Saga Is Star Wars more liberal or conservative?

Uuhh... I reckon the Galactic Republic could be further classified as a "Galactic Federal Parliamentary(?) Constitutional Republic". Though, DarthPhilosopher might add, "and a Representative Democracy".

 

I would put the empire to the far right... Fascist totalitarian dictatorship..

and the rebellion/resistance all the way to the far left... "open ended" democracy with a weak central government

and the old republic is somewhere inbetween .. a republic

As far as the attitudes, philosophies and symbolism used in the movies.. I would say most can agree it displays both liberal and conservative platforms, but definitely through the lenses or perspective of a liberal leaning political mind. (in other words I'm assuming George Lucas is very left minded in his politics)

 

The broadest term which classifies all Western nations is 'liberal democracy' which is what the films support.

There are plenty of nations which are classified as "Presidential" and "Parliamentary" (even just de jur, like Nazi Germany, but many still de facto), while de facto not being classed as "representative democracies" (as per the Freedom House reports). Two such examples are Sudan and Belarus - their structure means that they are presidential Republics, however their function means they are no longer representative democracies. With such situations it is imperative to specify. I find it odd though that 'Presidential' is now so imperative to your argument when you previously failed bring it up almost like your ading to your argument as you go... But I feel like you've unnecessarily caused this argument about definitions when we don't even fundamentally disagree...

Why even establish argument here, when initial response to Slicer87 was about how the United States is not a democracy. Previously you've stated calling the United States a Representative Democracy 'categorically incorrect', you've stated the United States only has a representative democracy, and you've simultaneously called referred to the United States as a 'Constitutional Representative Republic' as being correct (not realising the irony, obviously, that 'Representative' is shorthand for 'Representative Democracy'). But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your shifting position is a follows above. Whether or not you find the including Representative Democracy in the definition redundant or unnecessarily is frankly immaterial.... what matters is that the United States is a Representative Democracy, which is all my argument was. The fact of the matter is that 'Constitutional' could be irrelevant if you really want to start culling terms since a constitution is implied by the existence of of a Presidential or Parliamentary system... but let's not bother discussing that. The fact of the matter is whether you write the United States as:

Federal Constitutional Presidential Republic

Federal Constitutional Representative Presidential Republic

Federal Representative Presidential Republic

All are correct, and I think including 'Representative (Dem)' is important as further defining the nation. You don't - it doesn't really matter since they are all correct. I believe you have confused the point I was making which is exemplified in this comment:

Which I never said. I said it is a Representative Democracy as well as a Federal Constitutional Presidential Republic. Consistently. In response to someone saying that the United States is not a democracy.

Regarding the definitional idea you have - very rarely will you find someone say 'this is the highest definition of the United States'. They will instead refer to a state by an amalgamation of different and accurate terms, often interchangeably. Among these is representative democracy - sometimes they will drop the 'constitutional' since that is implied by any modern nation state, and often they will drop the presidential unless contrasting with parliamentary or semi-presidential system. I don't have my textbooks on me, however after a quick search I found an article titled 'Recovering the Republic? Democratic representation and the theory of mixed government' in a 2012 edition of the Irish Jurist. I don't know if you can find it, however within it it is clear they don't find the term 'representative democracy' too broad to partly classify a nation from the majority of non-Western ones (they also use the term Republic). I personally find 'Federal Presidential Constitutional Representative Republic' to be the most conclusive term, and unless you find it actually inaccurate, then I don't know what else there is to discuss. In a world where 'Presidential' and 'Republic' do not inherently imply 'Representative Democracy (at the very least in the de facto sense) I think it is imperative to specify these things. You may not. But I'm not inaccurate in any case.

 

I think Star Wars takes a...er....balanced approach to things.

 

Ingram_I
anakinfansince1983

If you want to continue in one of the relevant threads in the Senate that is fine. Otherwise I'm willing to agree to disagree at this point.

 

DarthPhilosopher

Since I'm under pressure by the Mods to abstain from derailing the thread topic any further, I'm challenged with truncating my response to a degree unavoidably bereft. My position here from the start as been to define the United States from the top down, proportionate to whatever point along the discourse where a comparably vaguer term is being used: Constitutional Representative Republic > Democracy, Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic > Representative Democracy—on the grounds of defining the nation in any given instance at its relative fullest or, at the very least, rejecting any umbrella use of (rep) democracy for simply being insufficient (in turn emphasizing the utmost Classical Liberal principles upon which the US was founded).

Note: 'representative' being inherent in the premise of Presidential/Parliamentary tittles, whatever actual functions of a nation subject to increasingly authoritarian factors renders them exceptions to said terms, and thus warrants an inverted caveat-annotation when classified e.g., not Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic and a Representative Democracy but rather, regarding Sudan, Presidential Constitutional Republic but not a Representative Democracy, or simply Dominant-Party (read: not representative) Presidential Constitutional Republic.

Maybe it is something as simple as a discrepancy in the way we language our perspectives on the matter, I dunno. Regardless, yeah, an agree-to-disagree is probably as good as it's gonna get.

Hold up, Mods...

