I can only speak to TOS but it seemed a very JFK/LBJ-era liberal show--racism would be overcome, the talk of crossing new frontiers, the glory of space exploration, and a united world at peace. I guess conservatives have tried to claim that ideology, but it was very liberal at the time (the contrast was the Goldwaterite ideals of laissez faire, individual freedom, racism may go away on its own, and military brinskmanship is the only way to stand up to evil). You hear a lot of conservatives today saying "I'd have been totally on board with JFK-era Democrats, but they moved far left since then". It's doubtful, considering we already know where the most recent right wing hero, Reagan, stood on the issues of the day, and it wasn't with JFK/LBJ, it was with Goldwater.
So sad to hear Wu has retreated into 'Intellectual Dork Web' views like 'progressives are like the Borg' ; next she'll be complaining about 'all those kids today and their canceling'.
Good analysis, SER. Any show that's written by dozens of people is going to have shades of points of view, but Gene Roddenberry was promoting a world where humans had transcended race and creed and faction. I don't think the original series had quite gotten to the economics yet but he's the one who created TNG so clearly that was on his mind, too. That's the DNA of the Trek world.
She paints her "former movement" with a typically broad brush. There are always plenty of "Fuck The Police/Smash The State" folks to be found on both fringes. The terminology differs, but the thought is the same.
My own anecdote for the debate came yesterday in a Big Lots store. They were selling USA Flag T-shirts with a fresh new look. The Flag was of traditional design. The new twist was the star field and strips were in contrasting camouflage colors. Red, white, and blue were nowhere to be found. Not even the Thin Blue Line got any real estate. The sentiment may not be fully articulated by the purchaser, but the message is spotlight clear: It's time for an authoritarian regime under military discipline.
When I see unironic hammer and sickle merch sold in the box stores, I'll start worrying about the Progressive threat.
It always amazes me when MAGA thinks Star Trek, or the X-Men, or Captain America are bastions of conservative values. The ignorance of these people is truly flabbergasting.
My favorite Star Trek references to terrorism as a means to political power are Ben Sisko‘s interactions with the Maquis terrorists, especially Eddington.
“They died because you filled their heads with false hopes, sold them dreams of a military victory, when what they needed was a negotiated peace.”
“You know what I see out there, Mister Eddington? I see victims, but not of Cardassia or the Federation. Victims of you, the Maquis. You sold these people on the dream that one day they could go back to those farms, and schools, and homes, but you know they never can. And the longer you keep that hope alive, the longer these people will suffer.”
This is an excellent article, and that conclusion comes from a long-time Star Trek fan (who once saw Patrick Stewart on stage in the Pinter play "No Man's Land" -- he was awesome!). But I'm not comfortable with any analysis that makes such a cut-and-dried distinction between liberalism and progressivism. I prefer Edmund Fawcett's interpretation in his masterful history, LIBERALISM: THE LIFE OF AN IDEA. Fawcett believes that liberalism has historically been a coherent ensemble of mutually supportive values rather than a strict ideology. Some liberals may stress one value more than another; some of the relevant values may even potentially contradict or constrain each other. By this reading, progressivism is the variety of liberalism that honors the coherence of liberal values, but puts special stress on the value of equality. Since I consider myself both a progressive and a liberal, that's the construal that best fits my own beliefs.
Thanks, and I agree with you. I was attempting to address the distinction between liberalism and progressivism that I’ve seen many liberals. I agree that it’s far more complex.
I can only speak to TOS but it seemed a very JFK/LBJ-era liberal show--racism would be overcome, the talk of crossing new frontiers, the glory of space exploration, and a united world at peace. I guess conservatives have tried to claim that ideology, but it was very liberal at the time (the contrast was the Goldwaterite ideals of laissez faire, individual freedom, racism may go away on its own, and military brinskmanship is the only way to stand up to evil). You hear a lot of conservatives today saying "I'd have been totally on board with JFK-era Democrats, but they moved far left since then". It's doubtful, considering we already know where the most recent right wing hero, Reagan, stood on the issues of the day, and it wasn't with JFK/LBJ, it was with Goldwater.
