Saga Is Star Wars more liberal or conservative?

The overall theme of Star Wars is liberal democracy vs authoritarianism, so it is neither conservative or 'liberal' (gah, Americans and your terms), since both support liberal democracy in the Western sense.

However the subtext is that the OT is critical of American Imperialism, which is a mainly conservative phenonomen (although it is a cross-party thing now). The PT is critical of the relationship between politics and money, which is a cross-party thing in America, however is primarily aligned with the conservatism (Nute Gunray and Lott Dod, are of course named after conservatives). This is a reflection of George Lucas's left-leanings.

However overall it's supportive of Western political values.

 

Well the US was founded as and still is supposed to be a Republic instead of a democracy (at least in our view as there are some different opinions). Some of our founding fathers distrusted democracy as they viewed if as mob rule that turns on itself and meets a bloody end, which happened with some European revolutions around that time. They also feared a charismatic leader rising up the ranks to become a tyrant by fooling the mob. Lucas is a history buff and it probably isn't an accident whenever Palps gains more power the senate is behaving similar to a mob and chanting, the very situation the American founders feared. Either way the films do support Western political views as DarthPhilosopher stated.

 

Except we don't live in 1776 anymore and the term 'democracy' as the founding fathers used it is different now - and changed almost immediately after because those terms reflected the Greek and Roman systems. Democracy does not mean mob rule, at least when combined with certain mechanisms, and hasn't since the turn of the 18th Century. As soon as the mechanism of constitution was added they knew a democracy could work. Democracy simply means the people have the power over the state, which when combined with a constitution, is not mob rule. A Republic, similarly, is merely a state which is not ruled by a monarchy, meaning you can have an authoritarian Republic with mob rule, and a Kingdom with a constitutional democracy. The irony is the European revolution which you cite as bloody was a constitutional Republic.

The difference between the USA and USSR? They were both constitutional Republics. Only one was a democracy though.

 

It's not a question of an outdated definition, but one that is used today under very specific and stringent prefaces. It is not "democracy" that somehow absorbs these added principles, but is instead forever subordinate to them. It is not the definition of democracy that has changed, but the application, one which keeps in check its ochlocratic natures. And that application is not simply a constitution, which brings us to:

The democratic mechanism employed by the US is actually somewhat minor-to-irrelevant in this case. No, the true difference between the constitutional representation of the US and whatever that of the USSR (along with those of historical Europe), resides in the actual content of the former's constitution, principally its Bill of Rights—further recognized as unalienable among every individual (contradictions in early US cultural practices notwithstanding).

In short, there is no rule, legislation nor even democratic action that overrides individual liberty as protected by the US constitution. Such is what is meant when the US is correctly identified as a Constitutional Representative Republic.

 

Well it kind of has changed definition (or at the very least a fundamental understanding), since democracy was only understood without the idea of a constitution prior to the Atlantic Revolutions. This is the reason the term ochlocracy was developed.

Besides the importance of the content of the constitution, the democratic mechanism is not 'minor to irrelevant', at least not when describing the nature of the United States. Indeed the democratic mechanism is one such part of the content of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. The statement was put that the United States is not a Democracy but a Republic. This is an untrue statement, because these terms are neither mutually exclusive, nor is the term 'Republic' a description of the United States unique nature. Rather it is it's constitution. I was addressing rather, whether or not the United States is a democracy, to which the answer is that it obviously is. You are correct in saying that it is a Constitutional Representative Republic (no one disputes that), but not to the exclusion that it is also a democracy (which is what the term 'representative' is referring to).

You seem to also overstate the unique nature of the Bill of Rights in the constitution. Certainly some of the rights are unique, but the fact that the US constitution has the rights of the individual protected is not unique. Indeed a Bill of Rights existed in the USSR however was less stringent on protecting rights and less respected. Anyway, what makes the United States unique is irrelevant, since I was merely stating a 'Republic' is not the definition of the United States liberty. The fact of the matter is the United States is a democracy.

