story, I think, and it's not like there was anything revolutionary in the story of BSG, aside from its quality and how the story was told, yes?

 

 

Oh definitely-- but I don't know if the powers that be wanted to let them. According to Ronald Moore, he wanted to get gritty and jacked up with DS9, but was constantly reeled in by Paramount who felt it had to remain a certain level of Star Trek happy/idealistic... or rather, still safe for network/syndication advertising investments.

 

BSG as a cable show didn't have to worry about that. For them, subscription fees paid for the show, and advertising was extra income.

 

As a key franchise, CBS/Viacom/Paramount will not ever likely take a HUGE risk with Star Trek.

[Jacen123]

I've only watched a good portion of the first season of TOS, some episodes of TNG here and there, and almost nothing of Voyager or Enterprise, but I really enjoyed DS9. When it aired, I only saw a few episodes, but remembered thinking it was really good. A year and a half ago, though, I watched through the whole series on Netflix in just a few months. It probably helped that I felt like shit at the time and didn't feel motivated for much else, but even the least serialized parts of it kept me wanting to come back for the next episode. It also may have helped that, as Seth has mentioned, Moore's BSG's roots are easily seen in it, which was fascinating to me, too, but, while there were certainly some not good episodes, I loved that cast and the whole story line.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

I've always thought Star Trek works best as a TV series, rather than film. The films hit a high-water mark at Star Trek 2, as far as I am concerned, with Star Trek 3 being a lesser, but worthy sequel, and 4 being OK, 5 to be ignored, and 6 a flawed sendoff. TNG should have ended with All Good Things, as the 4 films were pretty mediocre to bad, First Contact the only decent of the lot. The reboot films were good action summer blockbuster films, but totally forgettable. As for series, TNG is always going to be my favorite show, with TOS and DS9 tied for a very close second. I can take or leave Voyager and Enterprise, which I considered filler.

 

 

But really, the federalist is like a modern day John Birch Society website, so to me, the whole point of this article is not so much let's discuss Star Trek, but "Hey look, Star Trek shows how lib-ruls have degenerated! Lib-ruls used to be JFK, now they stand for nothing." The fact the author thinly veils this point by comparing Kirk and Picard, is incidental. And he uses cut scenes from one of the worst Star Trek movies made, Insurrection, and misrepresents Picard's stance in avoiding getting involved in the Klingon Civil war to make his point, is a flawed interpretation, IMHO. For example, the author unfairly makes it sounds like Picard didn't take any action, but what really happened was he didn't take direct action to interfere with the Klingon Civil War, because he didn't want to give the Romulans an excuse for open war. Instead, Picard leads a blockade against the Romulans, and provides intel to the legitimate Klingon government, and uncovers the traitors and Romulan intervention.

 

The author also elevates TOS to the level of Shakepearian high art, when most of its episodes were basically action adventure, alternating between Bonanza and and Horatio Hornblower in space. There are some good TOS episodes, and the actors, particularly Nimoy, Shatner, and Kelley, were superior actors. But this was not some show of enlightenment the author, and quite frankly, many fans, make it out to be.

 

But as for the two lesser shows, Voyager and Enterprise, it has nothing to do with the decline and fall of liberal civilization, and everything to do with at that point in time, almost every plot point had been explored in one of the other star trek shows or movies that came before them, and they were just rehashing. Not to mention, both of those shows were on UPN. That, in of itself, one can rest their case on, for the cause of the decline in quality in writing.

[Pong Messiah]

Thoughtful post, and I agree with your analysis. Especially in regards to being overboard with Kirk effusiveness and dismissing Picard. As saccharine and hand-holdy as TNG could get at times, Picard was actually quite nuanced and capable, and Patrick Stewart occasionally brilliant in the role -- regardless of the material he had to work with. While I prefer TOS as entertainment, you'd have to be nuts to pick Kirk over Picard, IMO.

 

It really weakens your argument when you use somebody like Kirk -- who was unpredictable, whose passions and ego are close to the surface -- as your poster child of a more rational, lucid era of liberalism when the brainier and more duty-bound Picard is like, right there in front of you.

 

The overall thesis was, in the most general sense, accurate (i.e. the basic philosophy going from cold war liberalism ---> relativism and identify politics ---> grunting), but the author was really reaching with those two characters. And as touched on before, the "badness" of how later ST handled political issues (scare quotes because some people will fight to the death for TNG's honor) may simply be a matter of how they were handled (clumsy, safe, and surface level), rather than the issues themselves.

 

I find aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophical outlook to be utterly repellent, but that doesn't mean there aren't parts of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged I consider brilliant -- while I can't think of a specific gag-inducing allegory in TNG or DS9 (or Voyager or Enterprise for that matter), I could still appreciate a well-presented morality tale, even if I disagreed with it. And maybe that's the issue? As Driver pointed out, ST became more property than art over time -- why on earth would it be allowed to force people to think or make them uncomfortable, especially today?

