(Treknerd) Thought Of The Moment
28 Comments | Posted: June 24th, 2008 | Filed under: Thought Of The Moment | Tags: Star TrekWith Star Trek, particularly The Next Generation, featuring what amounts to a socialist society (no money, the Federation is essentially the UN done right, equal rights and diversity) as its core, I wonder why the fanbase features so many conservatives.
Photon torpedoes. They blow shit up real good.
As a Star Trek fan, and a conservative, I want to know what makes you think conservatives don’t want a peaceful world (or galaxy) equal rights, and diversity. These are all things that I value. I believe that true conservative values (maybe not social values, but economic values)are the best way to bring about these things in our modern society. Maybe someday we will have replicators, transporters and incredibly advanced medical science, and then a form of socialism might work. Until then, conservative (ie free market) values are the only way to advance the technology to that point. Plus, as Tony said, photon torpedoes. Duh.
Perhaps because conservatives have fought against these things tooth and nail for as long as there have been conservatives.
Because despite all the good stuff about the future as portrayed in TNG, ultimately, the show is about fascist values, or it at least views reality through an idealizing fascist lens. (Note also the attraction of conservatives to BSG–again, military order and discipline are foregrounded.) The Federation is all about homogeneity balanced with superficial diversity and above all else good order. Everyone is clean, educated, and impeccably polite. We will allow aliens to play along, as long as they go to the Academy and wear our matching color-coded uniforms. It’s a WASP’s wet dream! I say this as someone who loves the show deeply, BTW. But the fascistic element is probably why Trek fans and Star Wars fans so readily fall into divided camps (the Federation = the Empire), and also why so many TV SF fans found Firefly “refreshing”–smart, funny, sympathetic characters, but embedded in a messier (and thus more true-to-life) reality.
But, that’s not the way it happened in Star Trek. Humanity had a gigantic nuclear war, and after they nearly destroyed themselves, they emerged as an essentially socialist society which then developed the technology we all find so cool. All free-market capitalism got them was teh nuclear-explodo.
Until then, conservative (ie free market) values are the only way to advance the technology to that point.
What about the massive amount of research taking place at goverment-run facilities around the world?
I think abawaku makes all the clever, well thought out points, and Tony the gut check point.
The only thing I have to add is that, in general, sci-fi fans are people who like “well thought out worlds”, i.e. worlds with rules they can understand and master; and the mentality that gets upset when some new story “violates” those rules is the same mentality that’s resistant to change in the real world, hence, conservative.
It’s like how many X-Men fans are homophobic.
Look, I’m all for government funded research. Look at everything NASA has done. However, why was NASA funded so well? To fight communism. I don’t believe the government will fund advanced technology at Star Trek levels. I work at a high tech company on the cutting edge of our field, and the only reason we are is to win in the market. I don’t think the government will ever get to our level of efficiency, because that’s not what it was designed for. Once we hit a tipping point in terms of technology, then I can see society moving one that is more socialistic and/or utopian. But, I do not think this can happen without capitalism.
I don’t believe the government will fund advanced technology at Star Trek levels.
Realistically, the government is the only entity that ever will. Research into dramatic new technology isn’t profitable on the whole, because you’re wrong far more often than you are right, and you generally don’t make any money off the being wrong part.
The free market is really good at answering questions of engineering; that’s applying science to an already answered question (“how do we fly faster / make this inefficient technology that works more efficient”) and running with it. It’s really bad at dramatic new discovery and always has been.
mightygodking. I can support you there. The research may be done at a government or university level, but to make it reasonbly affordable we need free market. Now, this might not work in all instances. I believe the government will likely need to step in the energy crisis. I hope no one misunderstands me. I support research and science discovery in all aspects and truly think it will make for a better world no matter how it is funded. I just believe that the only way the benefits will spread to all is through the efficieny of the market. I hope some day we will hit that tipping point where we no longer need the free market (which is often needlessly cruel), but I don’t think it will happen in our lifetimes.
I hear time and time again that corporations are evil. Come on, that’s just silly. I admit that many people at the top are not the most moral people and are often times not going to do the right thing, but it’s silly to make a universal claim about a corporation. Corporations are not benevolent. That is not their purpose. They exist to make money. There is a right and a wrong way to do this and to affect the communities they do business in. I am lucky enough to work somewhere that gives back to the community (over $4M to United Way in my hometown alone), but this is not the responsibilty of corporations. It’s the responsibilty of individuals, whether they lead a corporation or are a little peon like me.
Just think, what kind of life would you lead without corporations? Say goodbye to blogging, comics, Star Trek, and all the comforts of modern society.
For those that are wondering, Tom is responding to a snarky comment I made and swiftly deleted because while I may be an ass, I know when to tamp it down a bit. It said:
I do think that some corporations are capable of good, but we’ve seen what letting the free market reign has done to the economy in just the last few years. The line about corporations giving us so much of what we have is true, but unrestricted capitalism will fuck us all, given the chance. (Except for the top 1%)
A free market with no regulations is not a good thing and would never lead to a better world. I think we can all agree that a lack of regulations could create some very bad situations.
I think I’m done checking the comments for the day, but that was fun everybody, thanks! Thanks for the initial post Kevin, I was actually thinking about the same thing the other day (honest). I think that was a fun dialogue. I gotta say, I know not everyone agrees with me, but this world would be a lot less interesting if everyone did. I hope you keep up the great work!
