
2/7

Claremont Review of Books wSummer 2015Page 98

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Essay by imothy Sandefur

P S

L brought to a close his unusual careercontinually playing a single role for

half a century. Between 1966, when the tele-vision show Star rek premiered, and 2013,

when the movie Star rek Into Darkness hitthe screens, Nimoy portrayed the franchisesbeloved first officer, Mr. Spock, in two Vseries and eight films.

As he acknowledged, the key to Star rekslongevity and cultural penetration was its se-riousness of purpose, originally inspired bycreator Gene Roddenberrys science fiction vi-sion. Modeled on Gullivers ravels,the serieswas meant as an opportunity for social com-mentary, and it succeeded ingeniously, withepisodes scripted by some of the eras finestscience fiction writers. Yet the developmentof Star reks moral and political tone over 50

years also traces the strange decline of Ameri-can liberalism since the Kennedy era.

Captain Kirk and the Cold War

R were World War II veterans, whosecountry was now fighting the Cold

War against a Communist aggressor theyregarded with horror. Tey considered theWestern democracies the only force hold-

ing back worldwide totalitarian dictatorship.Te best expression of their spirit was John F.Kennedys Inaugural Address, with its proudpromise to pay any price, bear any burden,meet any hardship, support any friend, op-

pose any foe, in order to assure the survivaland the success of liberty.

Tis could have been declaimed by CaptainJames . Kirk (played by William Shatner), ofthe starship U.S.S. Enterprise, who, as litera-ture professor Paul Cantor observes in his es-say Shakespeare in the Original Klingon, is

a Cold Warrior very much on the model ofJFK. In episodes like Te Omega Glory, inwhich Kirk rapturously quotes the preambleto the Constitution, or Fridays Child, wherehe struggles to outwit the Klingons (stand-insfor the Soviet menace) in negotiations overthe resources of a planet modeled on Middle

Eastern petroleum states, Kirk stands fixedly,even obstinately, for the principles of univer-sal freedom and against collectivism, igno-rance, and passivity. In Errand of Mercy, theepisode that first introduces the shows mostinfamous villains, he cannot comprehend whythe placid Organians are willing to let them-selves be enslaved by the Klingon Empire.Teir pacifism disgusts him. Kirk loves peace,but he recognizes that peace without freedomis not truly peace.

Tis was not just a political point; it restedon a deeper philosophical commitment. InStar reks humanist vision, totalitarianismwas only one manifestation of the dehuman-izing forces that deprive mankind (and aliens)

of the opportunities and challenges in whichtheir existence finds meaning. In Return ofthe Archons, for example, Kirk and companyinfiltrate a theocratic world monitored anddominated by the god Landru. Te nativesare placid, but theirs is the mindless placidityof cattle. In the past, one explains, there waswar. Convulsions. Te world was destroyingitself. Landrutook us back, back to a simpletime. Te people now live in ignorant, stag-nant bliss. Landru has removed conflict bydepriving them of responsibility, and with ittheir right to govern themselves. When Kirkdiscovers that Landru is actually an ancient

computer left behind by an extinct race, hechallenges it to justify its enslavement of thepeople. Te good, it answers, is harmoni-ous continuationpeace, tranquility. Kirkretorts: What have you done to do justice tothe full potential of every individual? With-out freedom of choice, there is no creativity.Without creativity, there is no life. He per-suades Landru that coddling the people hasstifled the souls it purported to defend, andthe god-machine self-destructs.


3/7



Tis theme is made more explicit in TeApple, perhaps the quintessential episode ofthe original Star rek. Here Kirk unasham-edly violates the Prime Directivethe ruleforbidding starship captains from interferingwith the cultures they contactby order-ing the Enterprise to destroy Vaal, anothercomputer tyrant ruling over an idyllic planet.Like Landru, Vaal is an omniscient totalitar-ian, and he demands sacrifices. Te natives,known only as people of Vaal, have no cul-ture, no freedom, no sciencethey do noteven know how to farmand no children, asVaal has forbidden sex along with all other in-dividualistic impulses. Tis sets Kirks teethon edge. Tere are objective goods and evils,and slavery is evil because it deprives lifeforms of their right to self-government andself-development.