I don't mean to suggest that the moralizing of Star Wars proceeds only from a religious, let alone Judeo-Christian, standpoint. I just find it interesting that Lucas' more 1960s-born liberal sentiments apparent enough within the films and occasionally expressed (or at least hinted) outside of them share something of a dichotomy with his professed spirituality, furthermore as it remains central throughout his storytelling via the Force. Nor am I suggesting that spirituality is decidedly conservative over liberal, though stateside the pendulum does seem to swing that way, even if largely through rhetoric. Moreover, the contrast between the stodgy Jedi Order and the more freestyle enlightenment/achievements of Luke's Jedi-hood almost takes on an air of Lutheranism; if nothing else, Lucas certainly seems critical of orthodoxy, and thus zigzaging that much further the saga's politics with an inborn conservative streak, even if only by default.

His treatment of Secessionism takes on a more ambivalent tone from Episode II to III in how the Separatists are revealed as being less sinister in their agendas than they are merely, perhaps, fed up with an overcooked Old Republic, albeit duped by sinister orchestrators. One might even think of them as mavericks equivalent to Qui-Gon's disposition towards the Jedi Council, then taken to the next level assumed by Dooku when he first blew said popsicle stand. Lucas also highlights a difference between diplomacy, as almost centrally embodied by Padmé, and the bureaucratic red tape she's faced with time and time again. But then, he flips that on its head as well when a Gordian knot solution to political inertia is that of delegate Binks calling into vote emergency powers to Palpatine's advantage; good-natured Jar Jar seizing his one moment of civic courage, no doubt inspired by his former queen, only for it to be swallowed whole by tragic, cosmic irony.

As mentioned, I don't think Lucas had any real political statements in mind, other than making clear a disdain for overall fascism and injustice. At most, he stresses an importance for what is rooted at both ends of America's mainstream ideologies, as is quietly, snakishly mocked by Palpatine: "I love democracy. I love the Republic." At any rate, one has to admire the complexities Lucas illustrated throughout the political plots, especially for what is, on the surface, just some dopey space adventure movies. There is at once a sort of accidental effortlessness to it all.

 

I would agree with those that stated SW is anti-fascist, anti-establishment, and left-leaning at the very least.
I'm not enough educated with politics to add anything anywhere near as deep as some of the talk on this thread.


I posted some relevant captions on some thread recently, but I can't find the post. This was most of it, posting randomly from my unorganised photobucket account...




This (TPM/AOTC) dialogue reference shows that the Republic and Jedi in AOTC have become the invaders. Where the TF was quite intimidating as the apparent main aggressor in TPM, things are starting to become turned on their head, and essentially everyone is just playing Palpatine's game. Imo you are asked to question if fighting the arguably misguided Separatist systems is really the answer.

Adding to this, there are some links between the ground battles at the centre of each trilogy (AOTC/ESB). The Republic invade a Separatist desert homeworld and cause them to be overrun, retreat and flee.

While the Republic has the right intention, this forming "means to an end" attitude arguably carries over in some warped form when they become the Empire. Here the Empire invades the Rebel snow homebase, causing the seceding faction to be overrun and flee, once again.






The same militant music plays during these introductions to each side of the Clone War's armies in TPM/AOTC:








I always thought Mace's ominous tone when Palpatine receives emergency powers here was very telling. The Jedi are aligning with a failing Republic:







This one is kind of funny. The Republic attacking Geonosis with mini-Deathstars?














Yoda mysteriously contemplating while Anakin and Obi-Wan argue about going back for Padme:










"A Jedi uses the force for knowledge and defense..."










AOTC:


ROTS:



Both the Jedi and the Sith, both the Republic and the Empire, seek to conquer the Separatist threat through war.
Anakin even shuts down the droid army by accident in TPM, a light mirror to his cold-blooded slaughter of the Separatist leaders to shut down the droid armies again in ROTS.

And Obi-Wan's final mission before the Jedi purge was to kill Grievous in fair face-to-face combat on Utapau. He takes Grievous out more honourably than Anakin/Vader does with the Separatists, but Kenobi's reaction is still very telling...
"So uncivilised!"

 

This seems as relevant as ever. Some smart stuff on this thread.

 

Well, I'm not a fan of contextomy, so...

 

If that is only in response to my post...

Yeah because there is no relevant connection there at all

 

Haven't read the whole thread, but while scrolling I noticed the attempt to contrast "attack those Federation starships" against "a Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack" as if there was a contradiction between both scenes and respective dialogue.

It was in response to that.

 

Lucas stated the Jedi shouldn't be fighting in wars. His exact words.

 

Yes, and there shouldn't be wars to begin with. The Jedi didn't fight in the war because they liked to. They had no choice, that's the whole problem. Besides, my point was that to order an attack against a Federation ship is not using the Force for attack, thus the contextomy.

 

At least we agree here.

Lucas also basically stated that their involvement contributes to the growing strength of the dark side. I understand your stance, but I don't think they should have accepted it inevitably as their only option.
A war existing at all increases the presence of negative aspects of the force in the galaxy, with people fueling it with their hate and aggression. Fighting to resolve the war in combat only pushes the force further out of balance.