 

The term, "ochlocracy", though, arose specifically as a pejorative response to democracy -- a critical description of -- never as its own intended state. We can easily say the definition of democracy has changed, but only really in a figurative manner when recognizing certain added principles under which it operates. The point is that democracy can still emerge on its own in whatever generality or budding fashion under its core meaning of 'power-invested-in-people', and without necessarily negating itself as a democracy.

It can't be both. When recognizing a nation, the definition of such is ultimately predicated on its highest rule. I agree that the democratic mechanism is not excluded form the summary understanding of 'Constitutional Republic', but its inclusion still only refers to how the US government merely functions as a body, not the extent of its power.

I'm sorry, but it simply is not. This comes down to basic definitional logic. To reiterate, there is no vote that overrides the liberties of the individual. Therefore, if democracy is subject to a higher rule, it cannot at the same time serve as chief definition. When-and-where democracy is kept separate from ochlocracy is precisely due to it being limited by aforesaid rule. Again, this has nothing to do with dismissing democracy from the system of government that is the United States, but calling the US a a Democracy, or even a Democratic Republic, is either a misnomer, intellectually dishonest or just plain categorically incorrect.

On the secondary matter of US rights-and-provisions against those of the USSR (or even today's Russia), it is rather specious to approximate them so closely by A) merely glazing over those aforesaid unique rights of the former and the ineffectual practices of the latter, and B) without addressing the major differences in social/political circumstances at the time of their conceptions: Soviet Russia had already existed as a unified nation for generations prior to its drafting of any Constitutional Law, whereas the US was quite literally born from its Constitution; the specified rules therein, as structured into a whole, were never historical or self-evident from the start.

 

The fact that a democracy can mean different results depending upon whether or not it is combined with certain other functions is completely beside the point. it is a democracy whether it isn't combined with a constitution or is. Therefore the United States is a democracy, and is of the variety which doesn't result in mob rule.

It can be both and it absolutely is. The notion that a state can only be defined by its most dominant aspect is completely superficial and is invented by yourself. The United States is a Constitutional Republic and Representative Democracy. Both are equally true. Things are not merely defined by their most dominant aspect.

Suggesting the United States is not a democracy because its also Constitutional Republic, and the former is defined and constrained by the latter, is like suggesting one is not a man because one is also a human.

 

Now you're simply ignoring definitions; or, superimposing the word "democracy" over any other as you see fit. A majority rule state-society, as determined electorally, is validly called a democracy due to where its highest rule resides: with the majority. If the highest rule resides elsewhere, as in Constitutional Law, maintaining the term "democracy" reveals a blatant definitional problem.

Nations are—see above. When the United States is referred to as a "democracy", it is only in a certain sense of the word, in that it has a functioning democracy that facilitates its government body. To go from that to actually categorizing the country as a democracy is to get lost in generality, or to apply such a wide standard that the very term "democracy" as a ranking of nations becomes trivial bordering on meaningless: Bhutan is also a democracy, and Pakistan, Poland, Uganda, Sudan, Malawi etc. At a certain and rather obvious point we have to start defining very real differences between those nations and the US, which means shedding "democracy" as a catchall. And to suggest that doing so is an arbitrary invention flies in the face of both cold reason and common sense. Consider this in practical terms: telling someone that Sudan and the US are both democracies warrants a great big "So what?" as such a correlation does very little in accurately defining those nations.

Too crude of an analogy. But even if running with it, the logic therein actually works against your argument. I'm not saying a human is not a man, but that a man is not a woman simply because the two share human traits. Where the analogy ends is that democracy is not inherent to any nation whereas humanity is to both its male and female genders; like I said, crude.

 

You seem to not even define democracy correctly; a democracy is not merely the rule of the majority, it is also the rule of law, the establishment of government through free and fair elections and where supreme power is invested in the people. All of these things are present in the United States.

