In Defense of Star Trek's Liberalism (Or: The Non-Federalist Federation)

It has been a while since I have posted here, but I felt compelled to revisit Star Trek. Timothy Sandefur has an article over at The Federalist called "How Star Trek Explains The Decline Of Liberalism", and it is not only factually incorrect but it is indicative of the attitudes that are destroying modern society.

There, I think that is a pretty eye-catching opening statement.
I am no stranger to holding strong opinions on both politics and popular culture, but I have never attempted to actually rebut an article from so noted a source as "The Federalist" before, so I feel a need to state my credentials.

I adore Star Trek, and have seen every single episode and movie, most of them more than a few times. That is it. Those are my credentials. Hardly sufficient to be taken seriously rebutting Timothy Sandefur on liberalism. But that is all right. I am not going to argue about his timeline of Liberalism, from Kennedy liberalism to the New Left to the Neo-Liberalism of today.

Nor am I going to argue with his claim that Star Trek has declined. It sadly has. Leaving aside the new movies, which save for Into Darkness are decent mindless action films with characters who bear a passing resemblance to those from Star Trek, I do not think it can be denied that Voyager, Enterprise, and the movies of the Next Generation did not live up to the standards of their predecessors.

I am, however, going to argue most vociferously with the ridiculous claim that this decline was due to the mirrored decline of liberalism. Because after reading this article I have to ask: Has Sandefur even seen Star Trek?

I ask this because his examples are not just radical reinterpretations, they are frequently simply wrong. For instance, he mentions "Errand of Mercy" as an example of the Original Series' dedication to championing American principles over the principles of other countries (which, being someone who writes for the Federalist, Sandefur endorses). He praises Kirk for berating the Organians for their pacifism, and their refusal to fight back against the Russians. I mean Klingons.

If you know anything about Star Trek, that statement should be all you need to realize Sandefur does not know what he is talking about. For that episode is about Kirk's, and by extension the Federation's, and the United States', presumption. Early in the episode Ayelborne the Organian patiently says that Kirk does not understand the Organians. Rather than try to learn what he does not understand, Kirk insists that the Organians should join the Federation against the Klingons.

Turns out Kirk is wrong, he really does not understand the Organians, and the Organians stop the war between the Federation and the Klingons because they have been godlike beings the whole time. It turns out they were not a backwards culture that needed protecting and "civilizing". They were a highly advanced culture that only did not fight because they knew they were not truly under threat.

This message is repeated time and time again in the Original Series. We have to understand other cultures, and when we refuse to do so, or when we try to force our culture on theirs, bad things happen. And time and time again, Sandefur misses the point.

Sandefur brings up Star Trek: Insurrection, admittedly the worst Star Trek movie besides Into Darkness for many reasons, but he proceeds to criticize it for something that is not a problem at all: Picard's belief that the Ba'ku should not be exploited. Kirk, Sandefur believes, would have forced the Ba'ku to give up their idyllic existence and progress, for Kirk was pro-technology. After all, didn't he destroy Vaal, the computer keeping the people of Gamma Trianguli VI in a primitive state in the TOS episode "The Apple"?

Yes. Yes he did. But what Sandefur fails to realize is that the Ba'ku, much like the Organians, chose their society. The people of Gamma Trianguli VI were enslaved. Picard had dealt with beings that felt they had the right to enslave or oppress others, and in those situations his response was no less in favor of freedom than Kirk's was.

Sandefur might want to brush up on TOS episodes like "TheDevil in the Dark", and even Sandefur's misunderstood "Errand of Mercy" for examples of TOS episodes that clearly show cultures different from the Federation should be respected. And the terrifying "Patterns of Force" and comical "A Piece of the Action" show what happens when the Prime Directive is ignored, and cultures are contaminated.

Sandefur also paints Kirk as a righteous hero in the marvelous TOS episode "The Conscience of the King", praising Kirk's determination for justice. I'm going to quote Sandefur directly, so none of the Trek fans scratching their heads think I'm making this up.

"Yet one thing Kirk is already sure about is justice. Hamlet may curse that he was ever born to set things right, but he knows it is his duty. Likewise Kirk. When McCoy asks him what good it will do to punish Kodos after a lapse of two decades—'Do you play god, carry his head through the corridors in triumph? That won't bring back the dead'—Kirk answers, 'No. But they may rest easier.'"

