'Star Trek’ Is Both Liberal And Progressive

You don’t have to choose!

Video game developer and former congressional candidate Brianna Wu has endured an inexcusable amount of harassment online. She’s also shared some regressive political views that are worth critiquing, especially when she brings Star Trek into it.

During a heated discussion about Israel with YouTuber Jessie Gender, Wu posted on social media that “another core message of Star Trek is duty and trying to get along with people who have different values. I think progressives are failing miserably at both values. There’s no longer sense in my former movement that you owe your country anything, it’s all about how your country has failed you. It’s all about what you are entitled to. The idea of military or police service is scorned by progressives.”

This is an extreme position, but unfortunately one I’ve seen many mainstream liberals take when distinguishing themselves from progressives. Arguably, a core message of Star Trek is that you can’t collectively damn an entire group. This is a series that has depicted noble Romulans, arrogant Vulcans, and heroic Klingons. One of the most popular modern Trek characters is a Borg (obviously, I’m referring to Seven of Nine, as portrayed by the great Jeri Ryan).

Wu later claims there “are a lot of conservative themes in Star Trek. Duty is a massive theme.” However, duty is not a uniquely conservative trait. Modern conservatism, with its roots in Ayn Rand’s “get it your own damn self” philosophy, has overt contempt for public service.

---

---

Also, Star Trek repeatedly promotes the idea that one’s duty is to others and not yourself. In The Wrath of Khan, Spock sacrifices himself for the entire Enterprise crew because “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.” However, in the next film, The Search for Spock, Kirk sacrifices his ship (and indirectly his own son) to rescue Spock because “the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.” These seem like contrasting philosophies but they’re not. Each sacrifice is personal. Ted Cruz might celebrate military might but he literally fled the country and abandoned his constituents when it was too cold.

“Duty” is referenced specifically in The Next Generation’s “The First Duty.” Wesley Crusher (Wil Wheaton) has hidden the truth to save himself, but Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart) reminds him that a lie of omission is still a lie.

“The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it’s scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth!” Picard says. “It is the guiding principle on which Starfleet is based, and if you can’t find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened, you don’t deserve to wear that uniform.” (Wheaton deserved an Emmy for not breaking down in tears.)

Modern conservatism is openly hostile to scientific truth and has passed legislation that suppresses historical truth. Republicans have abandoned their own personal truth in pursuit of power and willingly embrace a leader who trades only in falsehoods. Wesley upheld his “first duty” even when he later resigned from Starfleet rather than obey orders he knew were wrong.

A post-scarcity society is impossible with modern capitalism

Throughout its almost 60-year history across multiple TV shows and films, Star Trek has promoted an idealized liberalism, but it’s also been just as progressive. Generally speaking, progressivism seeks to advance the human condition through social reform. This usually applies to minority rights and social justice. If you compare The West Wing to the Star Trek series that aired around the same time, specifically Deep Space Nine and Voyager, it’s clear that the Aaron Sorkin series is traditionally liberal while the Star Trek series are more progressive.

Wu argues that the “Borg in Star Trek are basically a metaphor for progressivism. You have to think the same thoughts of the hive mind, and if you deviate you will be destroyed for the good of the collective. Individuality is erased. There is no hierarchy.”

Well-crafted stories are open to multiple interpretations, but Wu’s interpretation of the Borg seemingly exists in a vacuum that ignores European imperialism. When the Borg first appeared in 1989’s “Q Who,” Guinan (Whoopi Goldberg) — a Black woman — says, “My people encountered them a century ago. They destroyed our cities, scattered my people throughout the galaxy. They’re called the Borg. Protect yourself, Captain, or they’ll destroy you.” I don’t think she’s talking about DEI training courses or drag queen brunches. Later, Guinan describes her people’s fateful encounter with the Borg: “They swarmed through our system. And when they left, there was little or nothing left of my people.” This more rightly recalls the near genocide of native people and the brutal exploitation of Africans. If the Borg represents the forceful subjugation of the individual to the collective, Wu is choosing to see the real-life victims — trans people, for instance — as the aggressors.

Wu declares that “Star Trek is NOT SOCIALIST. If you think Star Trek was socialist, you didn’t understand Star Trek. “

She writes:

Technologically has progressed to a post-scarcity society on some places like earth. But, there’s private property ownership (Sisko’s restaurant, Picard’s Vineyard.) There’s private enterprise. There’s no centrally planned economy by earth’s government.

A huge part of Star Trek is the market economy. as they explore space, they are constantly trading resources and a lot of the relationships with other species even the Alpha quadrant are about resources. Many episode of DS9 are about the value of the outpost for intergalactic trade.

Individual freedom and private enterprise is a huge part of Star Trek. People design ships, explore space, and pursue careers as they fit. They have to meet standards to enroll in Star Fleet, they are not given the assignment by a central government.

The resources for survival don’t seem to be limited in some privileged societies in Star Trek, but that does not make it socialist.

American liberalism fully supports “individual freedom and private enterprise,” but it’s Republicans who have consistently lied about Democrats’ economic agenda. Not even Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and certainly not President Joe Biden are “government seizes the means of production” socialists. They’d like to make society more equitable and less economically oppressive. They are the liberals who make a Star Trek future possible.