Not to mention the democratic process can override the constitution. That's why you have amendments.

Okay so firstly, not all the countries you mention are democracies; Sudan, Malawi, and Pakistan aren't full democracies or aren't even democracies at all (Sudan isn't). There is actually a really good annual report called the Democracy Index. It establishes what a democracy is (the modern definition agreed on by academics, constitutional scholars and the international community) and puts them in four categories: "Full Democracy", "Flawed Democracy", "Hybrid Regimes", "Authoritarian Regimes". The first three are 'democracies', of different levels, and the latter aren't. The United States is a full democracy.

Even if all the countries in the world were democracies, how would this be a different than all the countries in the world being Constitutional Republics, and them being wildly different in nature? They would still be Constitutional Republics. The biggest irony is that Sudan is a Constitutional Republic but not a democratic one.

"Consider this in practical terms: telling someone the Sudan and the US are both constitutional republics warrants a great big "So what?" as such a correlation does very little in accurately defining those nations"

 

I don't really see liberal or conservative values too much in Star Wars. Really the only thing that popped to my mind was the concept of two parties in the New Republic introduced in Bloodline. We have Centrists who favor a strong galactic government (like most liberals support the federal government) while there are Populists who support planetary sovereignty (like most conservatives wish to have more state sovereignty).

 

It can be, in that it can function under, say, a rule of law, yet such principles are not a requirement in its definition. This is what I mean when I say any government could emerge today using pure democracy and still be validly defined as a "democracy". When people speak of democracy today, as above, they are recognizing its modern application as something which has long since become subordinate to additional principles. When people define democracy today, they are defining what is considered (among the West, at least) a healthy application. In other words, it is being defined as a proper and healthy function, not as something which all its own or in-and-of-itself categorizes a nation state. More on that below.

...to prevent that very thing from happening. Yes, I know. Hence the democratic process as that which is subject to a predominant factor. It is that latter upon which, among other articles, a nation such a the US is chiefly categorized.

has

The United States has a full democracy. That's the whole point of the Democratic Index report, being that witch measures and determines the state of democracy in any given country that utilizes such. It refers to democracy as a mechanism that facilitates a nation, and to what effect, as is how I am referring to them in the general sense as well. Including Sudan: yes, it is, in-that-it-practices, a form of democracy, regardless of how perverse, which is why it is...ranked on the Democratic Index. Again, the scale of "Authoritarian" to "Full" only ranks in degree the democratic process, whereas highlighting any one of those nations (online) entails the actual form of government by which they are categorized. Fundamentally two different things.

It dose so more than simply calling them democracies (in which they both practice). Except, I'm merely correcting the US as a Constitutional Republic above generalizing it as a democracy—as that which practices. Nothing more. If compared to Sudan, as was similarly compared to the USSR, likewise, I would further argue the actual content of US Constitutional Law, it's Bill of Rights and subset Articles detailing provisions etc.

 

It is simply incorrect to suggest that a democracy is only a function that is inherent to all nations, and can be scaled, but none-the-less inherent to all. The United States, has a full democracy, but in having one, is also a full democracy in definition. The Sudan, and the USSR, do/did not have a functioning democratic process, and therefore can not be classified as democracies. If one has full democracy, a flawed democracy, or a hybrid regime, it can be said to be a democracy by definition.

The United States is (I'll even say chiefly, just for you) a Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic. But it is also a Representative Democracy. I think you'd be hard pressed find a constitutional lawyer, academic, or expert who says otherwise.

 

I'm not. All I'm doing is proceeding from the Democratic Index report that you cited, its declared purpose in measuring the state of democracy among the 167 nations listed.

No, not by definition; by reference.