I ❤️ Star Trek and I’m here for this fantasy future.
Not/never mutually exclusive!😐
Republic has always opposed truth and education. Millennia strong...
Who radicalized Brianna Wu? When did she start breaking bread with with Jordan Peterson and Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
So sad to hear Wu has retreated into 'Intellectual Dork Web' views like 'progressives are like the Borg' ; next she'll be complaining about 'all those kids today and their canceling'.
Good analysis, SER. Any show that's written by dozens of people is going to have shades of points of view, but Gene Roddenberry was promoting a world where humans had transcended race and creed and faction. I don't think the original series had quite gotten to the economics yet but he's the one who created TNG so clearly that was on his mind, too. That's the DNA of the Trek world.
"but Gene Roddenberry was promoting a world where humans had transcended race and creed and faction"
yep, and he EXPLICITLY made that point
Epic post SER! Serious golf 👏🏻
Another of the Bari Weiss 'burn it all down' brigade. Who gets it mostly wrong.
She paints her "former movement" with a typically broad brush. There are always plenty of "Fuck The Police/Smash The State" folks to be found on both fringes. The terminology differs, but the thought is the same.
My own anecdote for the debate came yesterday in a Big Lots store. They were selling USA Flag T-shirts with a fresh new look. The Flag was of traditional design. The new twist was the star field and strips were in contrasting camouflage colors. Red, white, and blue were nowhere to be found. Not even the Thin Blue Line got any real estate. The sentiment may not be fully articulated by the purchaser, but the message is spotlight clear: It's time for an authoritarian regime under military discipline.
When I see unironic hammer and sickle merch sold in the box stores, I'll start worrying about the Progressive threat.
Awesome and Insightful as always
It always amazes me when MAGA thinks Star Trek, or the X-Men, or Captain America are bastions of conservative values. The ignorance of these people is truly flabbergasting.
My favorite Star Trek references to terrorism as a means to political power are Ben Sisko‘s interactions with the Maquis terrorists, especially Eddington.
“They died because you filled their heads with false hopes, sold them dreams of a military victory, when what they needed was a negotiated peace.”
“You know what I see out there, Mister Eddington? I see victims, but not of Cardassia or the Federation. Victims of you, the Maquis. You sold these people on the dream that one day they could go back to those farms, and schools, and homes, but you know they never can. And the longer you keep that hope alive, the longer these people will suffer.”
I'm fairly certain she's never watched even one episode🙄 Gene Roddenberry was as progressive as you could get.
This is an excellent article, and that conclusion comes from a long-time Star Trek fan (who once saw Patrick Stewart on stage in the Pinter play "No Man's Land" -- he was awesome!). But I'm not comfortable with any analysis that makes such a cut-and-dried distinction between liberalism and progressivism. I prefer Edmund Fawcett's interpretation in his masterful history, LIBERALISM: THE LIFE OF AN IDEA. Fawcett believes that liberalism has historically been a coherent ensemble of mutually supportive values rather than a strict ideology. Some liberals may stress one value more than another; some of the relevant values may even potentially contradict or constrain each other. By this reading, progressivism is the variety of liberalism that honors the coherence of liberal values, but puts special stress on the value of equality. Since I consider myself both a progressive and a liberal, that's the construal that best fits my own beliefs.
Thanks, and I agree with you. I was attempting to address the distinction between liberalism and progressivism that I’ve seen many liberals. I agree that it’s far more complex.
Thanks for the recommendation. The book sounds good.
We always get into trouble when we try for absolutes. All ethics are situational.
only the Sith deal in absolutes
In what situation is it ethically okay to discriminate against someone for their immutable characteristics?
Some big oofs here from Brianna Wu.