Yes, that dialog does happen in the show, but the show certainly does not praise Kirk for this. It is sympathetic to Kirk, who as Sandefur correctly points out survived a holocaust-like terror. But in the end, this monster, this murderer Kodos is shown to be a man broken with his own guilt. No longer a threat. Oh, he is not forgiven, but neither is he condemned. Indeed, Kirk stops Riley, another survivor of Kodos' holocaust, from assassinating the former mass murderer. In the end, Kirk is not the one who kills Kodos. Kodos' own daughter, driven insane from the conflict between her love for her father and her knowledge of his crimes, tries to kill Kirk. Kodos, in what can only be considered a redemptive act, stands in the way of the blast and is slain.

Certainly this episode, which Sandefur rightly parallels with the trials of former Nazis, does not absolve Kodos. It does not even suggest that Kodos does not deserve to be arrested and brought to justice. But neither does it say he should. It does what the best stories do. It presents the characters in all their complexity, sympathetic, understandable, and flawed, and then asks us to think.

Sandefur does not like that. Sandefur likes moral black and white. Sandefur likes American culture seen as superior, and pushed on all other cultures. Sandefur should watch the aforementioned "Patterns of Force" to find what Star Trek thinks about that. Hint: Star Trek suggests that will lead to literal Nazism.

But Sandefur's most egregious error is when he talks about "The Undiscovered Country".

I will be honest, I have mixed feelings about "The Undiscovered Country". It showed some of the early signs of the decline of Star Trek (which I will talk about more later). It had a conspiracy of Starfleet leaders, which tainted the utopian vision of Gene Roddenberry (more on that later as well). But beyond these points, the story itself was top notch. As Sandefur points out, Roddenberry does not like the script.

And apparently that is all Sandefur ever read about it, because he gets the reasoning completely wrong.

"The Undiscovered Country" was made in 1991. The Cold War was ending. The USSR was breaking up. The Next Generation, which by this time was in the middle of its fifth and, in my opinion, best season, had already predicted peace between the Federation and the Klingons, which were the Star Trek analogues of the great Cold War enemies. Season 5 had hit us with "Redemption", the fantastic Klingon Civil War two-parter, and "Unification", the fantastic Romulan two-parter that had major cold-war implications.

Into this setting came "The Undiscovered Country". And no, Roddenberry did not like the script. Sandefur claims this is because Roddenberry believed that the Federation could never make peace with the Klingons, for there could be no peace as long as a culture as anti-Federation as Klingon culture existed.

That's not only wrong in a real world, political sense, it’s even more wrong in a Star Trek sense. It goes entirely against all the great anti-war episodes from TOS, from "Errand of Mercy" to "A Taste of Armageddon" and many others. No, Roddenberry's problem is that he thought Kirk would not be so prejudiced. He did not think Kirk was correct as he was written. Rather, he was appalled that Kirk, his man of the future, was written that way at all.

In this case, however, I have to side against Roddenberry. Kirk's prejudice is framed as racist, but really it is the prejudice of an old soldier finding the world around him changing. It is the prejudice of every Cold War hero who could not accept that the Cold War was ending. Kirk's struggle with that prejudice, and his eventual overcoming of that prejudice to preserve the new peace between Federation and Empire, is one of the most powerful themes in the movie. It would not have had the same impact had a lesser character struggled with it. It needed to be Kirk, our man of the future, showing that he still struggled with our darker aspects. Kirk, however, is a good enough man to overcome that darkness. With all due respect to Roddenberry, that is a powerful message and I am glad it was written that way.

Sandefur believes that Kirk is right to be prejudiced. He says:

"In 'Errand of Mercy,' they attempt genocide to enslave the Organians. In 'The Trouble with Tribbles,' they try to poison a planet's entire food supply. The dungeon in which Kirk is imprisoned in this film is on a par with Stalin's jails. Yet never does the Klingon leader, Gorkon, or any of his people, acknowledge—let alone apologize for—such injustices."

That is true, the Klingons did all those things, and they did not apologize for them. Sandefur's right-wing perspective proclaims that because they did that, it is not right for the Federation to make peace with them. I am not going to argue why that perspective is wrong, though I believe it is. However, I will strongly argue that Star Trek VI is not an "inversion" of the original series' liberalism, as Sandefur claims. I will strongly argue that, whether Sandefur is actually correct or not, Roddenberry and the original series think he is wrong.

It all goes back to "Errand of Mercy", the episode so very important to the entire Star Trek universe, but which Sandefur is determined to misinterpret. The Organians do not treat the Federation as superior to the Klingons. They treat both, rather paternalistically, as at fault because of their war. And they predict that in the future, the Federation and the Empire will become great friends.