I concede this point. It was more a comment on the Jedi being out of place fighting as generals, as above.

 

I wouldn't concede this point. It's literally a Jedi ordering an attack on a fleeing adversary. It may make military sense to do such a thing, but that's precisely why the Jedi aren't supposed to act as a military force. There needs to be someone around who can question the morality of war and act as a counterbalancing force to the militarists. It isn't necessarily that the war was entirely unjustified or that Grand Army of the Republic is an inherently evil entity. The problem is that with the spiritual leaders of the Republic acting as generals, there's nothing else but the Grand Army.

It's quite literally what Lucas said. This is not the Jedi's role. They are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. That's what's throwing things out of balance more than anything else. They are spiritual leaders, ambassadors of peace. They shouldn't be taking part in a morally questionable, aggressive war against a secessionist faction of political idealists. This is a far cry from oppressed Rebels vs. tyrannical Empire.

e:

What I like about this is that it underlines one of the central points of the films, one that Padme makes to Anakin in Episode III: When communication stops, conflict begins.

 

Double post yet again because I'm dumb.

 

Great post The_Phantom_Calamari.

It is also telling that in the OT the Empire always have the Rebels on the run, whereas after TPM (where, granted, the TF are clearly the intimidator and are searching Amidala down) the Republic is constantly hunting down the Separatists. They attack Separatist starships trying to flee into space on Geonosis, and spend much of the Clone Wars combing the galaxy for Dooku and Grievous. Even the opening battle of ROTS has Palpatine luring the Separatist fleet into his own machinatons, in some ways much like he does with the Rebels in ROTJ.

Well said. The OT enforcing the Jedi's passive nature doesn't seem just coincidentally contrasting to their efforts in the Clone Wars.
Luke's fight in ROTJ, while intertwined with the Rebel battle on some levels, is essentially just a personal struggle against the lure of the Emperor. At this stage he isn't leading or taking part in the Rebels fight directly.

Great connection, that seems to be heavily implied here.

Nice. And the colour contrast in the sky is recurring thing if you look at a lot of saga caption comparisons. It is becoming cloudier in AOTC as well.

Interesting. Vader does essentially become Grievous in some ways in ROTS afterall, and it does reinforce the theme to look at others within yourself, crucial to the message of the six films.

 

Indeed. I've always felt there was a greater meaning to Obi-Wan prying Grievous's metal chestplate open to be confronted by a living, beating heart. Sort of an early prefiguration of Luke's discovery of the humanity within Darth Vader in ROTJ, the intrinsic meaning common to both events rippling forward and backward through time in different allegorical forms, as is wont to happen in Star Wars.

I think this idea is reinforced by several other mirrors to ROTJ which bookend Obi-Wan's silent contemplation of Grievous's burning corpse.

Tossing away a weapon as a statement on violence:




Commandeering a fallen cyborg's ship, assuming their identity (Luke becomes a Jedi like his father, Obi-Wan becomes a rebel general and fugitive from the Republic like Grievous):




I also like the stark color contrast between General Grievous and Darth Vader. One bone-white, the other black as night. Yet both palettes are made to have the same evil, sinister connotations and intimations of death.

e: Also, two different manifestations of the evil-cleansing power of fire:

 

Baby you're a firework
come on let your colors burst

 

IMHO, it's not entirely coincidence that the real world location (Tikal) of the secret Rebel base was in Guatemala.

The 1970s had seen many cruel dictatorships in Central and South America, usually supported by the US, and I believe with "Star Wars" George Lucas also expressed his contempt with the US foreign policy of these days. It wasn't until 1979 that the Carter Administration ordered a ban on all military aid to the Guatemalan Army because of its widespread and systematic abuse of human rights

In the particular case of Nicaragua (see their victory celebration above, two years after the theatrical release of ANH) the Carter Administration withdrew support for Nicaragua's dictator Somoza, but the Reagan administration started to fund the Contras (various U.S.-backed and funded right-wing rebel groups that were active from 1979 to the early 1990s in opposition to the left-wing, socialist Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction government in Nicaragua. After US support was banned by Congress, the Reagan administration covertly continued it. These covert activities culminated in the Iran–Contra affair.

 

I submit that, upon closer examination, the Empire is pretty obviously closer to fascism and the political Right than it is the authoritarian Left.

 

While Lucas himself is obviously closer to the political left than the political right, and the films do reflect that to an extent, there are elements in the films which portray a slightly more ambiguous picture. For example in Empire, we have the sympathetic portrayal of Lando, a libertarian entrepreneur hiding from the Empire in order to retain his autonomy and avoid having to pay dues to a government-aligned trade union. Given Lucas's own history of troubles with what he saw as overbearing unions, it's not hard to see where these sentiments may have come from.

 

Clone Wars went a long way towards humanizing the Separatists (or at least the public face of them).

Lucas also said "balancing the force" = "no more Sith", never mind that you can't have a one-sided thing.

I take most of the "meta" things Lucas says with a huge hunk of salt.

Not sure how that makes the Empire any less right-leaning.