Why Do Conservatives Like ‘Star Trek?’
Left-leaning space saga gets plenty of Republican love, confounding liberals
Every few months, a liberal on X asks the same question: “Why do conservatives like ‘Star Trek?’”
The popular television series—well known for being left-of-center and utopian—is admired by people on all sides of the political spectrum. Progressives often wonder what conservatives actually like about the show.
This question came up again after Paramount Plus posted an X video for “#TransgenderAwarenessWeek” promoting a transgender character in “Star Trek: Discovery.”
https://twitter.com/paramountplus/status/1725302860034777135?s=43&t=OVYYhysZhAVcZA1zPPo5Og
The video generated hundreds of comments. Many called the clip “cringe” and said “wokeness” had ruined recent “Star Trek” shows. Progressive “Star Trek” fans fired back, saying they don’t understand why conservatives even watch the show in the first place.
Just searching “Conservative Star Trek Fans” on Twitter draws thousands of comments by leftists mocking conservatives for “not getting” that the show doesn’t agree with them.
“Conservative Star Trek fans are just ridiculous,” says @CodySDax, who subsequently comments, “Sorry the conservatives are angry that I’m politicizing Star Trek…” before threatening to block commenters.
Progressive accounts called conservative Star Trek fans “hilariously sad” and “morons” who “paid no attention to Roddenberry’s world and philosophies therein.”
Others added these fans aren’t “smart enough to realize the source material is antithetical to everything they believe,” that conservatives shouldn’t like shows about utopian solutions and kindness, and that “they completely miss the point of the show.”
Many liberals are possessive enough of the show to claim, “You cannot be a conservative ‘Star Trek’ fan.”
The underlying question though is fascinating from a media-consumption and engagement standpoint.
“Star Trek”—in its 13 series (counting “Starfleet Academy”) and 13 films—does lean left and presents a highly idealized vision of the future. Money has been eliminated, enlightenment rationalism is the highest ideal, religion is generally absent, world peace has been achieved and a diverse crew of humans works together in harmony.
Recent shows have also embraced modern progressive ideals, from extensive LGBTQ+ depictions, criticizing the European Union for anti-refugee policies and depicting the Klingons as war-mongering nationalists.
And to be fair, many conservatives actually do dislike “Star Trek” for these thematic reasons.
RELATED: ULTIMATE GUIDE TO 10 ESSENTIAL ‘STAR TREK’ EPISODES
There have been plenty of critiques of “Star Trek’s” premise, given that it presupposes problematic ideas about the perfectability of man, the possibility of utopianism and that religion and tradition hold humans back.
Classic episodes like “Who Watches The Watchers” and “Who Mourns for Adonais?” are highly critical of organized faith.
However, “Star Trek” remains one of the most beloved franchises of all time, and a significant portion of that fan base is either conservative, religious or both. What do conservatives see in this show that makes its unique viewpoint defensible or relatable to them?
We took this question directly to Hollywood In Toto readers on social media.
Are there conservative-leaning #StarTrek fans out there? What do you like the most about the franchise? pic.twitter.com/LELemRZVxf
— Christian Toto (@HollywoodInToto) November 20, 2023
Hundreds replied, saying they loved the characters, the intelligent writing, the adventurous tone and its rooting in classical art and literature. They praised “Star Trek’s” depiction of “Men of action. Men of reason. Men of medicine. Heroism. Courage. Adventure. Chivalry. Quest for knowledge. Quest for beauty. Quest for wisdom. Exploring the unknown. Respect for the ways of other tribes. [And] high moral code.”
It is clear that many conservatives grew up with the show and have deep nostalgic ties to it. Conservative podcaster Kira Davis responded that she grew up on “Star Trek,” adding, “I always felt like I was on ‘the team’ when I watched the shows.”
Many even went as far as to defend the show as being nominally conservative. “The original Star Trek at its core was a western in space as some TV exec snidely told Roddenberry. But that was a strength. It was about heroics. Facing down an enemy,” says @JimRoseAF.