Note that they do not claim the Federation will conquer the Empire. Indeed, they threaten intervention should either side try to start a war with the other. They do not claim the Empire will adopt Federation ideals. They merely say they will become friends. By The Next Generation this is largely true. The rise of Chancellor Gowran, for all his flaws, signaled closer ties between Federation and Empire, and Picard especially was afforded great respect. The ties would grow even closer with the rise of ChancellorMartok in Deep Space Nine.

As for the Klingon lack of apology, when did the Russians ever apologize for the Cold War? When did the Russian leaders ever come to us contritely with their hat in their hand? Sandefur considers the Klingon arrogance in the movie to be typical of modern liberalism, disparaging America in favor of a violent culture just because it is a different culture. But when does "The Undiscovered Country" ever praise the Klingons? Yes, Gorkon and his daughter are arrogant, but that does not mean they are correct. Sandefur thinks that the distrust our heroes show the Klingons is supposed to be an indictment of them, but I see it as the opposite.

The Klingon arrogance grates on them. They know the Klingons are a warlike culture guilty of many crimes against other races. They know the Klingon arrogance is unearned. When Gorkon's daughter accuses the Federation of racism, how can we help but be reminded of Soviet propaganda accusing the United States of racism? Just like the propaganda, the accusation might have some merit to be considered, but it certainly does not absolve either the Soviets or the Klingons for their own actions. Far from condemning the crew of the Enterprise for their distrust, I would suggest that their distrust was, in fact, correct and reasonable.

Our citizens of the future, however, being better, more utopian figures, overcome their distaste at Klingon hypocrisy and their own distrust. Because peace is more important. Peace is better for all people. Which Roddenberry has been saying since "Errand of Mercy" way back in the first season of TOS.

Sandefur does not want peace, he wants victory. He wants a cowed and groveling Klingon Empire acknowledging the superiority of the Federation. He would rather the war continue forever than to dare make peace with a culture that does not acknowledge Federation, and thus United States, superiority. He is upset that our heroes, who have generally been on the right side against the Klingons, are forced to bear the burden of peace that the Klingons have not earned. But that is the way peace works. It is about all those involved giving up their old vendettas, no matter how well earned, because that is what must happen. Very often the grievances between warring powers are legitimate grievances, and they may even be one-sided, but an insistence on revenge for every grievance only leads to endless war. Eventually the cycle must end, grievances must be forgiven even if forgiveness is not asked, in order to have peace.

This is not Neville Chamberlin's peace through ignorance either. This is real, lasting peace. Had the Klingons violated the Khitomer Accords the Federation would have returned to their cold war. It is worth noting that the expansionism and crimes against other species that the Klingons displayed in the original series is completely absent in Next Generation. The Klingons are still warriors, with a warrior culture, but in Picard's time they no longer commit war crimes or pursue military expansionism at the expense of other, peaceful species. The Klingons honored the accords until their invasion of the Cardassians during the Dominion War. Even this was not glossed over, and had serious political ramifications dealt with in Deep Space Nine.

The Federation is not about forcing its superiority on others. Indeed, that is the whole point of the Prime Directive. The Federation tries to be superior. The Federation, I believe, is superior, albeit not perfect. But if the Federation forced its culture on everyone else, it would no longer be superior. Part of Star Trek's utopia is that it must be chosen, not imposed.

The Undiscovered Country was not an inversion of Star Trek's liberalism. It is the fulfillment of that liberalism. When Kirk frees Gamma Trianguli VI by destroying Vaal, he does not set them up as a Federation protectorate. He allows them to develop their own culture, free from slavery. And in "A Private Little War", when Klingon arms dealing forces the Federation to interfere with another culture, this is not seen as a triumph of the Federation over the Klingons. It is seen as a failure. Indeed, any hardcore Trek fan knows that despite Kirk's stereotypical depiction as a cowboy who frequently violates the Prime Directive, he hardly ever did so without a very compelling reason.

I agree with Sandefur that there is a decline in Star Trek. I sharply disagree on what caused it. Liberalism is not the cause, but rather the lack of it. With the death of Gene Roddenberry the shows and movies became less and less about reflecting our world in a utopian sci-fi context, and more about just holding the audience's attention for an hour-long episode. After TNG, most Star Trek shows were no longer reflections of our world, but rather about exploring the already established Star Trek universe.

