Last night, the latest incarnation of the Star Trek universe limped to an end (just for the record, the series finale absolutely sucked!). Anyway, for the first time in 18 years, there are now no active Star Trek series on the air. Besides the fact that the end of Star Trek makes me feel really old -- all those lazy summer vacation afternoons watching the original Star Trek series on some god-forsaken UHF station, back in the pre-cable days when reception was never a sure thing -- the end of Trek has got me to thinking. Of course, since I write a pro-Democratic blog, a large part of my thinking has to do wtih politics. Specifically, the question keeps bouncing around my head: is Star Trek fundamentally liberal, conservative, or none-of-the-above?
First, let's define "conservative" and "liberal" with the help of George Lakoff, author of "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think." According to Lakoff, conservativism is based on a "strict father" model, vs. a "nurturant parent" model for liberalism. Let's take these one at a time and see which fits better -- if either do -- into the Star Trek universe.
In conservatism, according to Lakoff, "Life is seen as fundamentally difficult and the world as fundamentally dangerous. Evil is conceptualized as a force in the world... enemies, hardships, and temptations...uncontrolled desires." To make one's way through such a world, the "strict father" needs to be "morally strong, self-disciplined, frugal, temperate, and restrained...insist[ing] on moral authority [and] obedience."
The key job of the father, in conservative thought, is to build strong, moral, self-disciplined and self-reliant children, who, once they are all grown up, "are on their own and must succeed or fail by themselves" with no external meddling by him or anyone else. From the strict father model generally flows opposition to anything that conflicts with it: homosexuality, feminism, gun control, abortion. Morality is about obedience to authority, as exemplified by religious texts or strong leaders (i.e., the military).
In contrast, liberalism is based on a "nurturant parent model," in which the core model is about "being cared for and cared about, having one's desires for loving interactions met, living as happily as possible, and deriving meaning from one's community and from caring for and about others." In this model, the world is filled with dangers, which requires the ability to take care of oneself. Unlike conservatism, however, the emphasis here is more on "the intrinsic value of emotional connection with others, of health, of education, of art, of communion with the natural world, and of being able to take care of oneself."
In the "nurturant parent" model, the family is seen as "a community in which children have commitments and responsibilities that grow out of empathy for others." In such a community, "the obedience of children comes out of love and respect for parents, not out of fear of punishment. When children do wrong, nurturant parents choose restitution over retribution whenever possible as a form of justice. Retribution is reserved for those who harm their children." Morality is defined as empathy, nurturance, fairness, learning, and personal happiness/fulfillment.
Given these definitions, the prevailing political philosophy in the Star Trek universe is undoubtedly liberal (tolerant, fair, democratic, peaceful, curious, empirically based, secular), with enemies of the Federation -- Romulans, Cardassians, Klingons, Borg -- tending heavily towards intolerance, rigidity, authoritarianism, militarism, isolationism, and religiosity. In the Federation, all varieties of life, including other races, religions and sexualities, are valued and nurtured, while nationalism and racial pride are considered bizarre relics of a dark past.
In contrast, the Federation's enemies tend to be highly nationalistic, chauvinistic, and intolerant. In the extreme, the strict Borg are out to assimliate everyone in the universe into their militaristic, totalitarian collective. Instead of "exploring new worlds" and "seeking out new civilizations" for peaceful interaction, the Federation's enemies are all about conquering new worlds and rival civilizations.
Not that there's an exact parallel here, but it's obvious that the Federation operate on a classically liberal, "nurturant parent" model (per Lakoff), while the Federation's enemies operate overwhelmingly on a clasically conservative, "strict father" model. This should not be surprising given the liberal-humanist beliefs of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, whose mantra was "infinite diversity in infinite combinations."
Interestingly, the original Star Trek (the one with Kirk, Spock, and "Bones" McCoy) was born in 1966 - at the height of 1960s liberalism - and died in 1969, a year after the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King and also at the start of Richard Nixon's Presidency, as Vietnam killed the 1960s and tore the country apart. However, Star Trek did not die, just as Gene Roddenberry's liberal-humanist dream will never die either. Similarly, the end of the Star Trek does not coincide with the end of liberalism, much as certain conservatives might wish that to be the case.
Still, there is little doubt that, from a liberal point of view, we are living through some dark, conservative days indeed. Frankly, in the age of Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay, it is difficult to imagine the world which Gene Roddenberry envisioned coming to fruition.
However, as my grandmother always said, "this too shall pass." Of course, she wasn't specifically referring to Cheney, DeLay et al. when she said those words, but she might as well have been. Personally, I believe that Grandma was right, that "this too shall pass," and that the ideals of Star Trek -- and liberalism -- will one day "live long and prosper." Or, to paraphrase Dr. McCoy, "It's NOT dead, Jim!"