 

 

-------

 

I also assumed everybody knew that most of what gets posted on The Federalist is right-leaning or an attack on progressive liberalism (or both). In its defense, it has a handful of good, or at least informative essays each year, which is more than can be said of many websites -- and for the most part, it keeps the real lunatics in the comments section, rather than allowing them to post articles, a la Townhall. Sorry, I wasn't trying to sneak attack you with right wing propaganda, Chalups!

[Driver]

Every episode of Star Trek, simplified.

 

TOS:

Kirk: I think I should do this thing.

Spock: I recommend not doing that thing.

McCoy: Damn it, do the thing, but be prepared for the **** to hit the fan.

Spock: Seriously, don't do the thing... but if you must here's how.

Kirk: I'M DOING THE THING!!!!!!!

 

TNG:

Picard: Should we do this thing?

Riker: I'd do the thing hard.

Troi: I don't think we feel good about the thing.

Crusher: Remember that one time you did the thing and my husband died?

Data: If I were human, I'd do the thing.

Geordi: If we do the thing we might have to eject the warp core.

Worf: I recommend firing photon torpedos.

Wesley: I broke the ship testing a theory about the thing. But it's cool cause I fixed it.

Picard: Senior staff to the officer's lounge... everyone here? I think we should do this thing, but here's what will happen.

Guinan: Are you doing the thing, or is the thing doing you?

Picard: LET'S DO THE THING.

 

DS9:

Sisko: I want to do this thing-- but it might make me into a bad person.

Kira: The prophets say do the thing, and that's all that matters.

Dax: Oh man-- this one time a hundred years ago I did a thing similar.

Quark: There has to be a way to make money off this thing.

Sisko: I want to do this thing, I'm going to hang out on the holodeck until it comes to me.

O'Brien: If it hurts the Cardassians I say do the thing.

Odo: Do the thing or don't do the thing. Either way results require more action.

Sisko: I'm doing the thing, but it's going to eat away at me for years to come.

Nog: MY LEG!

 

VOY:

Janeway: Listen I'm going to do this thing, but I want you to think I may not because I like to challenge the status quo... but come on, let's do the thing.

Chakotay: When I was Captain of a Marquis ship we did this sort of thing all the time.

Kim: I think we should do the thing. Unless this is season 1-5, in which case I'm not sure of we should do the thing. Or anything. Ever.

Torres: I broke the ship cause the thing made me mad, but it's cool cause I fixed it. For now.

Seven of Nine: The Borg have encountered the thing many times. Look at my tits.

EMH: Please state the name and nature of the thing.

Neelix: Can I cook the thing or have an overwhelming emotional reaction to it?

Tuvok: I surmise the thing is... why is everyone falling asleep while I talk?

Kes: Where's the meth?

 

ENT:

Archer: I want to do the thing but the Vulcans won't let us!!

T'Pol: I will investigate the thing, but I will need time in stasis with the decon gel rubbed on my naked body afterwards.

Trip: I'm in. Just don't tell me about my engines.

Hoshi: I can understand what the thing is saying. It's beautiful.

Malcolm: I may be the most boring character ever on a bridge in a Star Trek story.

Mayweather: Nope, that's me.

Phlox: I think I had a thing sample.. but I lost it.

Archer: Somehow I think this thing is something that SOMEDAY WINK WINK will be a more interesting thing.... are the Vulcans looking? No? I'M DOING THE THING!!!

[Darth Krawlie]

How many goddamn warp cores did the Enterprise D have, anyway?

[D-Ray Kenobi]

I'm by no means a Trekkie, I really don't have that much interest in the overall mythology like I would for things like Star Wars or Tolkien. But TNG is easily my favorite TV show ever, just by way of the amazing Sci Fi stories and analogies it has. I love the JJ Abrams movies as fun futuristic action movies, but he totally dropped the ball on giving them any subtext or larger meaning like Old School Trek did. Even if they weren't that great, at least some of the lesser movies with the original cast tried to say something about foreign relations with the overall Klingon arc.

It's funny this has come up because for some reason the concept of the utopian Trek society has been something on my mind recently. I'd been lurking here and had seen the other thread where you guys were talking about the overall conversation of whether or not capitalism is evil. I'd say that capitalism is far from perfect, but it's the best we've got and can implement right now. If we could ever collectively bring ourselves to that point, I'd argue that a moneyless society that puts collective achievement and personal enrichment over competition or conflict is way better. Perhaps not for the individual, but definitely for the nation or species. I do agree that it kind of sucks that the thesis of Trek has moved into going for more mass appeal subjects like military conflict or materialistic goals, but at the same time I think the ideas in TOS or TNG could still come to place.

Science Fiction often gives us kind of a blueprint for technologies that we haven't figured out yet, but will some day. The idea of a personal computer in your pocket that has access to the world's information is something that Tesla had an idea for back in the 20's and writers like Jerry Pournelle came up with back in the 60's and 70's. If Sci Fi can predict technological advances, why can't it predict societal or economic ones? I think in the current political and economic climate, that utopian society without currency or whatever is extremely far off. But who is to say it's impossible at some point?

