Star Trek - The "Leftist" Future

[seigezunt]

I couldn't care less about what philosophies or political leanings Star Trek has embedded in it.

All I care about is..."is it entertaining?"

This.

TOS was a kind of Kennedy-era liberal in its leanings, the kind that probably nowadays would be lumper under the term "neoliberalism," I'm guessing. TOS avoided showing what life on Earth looked like, on purpose, to avoid getting into how its economy would work, or how world peace was achieved. Later series delved into that, much to their peril, which has left us with this morass that we struggle with whenever we try to consider how this utopian future works.

I think if you're trying to unpack what kind of politics "Star Trek" has, I'm going to ask, which series? Each had a different flavor.

Personally, I think it's best to think of Star Trek as heroic myth that speaks to and reflects our society of the moment, so each series is flavored by what is going on in American (and it's very much American) history and culture at the time. It's not that the politics are secondary, but rather they are background, and can induce madness on close examination.

 

[Spot261]

Well Starfleet is supposed to be an idealised version of the tool of imperialism that is the US Navy and the United Federation of Planets is clearly supposed to based on the United States of America. There is some superficial examples of egalitarianism on display and it is stated that poverty has been eliminated and money has been abolished, but on the whole it is more about depicting a cliched Utopian vision of the future than anything.

Not really, Starfleet was explicitly based on the British Navy as portrayed in the Horatio Hornblower stories, whereas the UFP operates exactly nothing like America on any level politically or economically.

It's closer to an idealised version of the UN, albeit with closer ties between the powers.

 

[Mudd]

Not really, Starfleet was explicitly based on the British Navy as portrayed in the Horatio Hornblower stories.

Not so much. Starfleet - or, perhaps at the time, sometimes, "Star Fleet" - in 1964 was recognizably the WWII-era American Navy, with Hornblower-esque qualities grafted on to it.

Roddenberry claimed, over the years, to have been inspired by Hornblower among a great many other things.

It was only when Nicholas Meyer took over as director on TWOK that he decided to transplant and emphasize some details recognizable from Hollywood's version of the Imperial British Navy.

 

[fireproof78]

Personally, I think it's best to think of Star Trek as heroic myth that speaks to and reflects our society of the moment, so each series is flavored by what is going on in American (and it's very much American) history and culture at the time. It's not that the politics are secondary, but rather they are background, and can induce madness on close examination.

That is the nature of storytelling, yes.

 

[Spot261]

Not so much. Starfleet - or, perhaps at the time, sometimes, "Star Fleet" - in 1964 was recognizably the WWII-era American Navy, with Hornblower-esque qualities grafted on to it.

Roddenberry claimed, over the years, to have been inspired by Hornblower among a great many other things.

It was only when Nicholas Meyer took over as director on TWOK that he decided to transplant and emphasize some details recognizable from Hollywood's version of the Imperial British Navy.

I'm genuinely surprised that you of all people would post this.

From the TOS writers' guide, written by Roddenberry himself;

CAN YOU FIND THE MAJOR STAR TREK ERROR IN THE FOLLOWING
"TEASER" FROM A STORY OUTLINE?

The scene is the Bridge of the U.S.S. (United States
Spaceship) Enterprise. Captain Kirk is at his command
position, his lovely but highly efficient female Yeoman
at his side. Suddenly and without provocation, our
Starship is attacked by an alien space vessel. We try
to warn the alien vessel off, but it ignores us and
begins loosening bolts of photon energy-plasma at us.
The alien vessel's attack begins to weaken our deflectors.
Mister Spock reports to Captain Kirk that the next
enemy bolt will probably break through and destroy the
Enterprise. At this moment we look up to see that final
energy-plasma bolt heading for us. There may be only
four or five seconds of life left. Kirk puts his arms
about his lovely Yeoman, comforting and embracing her
as they wait for what seems certain death. FADE OUT.
(END TEASER)
PLEASE CHECK 0NE:
( ) Inaccurate terminology. The Enterprise is more
correctly an international vessel, the United
Spaceship Enterprise.

THE CREW
International in origin, completely multi-racial.
But even in this future century we will see some
traditional trappings, ornaments, and styles
that suggest the Asiatic, the Arabic, the Latin
etc. So far, Mister Spook has been our only
crew-man with blood lines from another planet.
However, it is not impossible that we might
discover some other aliens or part aliens
working aboard our Starship.
We like ways of using the crewmen (extras as well
as actors) to help suggest the enormous diversity
of our vessel.

CAPTAIN JAMES T. KIRK
Played by William Shatner, Kirk is about thirty-four, an
Academy graduate, rank of Starship Captain. A shorthand
sketch of him might be "A space-age Captain Horatio Hornblower",
constantly on trial with himself, a strong, complex personality.

With the Starship out of communication with Earth and Starfleet
bases for long periods of time, a Starship captain has unusually
broad powers over both the lives and welfare of his crew, as
well as over Earth people and activities encountered during
these voyages. He also has broad power as an Earth Ambassador
to alien societies in his galaxy sector or on new worlds he
may discover. Kirk feels these responsibilities strongly
and is fully capable of letting the worry and frustration
lead him into error.