What differentiates Te Apple from Ar-chons is Spocks reaction. In the earlier epi-sode, he joined Kirk in condemning Landru;now the half human/half Vulcan is reluctantto interfere with what he calls a splendid ex-ample of reciprocity. When chief medical of-ficer Dr. Leonard Bones McCoy (DeForestKelley) protests, Spock accuses him of apply-ing human standards to non-human cultures.

o this cool relativism, McCoy replies, Tereare certain absolutes, Mr. Spock, and one ofthem is the right of humanoids to a free andunchained environment, the right to haveconditions which permit growth.

Kirk agrees with McCoy. Spockwho inlater episodes invokes the Vulcan slogan cel-ebrating infinite diversity in infinite combi-nationsis comfortable observing Vaalsservants nonjudgmentally, like specimensbehind glass. But Kirk believes there must bedeeper, universal principles underlying andlimiting diversity, to prevent its degenerationinto relativism and nihilism.

Spocks Hesitation

with Abraham Lincoln, whoas welearn in a later episodeis Kirks per-

sonal hero. When in 1858 Stephen Doug-las claimed to be so committed to democ-racy that he did not care whether Ameri-can states and territories adopted pro- oranti-slavery constitutions, Lincoln parodiedhis relativism as meaning that if one manwould enslave another, no third man shouldobject. Instead, Lincoln insisted, the basis

of legitimate democracy was the principleof equality articulated in the Declaration ofIndependence. Without that frame firmlyin place, democracy could claim no moralsuperiority to tyranny. Spock, by regardingthis as a merely human standard, and de-fending Vaals suzerainty as a system whichseems to work, falls into the same relativistictrap as Douglas. By contrast, as Paul Cantornotes, Kirk believes that all rational beingsare created equal, and extends the Decla-rations proposition literally throughoutthe universe. Kirk orders the Enterprise todestroy Vaal. Youll learn to care for your-selves, he tells the people. Youll learn tobuild for yourselves, think for yourselves,work for yourselves, and what you create isyours. Tats what we call freedom.

Spocks hesitation here is an early glimmerof the relativism that would eventually engulfthe Star rekuniverse. Roddenberrys gener-ation emerged from World War II commit-ted to a liberalism that believed in prosper-ity, technological progress, and the universalhumanity they hoped the United Nationswould champion. In the Kennedy years, thistechnocratic liberalism sought to apply sci-ence, the welfare state, and secular culture to

Star rek, created by Gene Roddenberry.CBS elevision Distribution. 19661969

Star rek: Te Motion Picture, directed by Robert Wise.Screenplay by Harold Livingston.

Paramount Pictures. 1979

Start rek II: Te Wrath of Khan, directed by Nicholas Meyer.Screenplay by Jack B. Sowards. Paramount Pictures. 1982

Star rek III: Te Search for Spock, directed by Leonard Nimoy.Screenplay by Harve Bennett.


Star rek IV: Te Voyage Home, directed by Leonard Nimoy.Screenplay by Harve Bennett and Leonard Nimoy.


Star rek: Te Next Generation, created by Gene Roddenberry.

CBS elevision Distribution. 19871994

Star rek V: Te Final Frontier, directed by William Shatner.Screenplay by David Loughery. Paramount Pictures. 1989

Star rek VI: Te Undiscovered Country,directed by Nicholas Meyer. Screenplay byNicholas Meyer and Denny Martin Flinn.


Star rek: Deep Space Nine, created by Rick Berman andMichael Piller. CBS elevision Distribution. 19931999

Star rek: Generations, directed by David Carson. Screenplay byRonald D. Moore and Brannon Braga. Paramount Pictures. 1994

Star rek: Voyager, created by Rick Berman, Michael Piller, andJeri aylor. CBS elevision Distribution. 19952001

Star rek: First Contact, directed by Jonathan Frakes.Screenplay by Brannon Braga and Ronald D. Moore.