For some reason you cannot seem to process the fact that we make loose(r) grammatical associations, particularly concerning something complex like a social system that can be broken down and identified for its varying and multilayered characteristics, or when identifying any one of those characteristics when-and-where they might exist in the world today—instead, this obsession you have with taking "a" literally as a definitive classification of said social system. Neither I nor those responsible for the Index report are hooked on this drug. Those 167 nations aren't listed because they are or are not democracies but rather to determine by definition what form of democracy they practice: Full, Flawed, Hybrid or something feigned and meager under the yoke of Authoritarian. That's it.

Well, which is it, a Democracy or Representative Democracy? Because a Representative Democracy is essentially just a way of describing what is in fact a modern, Western Republic, which is at least more accurate than calling the US a Democracy. But even to the latter extent, you're still then technically changing the subject from the classification of the US to, say, what is merely, and secondarily, a grouping of Western nations such as the US, UK and Canada, all of which linked by their practice of Representative Democracy. And if such is the only real point you're making, okay. No objection here. But this concept of defining all its own, adequately in place of anything else, the US as a Representative Democracy remains invalid. To insist otherwise is to confuse, or downright obtusely force at this point, a generality reference into the role of that which is necessary in defining the nation state in question. Those experts? What they'll tell you is that "Democracy" or even "Representative Democracy" does not completely-and-accurately classify the government power that is the United States; basic Definitional Logic 101, if it did, there would be no need for the term "Constitutional Republic", "Federal", "Presidential" or otherwise. To put it another way, you're inadvertently arguing the two terms as interchangeable. Talk about hard pressed... good luck making that case before a constitutional lawyer.

Again, referring to the US as being democratic is correct; for being a (Rep) Democracy is...fine...in the general, illustrative sense that it is indeed a nation where (healthy or "full") democracy exists. But outright defining the US as such blatantly shortchanges the nation for what it is. A definition that does not cover all bases of a thing or, specifically, its dominate nature, is not a definition. It can be a detail, feature, component, characteristic, but not a proper definition. And citing the specific separation of powers and constitutional checks 'n' balances of the US government as the definition of modern Representative Democracy runs you head-on into the UK or Canada, both of whom also practice Representative Democracy yet obviously have different forms of government. There's no having your cake and eating it too.

 

Correct. Star Wars is anti-authoritarian, and the viewer is free to project their political views on that.

 

I think the Star wars universe represents both sides of that dichotomy

 

Comparably more so than direct (or unspecified) democracy, to the degree that we're talking a supreme power as held by the people through their elected representatives; Western Republic referring to the US, at least.

 

Yes, and if a democratic process is not apparent the state in question is not a democracy. Ergo Sudan is not a democracy.

Actually, no, they do classify Authoritarian regimes as not being democracies.

It's both. A Representative Democracy (which I have already used before) is a type of democracy. In the broadest sense the United States is also what is known as a Liberal Democracy.

Not its not; many Representative Democracies are Constitutional Monarchies. The catch-all for Western nations is Liberal Democracy.

What are you talking about? I never said that the United States was exclusively (or even chiefly) defined as a Representative Democracy. Because, in just the same way as exclusively defining it as a Constitutional Republic, it is an incomplete definition. Just like I said in the post which you initially responded to, just as the USSR was a Constitutional Republic, it is imperative that other definitions are used in conjunction.

The United States is: A Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic and a Representative Democracy. It is all those things and therefore @Slicer87's claim that the US is not a democracy is false.

 

I can't help you with this anymore. I cannot detail any further the basic language fallacy that you're dragging out here. Suffice to say, there are at least 195 nation states in the world, with 167 measured among the Democratic Index report; meaning, those remaining 28 are not democratically recognized, period, while those on the Index are ...even including Authoritarian regimes, which is my only real point in referencing, in the general sense, Sudan as some iteration or another of democracy.

Hold that thought...