“There is some Conservatism in Star Trek. Star Fleet as an institution is driven by the Declarations’ natural rights. [Neither] Kirk nor Picard are determinists. Unlike teacher’s unions, they promote by merit, not seniority,” says @BelAves.
RELATED: MEET THE COUPLE THAT SAVED ‘STAR TREK’
User @HoldTheWire1945 claims the show’s politics were never particularly heavy-handed to the point where it was unbearable to watch as someone who disagrees with it.
A handful of commenters spoke out against the show, calling conservative fans “masochists” and decrying its series creator’s “secular hedonism.” Most comments praised “Star Trek: The Original Series,” “Star Trek: The Next Generation” and a few even praised elements of recent shows.
While the older series certainly were generally liberal in their handling of Civil Rights and religion, they were rarely overtly hostile. The shows mostly depict a post-scarcity world that is highly in tune with classical liberal ideals of human dignity and natural rights.
They even go out of their way to criticize collectivism and communism as hostile and anti-human philosophies—ideas that conservatives are largely sympathetic to.
The show was progressive for the 1960’s but actually quite conservative for 2023. Spock’s logic was never perfect, he was a human as any other character on the show, I mean if you actually watched Star Trek.
In any case, my profile pic captures the best side of Spock. pic.twitter.com/ituYbO88dH
— Fusilli Spock (@awstar11) May 14, 2023
The exact politics of classic “Star Trek” don’t necessarily map cleanly onto partisan politics, but Claremont Review’s Timothy Sandefur argues that they align with the optimistic liberalism of John F. Kennedy. The leader’s hawkish anti-communism is widely regarded by modern Republicans, while also being fairly disinterested in 1960s counter-culture.
The show also states that Republican President Abraham Lincoln is Captain Kirk’s hero and depicts him as a similarly headstrong and moralistic leader. Maybe it’s not surprising that the show would become less appealing to conservatives the more it embraced moral relativism over time.
Conservative political commentator Bill Whittle, arguably the biggest “Star Trek” fan in the Republican Party, says the show is quintessentially pro-American.
“The bridge of the USS Enterprise; this is America right here–multicultural, multi-racial, the product of a federation based upon individuality, freedom, and human dignity. And like Captain Hornblower, who represented Great Britain [in his popular and influential book series and that influenced Roddenberry], the man in the command chair was the federation. And that meant that Kirk was the idealized American—sure of himself and his civilization, intelligent and friendly, but with a spine of steel. A man that not only likes to win but lives to win; a whole man, unbroken, confident, and secure.”
It doesn’t take much to see why conservatives admire “Star Trek,” even if they don’t approve of everything it says. And yet, leftists are still left scratching their heads as to why.
They don’t understand conservative “Star Trek” fans because they don’t grasp conservatives as people.
Like Spock, let’s consult the science.
As social scientist Jonathan Haidt notes in his book. “The Righteous Mind,” there is a massive divide of mutual understanding between conservatives and progressives.
“In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other,” says Haidt. “Who was best able to pretend to be the other? The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as very liberal.”
Conservatives have lived in a progressive media landscape for more than 50 years. We watch leftist shows, listen to leftist music and read left-leaning news sources.
Our media consumption habits are broader than those on the Left, and we’ve grown used to engaging with liberal ideas and understanding the motivations and logic behind what progressives believe.
Is it any wonder progressives can’t understand how conservatives think when they’re used to their entertainment fully agreeing with them at all times? They want “Star Trek” to be transgressive to society’s values—conservative values—and they can’t see why we like it in spite of their best efforts.
Tyler Hummel is a Nashville-based freelance critic and journalist, a member of the Music City Film Critics Association and the 2021 College Fix Fellow at Main Street Nashville.
Oops. I came back to check if my comments were approved, but they weren’t showing at all, so I thought they were rejected. Never mind…delete this one and the one about rejecting my reply.
I wasn’t going to reply at first, but there are parts of this article which I find, well…deeply silly.
>> “Men of reason. Men of medicine. Heroism. Courage. Adventure. Chivalry. Quest for knowledge. Quest for beauty. Quest for wisdom. Exploring the unknown. Respect for the ways of other tribes.”