This one is easy, at least with regard to economic conservatives. Much of this stripe of conservatism is directed at promoting and “conserving” an economic model, free-market capitalism, that would have no purpose in the Star Trek universe. In a world of replicators and free (or nearly free) energy, there is no scarcity, and thus the problem that economic conservatives are directed at solving does not exist. Cultural conservatives are a tougher question, but I would imagine that most conservative fans of Star Trek are free-market capitalist libertarian, as opposed to values conservatives.
Oops. Stepped away before posting, and missed a whole lot of comments that said what I wanted to say, first and better.
I think Steven gets it right, except that I would add that all fandom is inherently conservative. Obviously, fans have to fall in love with a product at some point and sci fi and comics fans in particular this happens fairly early in life, and generally they really really really don’t want the thing they love to change. At all. Ever. Look at all the bitching that happens with a property gets changed in the slightest from one format to another (organic webshooters, anyone?). Isn’t that the essense of “Conseratism?” We could also get into the fact that “fan” is short for “fanatic” but, really, that’s just flame bait.
Star Trek is particularly susptible to this impulse becasue it existed unchanged for decades in reruns. It should also be noted that despite the progressive nature of many of the TOS episodes the show is STILL about a military commander imposing the will of the federation on foregin lands.
Go look at the message boards sometime. It’s frightening how so many seem to have never learned the lessons Captain Kirk delivered with his fists. I actually saw someone on TrekMovie.com complaining about – get this – the possibility of non-bipedal humans being seen in the new movie, as he likes Starfleet being humanocentric.
“Non-bipedal humans”? Wouldn’t those just be infants and people without legs?
(I get what you mean, but I had to nitpick the term.)
Of course, I wonder if this will be the installment where we finally see non-heterosexual humans…
I meant “humanoids.” Jerk.
“Socialism might work someday, but not yet” is one of my favorite conservative lines. It *never* goes out of style.
I think it comes down to the way every alien race is presented as representative of the whole. All Klingons are warriors, all Vulcans are logic obsessed, all Frengi want money, etc. When we see a character that is against type, it is presented as a Big Deal and an abberation. A Klingon who doesn’t want to fight? That’s an hour episode right there.
This easily plays into conservatives’ fantasies that all black people want gold chains and spinning hubcaps and all Christian white people are inherently good. It’s this basic idea that all people share inherent qualities from their race/background/nationality.
“We will allow aliens to play along, as long as they go to the Academy and wear our matching color-coded uniforms.”
Even still, how often did Counsellor Troy wear a real uniform, and Worf got to fill his boots with Klingon crap (I can only ever recall Sisko chewing Worf out for his alien habits when it came to Worf killing his brother)? Then on DS9, you had all kinds of Bajor folk around wearing Bajoran uniforms and Kira, who was Sisko’s right hand man, was a Major in Bajor’s whatever. And, y’know, the Academy and matching color-coded uniforms were for a Starfleet. Complaining about that seems about as valid as complaining that, say, if I moved to the U.S., became a citizen, and joined the Navy that I’d have to wear Navy’s uniform.
I know a lot of conservatives. I do not know a single one that believes:
This easily plays into conservatives’ fantasies that all black people want gold chains and spinning hubcaps and all Christian white people are inherently good.
Star Trek is also about the fantasy that a military commander, wielding a powerful starship, can be the ultimate force for good in the universe. Kirk could have solved the Iraq war with a few photon torpedoes, a good bluff, and by sleeping with a hot Middle Eastern chick.
In the real world, things take patience, economic development, tolerance, non-governmental organizations, diplomacy, and things like that. The Bush doctrine assumes you can just send in Captain Kirk.
Really? Because I just finished reading about conservative bloggers who are saying that Iowans are handling flooding better than New Orleans residents handled Katrina because Iowans are white. One commenter on such a blog was even good enough to point out that the original entry about white people dealing with disasters better than black people is only saying “what everyone is secretly thinking.” The other comments follow a similar vein.
I kind of wish I knew the conservatives you hang out with, because the ones I know hint around this kind of racial determinism all the time.
This is interesting, but for me (as a values conservative), it’s much simpler. When Star Trek tells good stories, I like it. When it doesn’t, I don’t. TOS had good characters doing exciting things in cool places. This made it fun. Some of the stories were weak – didn’t like those.
Now, since the simple answer isn’t that satisfying, some pontification. In general, the one thing I demand in my fiction of any kind is confident characters. They should know who and what they are and act accordingly. Introspection is perfectly acceptable – navel-gazing and whiny self-indulgence is not. Kirk acted. Sisko tended to act. I liked them. Picard and the other two didn’t, and I didn’t.
Oh, I know there are crazy people out there…but you know, I have watched people do the same for folks on the left. There is some insane shit on the web regardless of political affiliation. Just because some conservatives are bigots doesn’t actually mean they all are, just as being liberal does not equal “tolerant”. I just get a bit tired of the discourse on the web being the equivelant of kids on a playground… “You suck!” “No! you suck!!!”
As a conservative Trek fan, for myself I can say that it’s the idea of living in a world where the ideals of socialism work for everyone. Socialism works in our world, but it works less well the more people are involved in its execution. This is due to the simple realities of the tax burden it requires, and the limited nature of goods and resources. In the Trek world, because of replication, faster-than-light travel, instant teleportation anywhere on Earth and many other incredible technologies, those things simply aren’t concerns anymore.
Money is irrelevant, all basic needs are seen to, so people are able to pursue whatever goals they choose to set for themselves, become whatever they have the capability to.
That’s the pinnacle of the American Dream, to chase after greatness unhindered by limitations of supply and demand, by borders or prejudices. To simply achieve, through effort and will, whatever it is that you can dream of and are capable of, no matter who or what you are.