To reiterate my response to TCF-1138 above, I was essentializing Representative Democracy to a Western Republic like the US as a power invested in the people through their elected representatives, at least comparably more than just plain Democracy. I also wasn't referring to Representative Democracy as a catch-all, per se, only that which could be used as a particular grouping of certain Western nations, and how such is still a generalization of the US compared to its proper classification. In any event, you've run aground:

Not its not; many Representative Democracies are Constitutional Monarchies.

Yes. Absolutely true. What does that tell you? Answer: see below.

When "Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic" is used to classify the US, "Representative Democracy" is not imperative at all as a conjunction: the latter is already a subset characteristic of the former. And while "Constitutional Republic" is indeed a looser terming of the US, again, I was only doing so initially as something nonetheless more concrete than the vague generalization of "Democracy".

Accurate.

Markedly less accurate, given how other nations such as Canada and the UK are not Federal Presidential Constitutional Republics, and thus less a definition -- or not a proper one at all -- than it is a mere grouping or exemplification of where Representative Democracy exists.

It was corrective. Because saying the US is a democracy accounts for very little, to a degree that can be misleading.

 

To suggest that a Representative Democracy is inherent in the classification Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic, is simply false. One can be the latter and not be the former. You need all the classifications to fully define a nation accurately.

No it is completely accurate. Stop pretending that 'Representative Democracy' is being used in isolation. It is being used in combination within 'Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic'. Look I'll spell it out for you:

Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic and One-Party Oligarchy

Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic and Military Oligarchy

Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic and Representative Democracy

Federal Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy and Representative Democracy

Federal Parliamentary Constitutional Republic and Autocratic Dictatorship

You have to take both the former and the latter in combination for the full picture. Just taking one or the other will lead to an incomplete picture.

 

That's because the latter is a less specified term: power invested to the people though their elected representatives, alternate to direct democracy. Such malleability allows for Representative Democracy to be conditional to both the US and, say, the UK forms of government, as both Presidential and Parliamentary (or Westminster) are but two separate models. Moreover "Representative Democracy" (in conjunction or not) is an even more generalized reference to the US than "Liberal Democracy", as the latter entails more stringently a representative system where individual liberty/property is protected by constitutional law. Yet even "Liberal Democracy" in conjunction with "Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic" is likewise redundant given that its aforesaid premise is already accounted for under both "Presidential" and "Constitutional".

Doesn't matter how you shake it. To say the US is a Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic and a Representative (or Lib) Democracy is to address its classification as a nation state only to then reference one of its subset or isolated characteristics using a more generalized term. It's pointless. Unnecessary. To reboot an earlier analogy (proper), it's like saying: "This is a Police Man ...and a Human."

First of all, you started by attempting to pass off the US as a mere democracy. That didn't work out. Then you pulled the following number:

...where I then objected that "but it is also" simply changes the subject from the classification of the US to a more generalized topic of where Representative Democracy exists. Lastly, you switched up to insisting that the two are necessary in conjunction. I'm just being thorough here. By itself, the term is too generalized and inadequate; in conjunction, redundant.

There are numerous countries that can be recognized as a (for practicing) Representative Democracy, but no country is officially classified as a "Such 'n' Such and a Representative Democracy". The reasons for which have been illustrated above.

 

It is not redundant. As I have said before you can have a Constitutional and Presidential Republic and have them not be Representative Democracies or Liberal Democracies. Therefore specification is necessary. Just in the same way you can not merely call the United States a Representative Democracy because of situations like the UK. Thus you need both terms.

Whether you find it pointless or unnecessary is redundant. It is a Representative Democracy.

No, that presumes all countries a Representative Democracies. It's more like saying, "This is a Police Man... and a homosexual female".

No, I correctly stated that the United States is a Democracy, and then in my second response to you I specified Representative Democracy. Imagine I called the United States a 'state' and specified 'sovereign state'; both are true one being more specific and a subset of the other.

They are general in the sense all of these terms are general: Federal, Presidential, Constitutional, Republic, Representative Democracy. The only way it could be redundant is if Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic implied inherently Representative Democracy. I have explained that that is not the case and that there are Federal Presidential Constitutional Republics which aren't Representative Democracies.