None of that represents present-day conservatism in any fashion, much less is exclusive to it.
If anything, it’s the exact opposite when you look at conservatism in practice, rather than presented as an ideal.
>> “The original Star Trek at its core was a western in space as some TV exec snidely told Roddenberry. But that was a strength. It was about heroics. Facing down an enemy,”
That’s Star Wars.
Star Trek is more like a sea voyage during the European exploration of the globe, only without the imperialism.
>> The show also states that Republican President Abraham Lincoln is Captain Kirk’s hero and depicts him as a similarly headstrong and moralistic leader.
Republicans like to claim Lincoln as one of their own, but they have to ignore the Southern Strategy of the 1960s.
Republican or not, Lincoln was never a conservative.
>> Conservative political commentator Bill Whittle, arguably the biggest “Star Trek” fan in the Republican Party, says the show is quintessentially pro-American.
Conservatives wrap themselves in the flag while behaving like tyrants and bigots; that’s not patriotism nor is it American.
Treating our fellow citizens with respect and courtesy no matter how different they are from ourselves, now THAT’S truly American…and it sure doesn’t describe conservatives.
>> They don’t understand conservative “Star Trek” fans because they don’t grasp conservatives as people.
That’s just not true. The bogglement is over the conservative compartmentalization, the deliberate ignoring of everything that goes against their worldview in favor of the parts that do…that’s what’s so strange.
>> Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as very liberal.
I don’t believe this for a second. I have asked many a conservative to steelman the liberal/progressive point of view, and not only can they not, they have–every last one–either refused or given a distorted parody of the left.
Meanwhile, the left often describes more the effects of right-wing behavior than the philosophy or mindset…and the fact that conservatives seem to consistently lack empathy for others (right up until the same things happen to them; that’s why they grow a sense of empathy).
If the right wants to be “understood”, maybe their behavior should result in less division and hatred and bigotry and poverty and exacerbating global pandemics by refusing to accept basic medical recommendations.
>> Conservatives have lived in a progressive media landscape for more than 50 years. We watch leftist shows, listen to leftist music and read left-leaning news sources.
…and STILL consistently misrepresent the left.
>> Our media consumption habits are broader than those on the Left…
Horsecrap, they are.
Everybody on the left looks at the right-wing media-sphere; when I ask people on the right, they always say they won’t consume anything overtly left-leaning…EVER.
>> we’ve grown used to engaging with liberal ideas and understanding the motivations and logic behind what progressives believe.
Then why can’t I have a discussion with a right-winger about, say, abortion without them constantly distorting my points (and the points of every pro-choice advocate)? Why can’t I have a discussion about LGBTQ+ issues without getting a wall of snide snark, bigotry, non-scientific medical quackery, religious objections, and complete misrepresentations, with zero willingness to amend or revise one’s opinion of the other side?
Hmm? I’ve never had a debate or discussion with a right-winger that wasn’t 95% distortion and misinformation regarding the other side. Ever.
>> They want “Star Trek” to be transgressive to society’s values—conservative values—and they can’t see why we like it in spite of their best efforts.
And that’s the kind of thing I mean.
“They want”…? So you’re telling the other side what their own position is…? And yet, right-wingers consistently get liberal positions correct and liberals don’t?
Huh. Interesting.
Can you teach ME to be psychic TOO?
“Conservatives wrap themselves in the flag while behaving like tyrants and bigots”
Thank you for giving a good example of the beliefs of liberals, and why many people can’t become liberals, because apparently becoming liberal requires believing things that aren’t true, such as the idea that “conservative=bigot”
“Treating our fellow citizens with respect…sure doesn’t describe conservatives.”
In your opinion. You clearly are not listening to what everyone is saying on this page. Just because we disagree with liberals doesn’t mean we have no respect for others. But your comments show that extreme liberals like you have no respect for others. You aren’t saying “extreme conservatives”…you’re saying “conservatives” like as if your hateful view of conservatives applies to all of us. Most people on this page are saying “can’t we all just get along?” and we would leave liberals alone if they would leave us alone. We don’t hate or attack people for being liberal, we only complain about the extremists like you, who are so full of hatred for anyone different than you. Down with extreme liberalism, down with extreme conservatism, but not down with reasonable liberals or conservatives…but extremists like you won’t accept that idea. You want total destruction of anyone who disagrees with you. That makes YOU the one with no respect for your fellow citizens.