Wu correctly states that the Federation in Star Trek is a “post-scarcity” society, where most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed. This is only possible in a non-capitalist economic system that doesn’t define an individual’s worth based solely on what they can produce. Right now, advances in automation are a direct threat to the people who work the jobs that technology makes redundant. Modern capitalism has no answer to the question “what happens to the grocery store cashier or factory worker?” And, no, “learn to code” is not an answer.

The Federation clearly has a form of universal basic income. It’s repeatedly stated that everyone’s basic needs are met. Most conservatives would decry this as socialism. They insist that no one would bother doing anything without the fear of poverty or the motivation from acquisition. Rick Santorum once suggested that someone wouldn’t come up with a new, vital medical treatment if they couldn’t make a fortune off of it.

In The Next Generation episode, “The Neutral Zone,” the Enterprise thaws out some frozen cave people from the late 20th Century. This aired in 1988, during the Reagan administration, and Picard savagely condemns the values of the period.

“A lot has changed in the past three hundred years,” Picard tells the obvious 1980s Donald Trump analogue. “People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We’ve eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We’ve grown out of our infancy.”

The 1980s tycoon insists that his uber capitalism “has never been about possessions. It’s about power … to control your life, your destiny.”

“That kind of control is an illusion,” Picard replies.

We’ve experienced tremendous technological advances of our own in the almost 40 years since this episode aired, and we’ve come no closer to ending hunger and want. Children die from preventable diseases. People live on the streets. Income inequality has only increased. This is because a truly post-scarcity society can’t exist within the confines of modern capitalism. We could share our resources and create a paradise today, but that’s not yet in our nature. Star Trek showed us a better tomorrow.

Picard’s family has a vineyard, and Benjamin Sisko’s (Avery Brooks) father owns a restaurant. However, that’s presented as individuals pursuing their own interests. Humans are allowed to have passions and even hobbies with the security of knowing their kids won’t starve. No one is seen pursuing a career or a specific job solely for money or access to health care. Anyone who’s qualified can enter Starfleet Academy. You don’t need to have attended the right pre-school, and you won’t graduate with tremendous debt, either, because the tuition is free.

No, seriously, Star Trek is very progressive

Wu directly compares Jessie Gender, a trans woman, to the Borg, which is horribly offensive and dehumanizing. It’s interesting how little Wu understands about the Star Trek episodes she references in her attack.

Think about Ro Laren serving on the Enterprise, and reaching a compromise on being visibly Bajoran while also meeting Star Fleet’s dress code. She reached a compromise with Picard by wearing a single Bajoran earring. Is any part of Jesse’s message on trans issues about compromise and getting along? The attitude is more like the Borg, you will be assimilated.

No one should ever have to compromise on their very identity. Picard himself rejects compromise with the Borg in First Contact: “We’ve made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!”

Picard rarely compromised on someone’s humanity. When an admiral orders the android Data (Brent Spiner) to hand his own daughter over to a Starfleet science facility, Picard won’t let that stand: “There are times, sir, when men of good conscience cannot blindly follow orders. You acknowledge their sentience but ignore their personal liberties and freedom. Order a man to turn his child over to the state? Not while I am his captain.”

Ro Laren (Michelle Forbes) is Bajoran, a species that can symbolize any historically marginalized group. They are presented as deeply religious — not just ceremonially but in almost every aspect of their culture, including the earring Ro wears. Starfleet seemingly not tolerating religious expression (at least from Bajorans) aligns with challenges Muslims face in public life. There are groups of Bajorans who believe terrorism is the only viable response to their oppression. Eventually, Ro leaves Starfleet and joins the very terrorists she was recruited to stop. The Bajoran Kira Nerys (Nana Vistor) from Deep Space Nine grew up in a Cardassian-occupied labor camp and was part of a resistance movement that used guerrilla attacks against Cardassian military and civilians. This is the Rod Serling effect in action, where science-fiction provides the cover of allegory for otherwise controversial storylines.

Of course, sometimes Star Trek even hung a lampshade on reality itself. In “The High Ground,” Data claims his study of armed rebellion reveals that “terrorism is an effective way to promote political change.” Picard agrees but adds that he’s “never subscribed to the theory that political power flows from the barrel of a gun.” Data offers historical examples where terrorism has succeeded, including “the independence of the Mexican state from Spain and the Irish reuinification of 2024.” (Hey, that’s right now!) This rather pointed reference to the Irish Republican Army and the ongoing conflict in Northern Ireland resulted in the United Kingdom banning the episode until 2007.

Data asks, “Would it be accurate to say that terrorism is acceptable when all options for peaceful settlement have been foreclosed?” Picard doesn’t immediately say no. Instead, he concedes that these are “questions that mankind have been struggling with for centuries.”

Acknowledging moral complexity while refusing to compromise one’s personal morality is a persistent theme in Star Trek, and it seems pretty damn progressive.

Follow Stephen Robinson on Bluesky and Threads.

Subscribe to his YouTube channel for more fun content.