This started with Deep Space Nine. Deep Space Nine is not a bad show. Indeed, it is easily on par with the original series and Next Generation. But Deep Space Nine was a deconstruction of Star Trek. While TOS and TNG were about us, with a few relatively rare episodes that revisited established parts of the universe, DS9 was almost entirely about things that were already established in the universe. These revisits were frequently insightful and intriguing, but they were a departure from what came before. Voyager went to an entirely different quadrant, and yet its plots were very rarely about anything beyond how to overcome the crisis of the week, and their attempts at political commentary rarely made sense. Enterprise returned to formula somewhat, but it still primarily dealt with already-established parts of the universe, and it no longer seemed to quite fit Roddenberry's utopian vision. Particularly not the third season, which seemed more like it belonged in the universe of dark, cynical, dystopian shows like Battlestar Galactica than Star Trek.

So does this reflect the changes in liberalism? Tempting as it might be to tie Enterprise's Xindi arc with the attitude of neo-liberal Democrats who supported the war on terror (at least during the 2000s), I do not think so. Rather, I think the decline of Trek can be traced to its abandonment of any real political commentary at all. Even the Xindi arc didn't say much other than "sometimes you've got to get the terrorists", and was far from nuanced or insightful in its reflection of the post-9/11 world.

While Roddenberry was utopian and very political, those who took over the show after him were not. Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, Jeri Taylor, and the other major developers of the later shows don't seem to have any strong political leanings as far as I can tell, and they seemed at times to take delight in making the Star Trek universe a darker, more cynical place. So no, Trek's decline was not linked to the decline of liberalism. It was because it stopped being liberal at all. Or really political at all.

And this is really why I felt compelled to rebut Sandefur's essay. Because he is not just someone who has a highly flawed knowledge of Star Trek trying to shoehorn it into a preferred political narrative. Sandefur does not understand the power of Star Trek, and why Star Trek is one of the most important works of fiction in history. And no, I do not think that is an exaggeration. Star Trek is important because it is utopian.

If you go back and read the literary utopias (of which Thomas More's book, "Utopia", is the namesake example), you will discover that most are pretty dull. There are some interesting ideas in them, but ultimately they are just fantastic visions of a perfect society.

Star Trek is better than these. Because Star Trek does not show a perfect society, it shows a better one. Star Trek's humans and aliens still love, and hate. They still suffer from rage, and jealousy, and bigotry, and foolishness. They still make mistakes. They assume Organians are just backwards rubes, they want to kill a man in revenge, they sell arms to a primitive culture because the Klingons are doing it. But they are better. Kirk is flawed, but he is still an admirable man. The Federation is flawed, but it is still a society that cares for its citizens and is far better than our own. Deep Space Nine deconstructed Starfleet and the Federation beautifully, bringing the flaws in utopia to light, but even DS9 was still utopian. Sisko was a marvelously different captain more willing to criticize the Federation, but he was still a man of the future with the advanced ethics of the future.

That is what we lost. We lost utopia. Not because of moral relativism or the decline of liberalism, but because Star Trek became about entertainment, rather than saying something important.

And thus we come to the series of fan-films-by-a-non-fan that is J. J. Abrams' Star Trek reboot. I have never disguised my contempt for these movies. While the first movie is a decent action flick, as long as you do not think about it and just go along for the thrill ride, Into Darkness is the worst Star Trek film ever made. Yes, even worse than Insurrection.

Sandefur thinks it is awful too, but he thinks it is a reflection of the moral relativism of liberalism gone mad. In actuality, it was written in part by a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and it shows. A shadowy government conspiracy are the real villains. Khan is a puppet. Kirk is a tool. These are not men of the future. They are not even men of the present. These are men of the past, bigoted, arrogant, and swaggering. They are fully convinced of their own righteousness, and have no respect for anyone's opinion but their own. NuKirk is motivated not by philosophy, or politics, or liberalism, but simply by the unshakable faith that he is the hero, that he is destined to command, and that anything he does is right by virtue of the fact that he does it.

In other words, Abrams' Kirk is precisely who Sandefur thinks TOS's Kirk was. NuKirk believes in the kind of moral absolutism that Sandefur wishes TOS Kirk believed in. NuKirk shows no hesitation, no wavering. He believes he knows what is right, and he pursues that course like a fictional character who knows the universe will bend to make sure he wins. That is Sandefur's Trek, and Sandefur hates it.

As for me, I just want hopeful science fiction again. And hopeful science fiction, by its very nature, will be liberal. Because it is liberalism that tells us we can build a better society than the one we have. It is liberalism that tells us we can be better than we are. And we need fiction that inspires us with that message. Let's not have more of Sandefur's Trek.

Let's have Star Trek.