“the deliberate ignoring of everything that goes against their worldview in favor of the parts that do…that’s what’s so strange.”
We don’t ignore the parts that are wrong. We just put up with it and move on, and continue to enjoy the good parts of the show, which until NuTrek, was most of the show. Like the OP said, since liberals OWN entertainment and media, we have no choice but to see some liberal ideas in our shows…and when we do, we put up with it, and enjoy the rest of the show…unless the show has TOO MUCH liberalism or is too hateful of conservatives. That’s why we hate NuTrek but not old Trek. It’s been corrupted to change from being about inclusion to now being about excluding anyone YOU disagree with. We like what Gene did, not what the new writers have done. How would you like it if all shows were conservative, and you had nothing else to watch? What if we told you “how dare you enjoy entertainment. it belongs to us only! You are being a hypocrite by watching entertainment! Go away!”. That would be intolerant and not inclusive, and you would SAY that to us…but when YOU do it, it’s fine. What a selfish childish attitude you extremists have.
“If the right wants to be understood, maybe their behavior should result in less division and hatred and bigotry and poverty and exacerbating global pandemics”
Maybe YOUR behaviour should result in less division. You are the most divisive person on this page. You are so full of hatred and bigotry against conservatives.
While it’s true that Republican politicians have usually caused more poverty than liberals intentionally (liberals do it with incompetence, but not on purpose), you will probably be surprised to find out that 99% of conservatives are not politicians! I can’t say what percentage of conservatives WANT poverty for whatever groups you think we want poverty for, but it’s definitely not the majority of us. And being conservative does not mean being racist. Some conservatives are racist, some are not. But your bigotry says ALL conservatives are racist and have every single quality you’ve been brainwashed to believe we have. Try being open-minded and inclusive.
And about “exacerbating global pandemics”, I agree with you that not getting vaccinated was a bad idea, which is why I got vaccinated as soon as I could. I care about my family’s health and everyone else’s. Isn’t that shocking? not a liberal, but still a caring and reasonable person?? But..but…but you were told that’s impossible! Again, stop believing everything you’re told to believe without checking if it’s true. I think the conservatives who refused vaccines were wrong, and some were doing it only to be stubborn, but some sincerely believed it would have negative effects. It’s a reasonable concern to have. What if there was a side effect that 5 years later, everyone vaccinated became sterile? If everyone was vaccinated, that would be the end of humanity. I considered that possibility too, but I decided it’s very unlikely, and there were enough people not getting vaccinated that humanity would survive any side effects, so I got vaccinated. You see, conservatives are individuals. We are people. Not the monstrous “others” that you have so much hatred for.
“and STILL consistently misrepresent the left.”
And look at you consistently misrepresenting the right.
“when I ask people on the right, they always say they won’t consume anything overtly left-leaning…EVER.”
Wow, so an extremist like you only talks to extremists? And you’re saying that I, a person who HATES FOX NEWS, don’t exist, because you didn’t talk to me? So only people you personally talk to can exist? You are definitely an extremist,
“why can’t I have a discussion with a right-winger about, say, abortion without them constantly distorting my points”
Because extremists like you are programmed to see other points of view as “distortions”, even when they are NOT…and you see any comment that agrees with your point of view as automatically reasonable, even when it is NOT. You probably watch Jon Stewart making sarcastic jokes instead of fair debate, and you think the audience laughing = winning and being true. It doesn’t. You just sit there, praising him for being witty, and you don’t really THINK about whether or not he’s making good points. Sometimes he does, and usually it’s about financial topics, but often he just distorts things to trick weakminded viewers. I would sit with you and watch him, and explain each distortion, but you are too close-minded to consider the possibility that a liberal can ever be wrong. You are gods in your mind, all knowing and perfect.