Is the starship U.S.S. Enterprise a military vessel?
Yes, but only semi-military in practice -- omitting features
which are heavily authoritarian. For example, we are not
aware of "officers" and "enlisted men" categories. And we
avoid saluting and other annoying medieval leftovers. On
the other hand, we do keep a flavor of Naval usage and
terminology to help encourage believability and identifica-
tion by the audience. After all, our own Navy today still
retains remnants of tradition known to Nelson and Drake.

What is Earth like in STAR TREK'S CENTURY?
For one thing, we'll never take a story back there and
therefore don't expect to get into subjects which would
create great problems, technical and otherwise. The "U.S.S."
on our ship designation stands for "United Space Ship" --
indicating (without troublesome specifics) that mankind has
found some unity on Earth, perhaps at long last even peace.
If you require a statement such as one that Earth cities of
the future are splendidly planned with fifty-mile parkland
strips around them, fine. But television today simply will
not let us get into details of Earth's politics of STAR
TREK,'S century; for example, which socio-economic system
ultimately worked out best.

So very much and very explicitly not the US and not the US navy from the word go.

 

[BillJ]

So very much and very explicitly not the US and not the US navy from the word go.

Until they started hiring other writers and producing episodes. Once that happened, it very clearly was the US and US Navy.

 

[cooleddie74]

And given how most of the actors and characters in the franchise have American or at least North American accents...yeah.

 

[Rahul]

I'm genuinely surprised that you of all people would post this.

From the TOS writers' guide, written by Roddenberry himself;

So very much and very explicitly not the US and not the US navy from the word go.

I so much love all the quotes you posted there!

Really, every current and future Trek writer should just read the TOS writers guide. That's really all you ever need to make great Star Trek!

 

[Vger23]

I think a lot of Trek fans like to leverage everyone's mutual love of the franchise to justify their own political leanings.

"Hey, Picard said capitalism is BAD...so WTF...everyone who loves Star Trek must agree that capitalism is BAD, RIGHT???" (this is just a made-up example, btw)

It's almost as if some believe that the persistence of a particular political / social / religious / philosophical leaning in Trek justifies (or at least solidifies) their own position somehow. When, of course, it does nothing of the sort. It's just a writer spewing a bunch of fantasy through the mouths of made-up characters.

I've generally stayed WAAAAAAAAAAY clear of those kinds of discussions.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And given how most of the actors and characters in the franchise have American or at least North American accents...yeah.

Trek needs more accents.

A starship captain from Newfoundland, an engineer from Philadelphia, a navigator from Liverpool, a science officer from Boston, a truly Geordie La Forge ("Why aye man! I can get Warp 5 for yas like!")...come on people, do I hafta think of everything?

 

[BillJ]

I think a lot of Trek fans like to leverage everyone's mutual love of the franchise to justify their own political leanings.

I've watched Star Trek for a really long time, since my formative years. So, I think some of it has rubbed off. But my overall political leanings don't really gel well with it.

Especially the "we'll let everyone die because its nature's plan" non-sense of the 24th century Prime Directive.

 

[David cgc]

I so much love all the quotes you posted there!

Really, every current and future Trek writer should just read the TOS writers guide. That's really all you ever need to make great Star Trek!

My favorite part is how the first section excerpted shits all over Universally Beloved Classic Episode "Balance of Terror" as its example (more or less) of what not to do with regard to Kirk and Rand sharing a terrified embrace. Really brings you back to when Star Trek was still being invented and wasn't an institution.

 

[Vger23]

I've watched Star Trek for a really long time, since my formative years. So, I think some of it has rubbed off. But my overall political leanings don't really gel well with it.

Especially the "we'll let everyone die because its nature's plan" non-sense of the 24th century Prime Directive.

Yeah, I tend to feel the same way. If anything, I think the idea of diversity probably wore off on me the most. Being raised in the late 70's and 80's wasn't the most enlightened time (nor is now...btw!), but I think that I got very used to the idea of different people from different backgrounds all working together at a very young age (due to my near-birth exposure/obsession with Trek), even if that wasn't the norm in my community.

For that, I am grateful.

But, most of the other stuff (particularly the more expanded stuff from the 90's era....as the TOS era was pretty vague) I just view as pleasant (?) fantasy and certainly don't let it affect how I view the world or myself. Nor do I allow someone to argue a point with me "because Janeway said so about economics" or whatever.

 

[Spot261]

Until they started hiring other writers and producing episodes. Once that happened, it very clearly was the US and US Navy.

True, but the point of order was what Starfleet was "supposed to be", not what it defaulted to over time due to the realities of time, budgetary constraints or (dare I say it?) effort and motivation.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Maybe this isn't true of Discovery(I don't watch it) but the great thing about Star Trek was that both liberals and conservatives could claim it as their own.

That was actually the point of the video.

 

[The Wormhole]

Starfleet is a military but they don't like it for waging war or creating fear and believe in things like a proportional response. They will almost never fire the first shot in any conflict.

While I don't want to start That Argument, I do feel I should point out there are many militaries today that try avoid war or creating fear, won't fire first and do believe in proportional response. If anything, the sadly ironic part of The Argument is that the supposedly non-military Starfleet actually behaves more rigidly military like than many militaries do today. Remember TNG when Riker walked in on a young officer getting dressed, and that officer had to immediately stop and stand at attention? Even in the strictest of modern militaries, you're allowed to finished getting dressed before saluting a superior officer. Indeed, it's encouraged since no commander wants to have to stare at someone in their underwear, for fear of being accused of sexual harassment.