[Driver]

One thing about Star Trek and capitalism. In TOS and TNG it was made clear there is no money in the future. It was revised in later shows that the Federation worked on some system of no money, but other governments, especially the Ferengi, did.

[D-Ray Kenobi]

It really comes down to your own interpretation, but I'd always seen the Federation as an organization that thought they had things pretty well figured out. While they'd stay completely out of developing civilizations and wouldn't outrightly interfere with developed ones, they'd still try to act as a leading examples for other societies. That's why TNG focused more on diplomacy instead of conflict, and why Picard was so much more introspective than Kirk.

I just watched an episode yesterday that I hadn't seen in years that has this fresh on my mind. It was a TNG episode called "The Wounded" where a renegade captain caused a diplomatic rift between the Cardassians and the Federation when he went off the handle claiming that they were arming for war. Picard and the Cardassian captain worked hard to maintain a peace, and Picard in essence bit his tongue and let things slide when he found out the renegade captain was right and that the Cardassians were in fact pursuing military targets instead of scientific research like they claimed. He was firm about it, but instead chose the prospect of peace over a far easier immediate conflict.

I think that's kind of the optimistic pursuit of Trek in general. It forgoes the easier short term solutions in favor of pursuing a better longer term one. Whether it be diplomacy or economics.

[Pong Messiah]

One thing about Star Trek and capitalism. In TOS and TNG it was made clear there is no money in the future.

When it comes to TOS, it really depends on who was writing the story.

 

Kirk talked about money/cost issues and the crew was "spending their money" on Tribbles in TOS, while McCoy says "Price you name, money I got!" when trying to get a ride to the Mutara Nebula in TSFS, and Scotty says he bought a boat in The Undiscovered Country.

 

But on the flip side, in TVH, there's a notable restaurant scene and a few other instances that show Kirk has completely forgotten about money since TOS, and is even confused by the concept... either that or he's just a super cheap date.

 

It has been an even longer time since I've seen any TNG, but I do recall it being more consistent with the "no money in The Federation" idea.

[Pong Messiah]

If Sci Fi can predict technological advances, why can't it predict societal or economic ones? I think in the current political and economic climate, that utopian society without currency or whatever is extremely far off. But who is to say it's impossible at some point?

That is a good question! And I think you kind of answered it yourself. Science fiction has a far weaker track record when it comes to predicting changes in humanity vs. changes in technology, and I'd say it's because (to go kind of Roddenberry on ya) blueprints for devices with singular functions are far easier build upon than humans beings, with their delightfully messy differences in ideas and attitudes and half-savage nature.

 

Technology doesn't (yet) have desire, personal bias, and the ability to deceive itself.

[The Kurgan]

One thing about Star Trek and capitalism. In TOS and TNG it was made clear there is no money in the future. It was revised in later shows that the Federation worked on some system of no money, but other governments, especially the Ferengi, did.

 

Since they have the ability to replicate matter in ST, at least the later ones, this does away with the issue of scarcity. Economics is, by definition, about how societies manage scarce resources. They don't seem to fully explore the implications of the impact abolishing scarcity in this way would have on society, though. Especially with the ferengi, whose 'hat' is pretty much all about capitalism.

[Pong Messiah]

Since they have the ability to replicate matter in ST, at least the later ones, this does away with the issue of scarcity.

Yeah, contradictions aside (not a criticism -- you'll get that from a huge property that has evolved over the year), ST basically has a "reputation based" economy.

[The Kurgan]

 

If Sci Fi can predict technological advances, why can't it predict societal or economic ones? I think in the current political and economic climate, that utopian society without currency or whatever is extremely far off. But who is to say it's impossible at some point?

 

That is a good question! And I think you kind of answered it yourself. Science fiction has a far weaker track record when it comes to predicting changes in humanity vs. changes in technology, and I'd say it's because (to go kind of Roddenberry on ya) blueprints for devices with singular functions are far easier build upon than humans beings, with their delightfully messy differences in ideas and attitudes ...

I read a proverb once, saying to the effect that any writer can come up with the automobile. A mark of true skill as a writer is also coming up with smog, traffic jams and making out in the back seat. I think there's a lot of truth to this.

[Driver]

There's a great Cracked article I can't find now that talks about movies that have some piece of tech in the story that doesn't really recognize the effect it would actually have on society within the movie.

 

A Star Trek example would be how Into Darkness establishes a planet to planet transporter, making the need for Starships nil.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

Related only because Star Trek...

 

http://wate.com/2015/09/15/star-trek-voyagers-kes-charged-with-exposing-herself-to-children-in-harriman/

 

 

And apparently back in April she rammed a police cruiser, and in 2012, she was arrested for domestic violence.

 

 

THAT used to be Kes. Let that sink in for a minute.

 

 

I suppose going from celebrity, to living in Harriman, TN, a place that looks like the set of Justified, would drive anyone crazy or to meth, or both.

 

Another irony: Harriman was the name of the captain of the Enterprise-B.

[Driver]

Kes: Where's the meth?