” Why can’t I have a discussion about LGBTQ+ issues without getting a wall of snide snark, bigotry, non-scientific medical quackery, religious objections, and complete misrepresentations, with zero willingness to amend or revise one’s opinion of the other side?”
Because you only speak to extremists, and you come out attacking viciously, so of course you make people defensive. If they slightly agree with you on a point, they are afraid to say it, because you’ll slam them down on the floor and attack more feverishly, so they have to show zero weakness around you.
” I’ve never had a debate or discussion with a right-winger that wasn’t 95% distortion and misinformation regarding the other side. Ever.”
Wow, so many extremist comments. “never” “never” “never”. What you see from the few you’ve met equals all of us… That’s an extremist attitude.
I’ve had discussions about abortion with vicious extremists like you, and they won’t allow deep debate. They start screaming that I’m evil the moment I say that abortion is the killing of a child. but it is. But I’ll discuss it in a fair way if they let me. But someone like you is too busy screaming to let me do that. But I have talked to reasonable liberals and said that I agree with them on some parts of the abortion issue…and sometimes they agree with me on some things. But I can see you are incapable of true debate. You are too prejudiced.
“So you’re telling the other side what their own position is…?”
He was talking about the vicious liberals like yourself who hate conservatives for liking old Star Trek. He didn’t say all liberals. BUT YOU are saying all conservatives have positions that you have decided we all have. So YOU are telling the other side what their own position is? Can you teach me to be psychic like you? (or psychotic like you)
Sorry, Kate. I wrote a very good reply to your incorrect statements, but the moderator rejected my reply. Must be an intolerant liberal.
So you refuse to believe scientific studies because…they go against your prejudices.
Star Trek lost me when they tried to make Sulu in recent incarnations a homosexual.
That was obviously rewriting of history to force a political viewpoint, so it was cringe. I’m glad George Takei admitted that he also found it to be cringe. His character was straight, and the movie implied that Sulu was changed from straight to gay when the timeline changed…but that goes against the idea that gays are “born that way”, so of course George Takei would be offended by that. If the whole movie was about that, then I would have stopped watching, but it was just a small part. What lost me is SNW and STD trying to imply that in the future, not only does everyone accept gayness and transgender ideas, but they ALL support the ideas FULLY, and they strongly hate anyone who disagrees. Star Trek wasn’t like that before. It’s less inclusive now.
Willing suspension of disbelief is neither a “Progressive,” or Conservative concept.
Cognitive dissonance isn’t triggered by a contradiction between fiction and reality.
Star Trek’s portrayal of a Utopian society is fiction, the butcher’s bill tallied by 20th-century derivatives of Utopian Socialism is historical reality.
You can read and enjoy Tolkien’s trilogy without questioning your evidence-based recognition that neither Hobbits nor Orcs exist.
A Conservative can view and enjoy Star Trek’s portrayal of a Utopian society, without questioning their understanding that the word “Utopia” literally means “nowhere.”
What appeals to conservatives about star trek, especially the original series and the next generation, is the dedication to fairness and justice. The shows were always about maximizing the individual and honoring his or her rights to self-governance above all else. Many conservatives are not religious, but many are. Among those who are, there’s an extreme distaste for organized religion. Organized religion and Faith are two very separate things. Star Trek was never about eliminating faith entirely, that was made clear in multiple episodes and in several of the movies. Star Trek talked about the dangers of organized religion, hierarchies, and so forth.
The primary principles of the original shows were Justice for everybody, not pushing agendas but rather allowing individuals to choose their own course in life, and the accumulation of knowledge through exploration. Those principles apply to most human beings. Trying to divide those beliefs between conservatives and liberals is an idiotic false dichotomy. Most Americans have more in common with one another than they do with the politicians and media that claim to represent them. If we all stopped worrying about whether our Choice wins or not in any given debate and actually just talked to one another in a reasonable manner, we would be reminded that most of us want the same things, self-governance, peace, prosperity, and opportunity.