Except for, you know, all my law textbooks... oh and Wikipedia which you seem fine in quoting.

 

Ingram_I

I'm going to term you a bone and suggest that you might be using the term 'Republic' as meaning, inherently, Representative Democracy. In which case I would suggest that we are miscommunication because I am using the term 'Republic' as including 'Soviet Republics', 'Peoples Republics' and 'Islamic Republics'... meaning a state without a monarchy, but not inherent democratic, although an implied will of the people for the rulers to rule. Even if Representative Democracy was implied in Republic it does not mean the United States is not one, as you suggest, merely both.

 

The concept of Presidential or Parliamentary as being inherent models of Representative Democracy is fairly straightforward. Where there is the presence of a Presidential or Parliamentary system, there is the practice of Representative Democracy. Where a nation is classified, in part, as being either "Presidential" or "Parliamentary", thus accounted for is the practice of Representative Democracy. Please explain to me, then, why in such cases the term "Representative Democracy" is still necessary in conjunction.You keep hoisting the term as if it further specifies beyond the two aforesaid models. It doesn't. Contrarily, it is more of a general term that accounts for both. "Presidential" already distinguishes the United States' model of Representative Democracy from that of the United Kingdom's "Parliamentary", and vice versa. So what does conjoining "Representative Democracy" with either of them do but muddy the waters?

As I have said before you can have a Constitutional and Presidential Republic and have them not be Representative Democracies or Liberal Democracies.

Examples? And I don't mean any nation that merely assumes such titles without living up to them via corruptive factors, or with a newly reformed government pending status results, but one that has been empirically recognized as being Presidential (or Parliamentary) while not practicing Representative Democracy inherent therein. Because, by its very nature, that would be contradictive.

Uh, okay...

You lost me here. What makes you think the analogy presumes anything beyond the context of Representative Democracies? It's an analogy, an abstract comparison to a specific subject. It's not beholden to every other type of nation state in the real world.

True but to what use? Both would likewise be proportionately generalized (one less than the other) to the degree of not being particularly practical when defining the Unites States as a form of government. Again, I never denied that the US can be recognized among the (Rep) Democracies of the world.

Well thank you for that total non-point. Sure, any one of those titles can be a generalization. And I suppose even "Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic" can technically be to some degree a generalization concerning whatever few nations that fit the bill. But it sure as hell narrows the category far beyond the mere terming "Representative Democracy".

It does. Though, of course, I'm all ears to any legit examples proving otherwise.

Okay. Are you sourcing something here, or just claiming the existence of a source? Because the latter doesn't exactly serve the debate. I reckon there's all manner of textbook and online academia that will, in some further dissection or discussion of a nation state, associate it with (or even as being) a Representative Democracy. Super. What I'm talking about, however, is any such formal classification of a nation where, along with "Presidential" or "Parliamentary", the term "Representative Democracy" is deemed necessary, and with consistency beyond some fluky exception.

For instance, skimming down the Democratic Index report (per Wiki), only Canada's government is ranked as a Federal Parliamentary Representative Democracy under Constitutional Monarchy. But I'm calling-out right here and now a simple careless redundancy, given how every linked breakdown analysis of said government either never again mentions "Representative Democracy" but instead cites a Parliamentary system, in tandem with the more universal definition of the latter as already being a unique UK-born model of the former. In short, the nation's aforesaid classification is outweighed by contradicting evidence.

Furthermore, back to the core issue, I can't find a single case where the United States is with any legitimacy (or at all, frankly) classified as a Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic and a Representative Democracy. I dunno... maybe you can cite one of your special "law textbooks".

In response to your tagged comment, again, I was only really associating Representative Democracy with the modern, Western Republics, nearly all of whom utilize Presidential or Parliamentary systems.