I always suspected, that on some barely habitable planet somewhere, was where the Federation put all the people that didn’t want to sit around and drink synthehol in snappy uniforms. With the destruction and rebuilding of the Enterprise in many episodes it seems the Federation has a massive military budget. As I get older Star Trek is looking more like a authoritarian system than a peaceful collection of planets. On the aforementioned planet is all the hippie protesters and jeans wearing rednecks growing their own weed and making their own liquor. Of course it’s penal planet and they can leave and infest the Federation with their non=conforming ideas.
I’ve been watching from the beginning. However the latest one, Discovery I quit watching after one character wanted to be called by the correct pronouns.
Wanting to be called by the “correct” pronouns is ok. As long as you don’t call someone evil for using TRUE pronouns. But the show gives the impression that if you use the TRUE pronouns, all the characters will think you are evil. We are no longer allowed our viewpoint or even our existence. They are saying we will be eradicated in the future. I never felt that way watching old Star Trek (old meaning anything before STD)
Also, how do you define “correct” pronouns? A man who thinks he is a woman wants to be called She. To him, that’s correct. To me, that’s lying. If someone tried to force me to say “she”, I would say “he”. But if they are not trying to force me, I will say “they” or use their name. I had a friend named Christopher who changed his name to Christine. I just called him “Chris” or “they”. I wouldn’t LIE and call him “she”, but I didn’t want to upset him either, so I said Chris. That was me using the “correct” terms. That was 20 years ago, so liberals accepted the compromise as being fair. But NOW, if I said “Chris” or “they”, someone would get suspicious and demand I start saying “she” or “Christine” as a test to see if I’m liberal or conservative, and when they saw I’m conservative, they’d start screaming that I’m evil and not allowed in the building or anywhere else in society. So much intolerance.
I have liked ST:TOS and later ST:TNG throughout the decades, even though I was more socialist oriented in my youth and am much more Libertarian/Conservative now. I like humane characters, exploring new things, better understanding of existing structures, and keeping babies while pouring dirty bathwater into the Recycler.
As others have noted, what we see in Star Trek are people who appear to be in their positions because of merit and job performance. There is no discussion of how they distribute goods that are necessarily in short supply, like condos with great views and extensive living space, or permits to climb Half Dome, or hours in the Alhambra in Grenada, etc.
In the presumably Progressive world of Star Trek, is society dominated by the lazy and unproductive? If not, why not? New Soviet Man? Post-scarcity, can you have all the children you want? Is there Freedom of Speech? Of Religion? Who controls the contents of education?
I’m not being argumentative. This kind of question must be addressed no matter what system you have.
In the old Soviet Union, a visitor noticed that even in the “Classless Society”, the seats up front on AeroFlot were more spacious and comfortable, so he asked, “How do you get the nicer seats?” Answer: “You pay more.”
You have abolished money. Who gets desirable scare things? Who decides? Who decides who decides?
To me, there was only ever one Star Trek, the original. I could never get into any of the others. I gave most of them a try but found that the more recently they were made, the worse the writing.
That isn’t even about liberals vs conservatives. The old characters, Spock, Kirk, Dr. McCoy and the rest, were dynamic, compelling, believable people. The newer shows have no such skill in characterization or story-telling.
I think most conservatives are smart enough to realize that society will change and adapt as resources become cheap (or free) and no one is really poor anymore. With replicators, food and tools are available to everyone and the current need to ‘work’ for a paycheck to survive disappears. Where I think Trek fails is in ignoring the fact that, in the absence of need, there will be many lazy people that refuse to be productive or add to society. Trek ignores this completely and only focuses on the highly-driven Starfleet personnel, doctors, scientists, etc… It completely avoids some aspects, like Harry Kim living in San Francisco in a condo with a great view…something with limited availability, so how does he get it over someone else? Need a Starship? How do you ‘purchase’ one when they claim there is no money anymore? There will always be things with limited availability. How is it rationed out? Completely ignored in Trek.
Conservatives are not against ‘utopia.’ We just understand that human nature will never allow it to happen. There will ALWAYS be individuals and groups that want power, hate others, and are beyond selfish. They did pop-up in Trek as bad guys but it was never addressed in terms of society or how they live or came to be. The part we did see, Starfleet, is very much Conservative, based on achievement, merit, and duty. Yes, people are people and fail the ideal from time to time. It doesn’t mean society cannot strive to achieve the Trek ideal. It doesn’t make it liberal or conservative. It makes it 400+ years in the future where circumstances, resources, and more we cannot fathom have shaped society beyond our current understanding.
This has always bothered me. You look at DS9 with its more gritty world and they realized the need for money. Latinum was created just for this problem. The Federation might not have money but they need some way to trade with other civilizations. At some point there needs to be a unit of money that all space-faring cultures can use. Enter the Ferengi with something that can be used without tracking and not be replicated.
Even though Star Trek likes to portray humans as evolved, we see they aren’t really much different than today’s humans. And there’s probably vast numbers of useless and lazy humans living on colonies being fed bugs and living in pods.
“Many even went as far as to defend the show as being nominally conservative. “The original Star Trek at its core was a western in space as some TV exec snidely told Roddenberry. But that was a strength. It was about heroics. Facing down an enemy,” says @JimRoseAF.”
Actually, Roddenberry literally pitched the show to TV executives as “Wagon Train to the Stars”.
The original Star Trek was an action adventure show in Space. The original show had 2 good villains: Klingons and Romulans. The characters on the show were not perfect, and knew it. They were good at their jobs, but had foibles and failures like the rest of us. The universe had rogues, idiots, well meaning fools, and people just trying to do their job. Plus a lot of unknowns.
I did not care for the follow-on shows: Next Generation and Deep Space 9. They were either way too perfect (or used the holodeck for lazy writers) and they also gave up a great villain (Klingons) or a badly thought out one (Feringi) to a really boring machine one (Borg). We also added a layer of “advisors” in the chain of command that were dumb.
It is the left that is insanely intolerant and incapable of “coexistance”. “This is our show, and if you’re not in the tank with us, you are not allowed to enjoy it.”
Spock is logical Vulcan. He is not a modern liberal progressive all wrapped up in emotions. On the other hand, doctors like McCoy act on their emotions and sometimes proven wrong. Captain Kirk is the ultimate alpha male and often hated by today’s leftists.
Star Trek did portray a matriarchal society and shown how ridiculous it is. The men dress in revealing open shirts and put on fragrances.
I liked watching men and women of different races and national origins working together toward the common goal of achieving a greater understanding of the world we live in. What’s not to like about that?
Exactly… The Liberals eschew that sort of thinking but don’t live it out and then blame us.
Working together is the key. That’s why I say “Diversity is chaos, unity is strength”. Diversity is great as long as everyone is working together for a common goal. That’s why old Trek was based on military discipline. You could have anyone of any race, gender, religion, etc. But all had to follow the rules and chain of command of Starfleet. Merit was rewarded. No one got a participation award.
I’m copying and pasting a comment from a forum because I just don’t have the strength to argue any more with these psychotics on the left… This sums it up very well..
“Despite the fact that Gene Roddenberry was a humanist and wanted our culture to outgrow such outmoded (in his mind) concepts as religion and marriage, and wanted Star Trek to show that, his writers didn’t always agree with that. So in “Balance of Terror”, the episode opened with the crew gathering for a traditional wedding. In “Bread and Circuses”, we had Rome and Christ meeting again on a modern Earth-parallel planet. And in “Who Mourns for Adonais”, they meet the Greek god Apollo. And when he questions them about their apparent lack of need for their gods, Kirk responds: “We find the one quite sufficient.”
The unsaved liberal mind will never understand that the IDIC, Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, is embraced FAR more by the Conservative then it EVER will by the Liberal. I think you hit the nail when you said, the demoniacs on the left don’t actually see us as viable people. How sad. This is why NuTrek fails and is absolute garbage.
Excellent exposition.
Well thank you sir!
This is the most breathtakingly stupid, cherry-picked nonsense description of Star Trek I’ve ever read. The entire show (and its derivatives) were about inclusivity for all, in all cultures, across time and space. That was the message.
Christ…
Is that a fact, Jeff? So the Gorn were included? The Romulans were not kept on their side of the Neutral Zone by threat of force? The creature from The Man Trap was embraced? The culture of the Fabrini, Landru, or Vaal were respected?
The fact is, Jeff, that you’ve layered your own politics over what the stories actually were about. You’ve drunk the kool-aid.
I agree, Jeff. That was the message before, but now it’s about exclusion and demonization of anyone who disagrees.
Huzzah!
John, you very succinctly express the elements of Star Trek Conservatism nicely. Well done.
Liberals fail to understand anything that does not fall in lock step with their ideology and often completely reject those elements, ignoring that they are there or re-defining them in their own ideology. The Original Star Trek was quintessentially American and as we all know and see, Liberals are totally anti-American. “The E Plebnista” of The Omega Glory idolizes the Declaration of Independence that the Liberals despise. In my experience, Libs hate the original series, DS9, and Voyager, but love Next Gen and the new shows because those series embrace liberalism and eschew the elements that made TOS great. As a final thought, notice that for Next Gen to make it on the Big Screen, Picard and crew have to become Kirk, setting aside their “thoughtful, nuanced points of view” and take strong stands and action.
I hadn’t thought about that with Next Gen, but you are absolutely right!
Kudos! Well spoken, Good Sir!
I am a conservative and have enjoyed Star Trek, originally watching the TOS before TNG came out when I was in high school. TOS, and, to a progressively lesser extent, the newer series, each episode was a moral tale, with the end of the episode, sometimes direct, sometimes subtilely, would pose that moral dilemma and their answer. The show made you think.
The show liked to pretend that the future was a utopia without money or religion… Yet, especially in TOS, they are constantly attempting to negotiate trade treaties with other planets, both in and outside of the Federation… What are they trading? How does a civilization without currency function? Even Marxist countries use currency, even if it’s value is manipulated… There must be some system of recognized exchange or barter. What are these “Federation Credits” that are discussed? For enough dilithium to power Starfleet for a year, you miners will be allotted 50k pardons for misgenderigs? Doesn’t the first episode of TNG have Riker, Dr. Crusher, and Wesley walking through the Far Point market… and a bolt of fabric Dr. Crusher holds changes when she looks away… and she decides to ‘buy’ it, and asks them to have it beamed up to her room…. ???
My biggest problem episode with TNG is Time’s Arrow… Without calling them ‘souls’, the two-part episode focuses upon aliens harvesting the ‘life forces’ of humans in 19th century San Francisco… It upset me not that aliens could be killing people, but in some ways it seemed an attack on world religions (other than atheism, nihlism, humanism) suggesting that souls included a physical presence and could be ‘eaten’. These and the ‘Traveller’ episodes where they portray Wesley as the second coming, are probably my least favorite TNG episodes.
Although no one cares… So far, my list of (the original) Star Trek universe shows would be
1. TOS
2. Enterprise
3. TNG (Data, LaForge, Noonien Soong, Lore, Worf, O’Brien were my favorite characters, maybe Riker, then maybe Pcard (I like his other work better, least favorites are Tasha Yar (worst Security Officer ever), Wesley Crusher, Dr. Pulaski (thanks for the flashback, but, no), and Guinan (need I say more)).
4. DS9 (I liked Comm. Sisko (Avery Brooks, Hawk), Odo (Rene Auberjonois, Kramer/Fr. Mulcahy), but the Marxists-saints flashbacks of civil unrest dreams/time travel were heavy-handed)
5. Picard (?) (haven’t finished watching yet…. just finished first season, not impressed so far)
6. Voyager (I thought Capt. Janeway was weak, if not outright incompetent – sad first outing for a female captain)
If I was to include the retconned shows,
1. TOS
2. Enterprise
3. TNG
4. Star Trek (retconned, Chris Pine Kirk movies)
5. DS9
6. Strange New Worlds (that I’ve seen so far)
7. Picard
8. Voyager
9. Discovery (so much wasted potential, wasted on Uber-woke… Stacy Abrams as Earth President? Bwahahahahaha!)
–