Star rek: Insurrection, directed by Jonathan Frakes.Screenplay by Michael Piller. Paramount Pictures. 1998

Star rek: Enterprise, created by Rick Berman andBrannon Braga. CBS elevision Distribution. 20012005

Star rek: Nemesis, directed by Stuart Baird. Screenplay byJohn Logan. Paramount Pictures. 2002

Star rek, directed by J.J. Abrams. Screenplay by Roberto Orciand Alex Kurtzman. Paramount Pictures. 2009

Star rek Into Darkness, directed by J.J. Abrams.Screenplay by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon

Lindelof. Paramount Pictures. 2013

Te television shows and films of the Star Trekseries:


4/7



raise the standard of living and foster individ-ual happiness worldwide. Ten came the riseof the New Lefta movement that saw thealleged evils of society as the consequence notmerely of capitalism but of technology andreason itself. Civilization was not the per-fection of nature or even a protection againstnature, but an alienationfromnature. Trow

off its shackles, and man could reunite withthe universe; unfairness would fall away, andpeaceful coexistence would reign. Peacefulcoexistence was especially crucial. Te warin Vietnam and other crises helped foster adebunking culture that saw American prin-ciples of justice as a sham, as cynical rational-izations for American greed, racism, and im-perialism. Te older generation of liberalsand their literary proxies, including CaptainKirkhardly knew what to make of it, or ofthe turn on, tune in, drop out escapism thatoften accompanied it.

Te original Star rek savagely parodied

such Age of Aquarius romanticism in the ep-isode Te Way to Eden, in which the Enter-prise encounters a group of space-age hippiessearching for a legendary planet where allwill be equal, without technology or moder-nity, living off the land. Almost all of Kirkscrew regard these star-children as deluded,and their longing for prelapsarian harmonydoes turn out to be a deadly illusion: theEden planet they find is literallypoisonallthe trees and even the grass are fu ll of an acidthat kills them almost the instant they ar-rive. Kirk is hardly surprised. All Edens, inhis eyes, are illusions, and all illusions aredangerous.

Spock is more indulgent. Tere are manywho are uncomfortable with what we have cre-ated, he tells the captain, the planned com-munities, the programming, the sterilized,artfully balanced atmospheres. Spock insistshe does not share their views, yet he secretlyadmires them, and devotes his considerablescientific skills to helping locate their paradiseplanet. Later he tells one of the few survivorsof the acid, It is my sincere wish that youdo not give up your search for Eden. I haveno doubt but that you will find it, or make ityourselves. Te skeptical, spirited Kirk couldnever utter such words.

ale of wo Hamlets

K, , reasons for his skepticism. In TeConscience of the King, we learn

that he is something of a Holocaust survivorhimself. When he was young, he and his par-ents barely escaped death at the hands of thedictator Kodos the Executioner, who slaugh-

tered half the population of the colony on ar-sus IV. Having eluded capture, Kodos lived20 years under an assumed name, making aliving as a Shakespearean actor, until one ofKirks fellow survivors tracks him down. NowKirk must decide whether the actor is reallythe killer.

Aired in 1966, this episode is a commen-

tary on the pursuit of Nazi war criminals, andit typifies the original Star reks moral out-look. During the shows three seasons, over 20former Nazis were tried for their roles in theHolocaust, including five who only two weeksafter this episode aired were convicted forworking at the Sobibr extermination camp.Intellectuals like Hannah Arendt were pre-occupied with the moral and jurisprudentialquestions of Nazi-hunting. Conscience putsthese dilemmas into an ambitiously Shake-spearean frame.

Like Hamlet, Kirk faces a crisis of certainty.Logic is not enough, he says, echoing Ham-

lets What a rogue and peasant slave am I so-liloquy. Ive got to feel my waymake abso-lutely sure. Yet one thing Kirk is a lready sureabout is justice. Hamlet may curse the fact

ing to leaven his logic, but this one, writtenin part by Nimoy, would be the first devotedexpressly to political subjects. It commentson the waning of the Cold War by portrayingthe first steps toward peace with the Klingons.Yet the price of peace, it turns out, is not mere-ly to forgive past crimes, but for the innocentpeoples of the galaxy to take the guilt upon

themselves.Star rek VI opens with a shocking be-

trayal: without informing his captain, Spockhas volunteered the crew for a peace missionto the Klingons. Kirk rightly calls this ar-rogant presumption, yet the Vulcan is neverexpected to apologize. On the contrary, thefilm summarily silences Kirks objections. Ata banquet aboard the Enterprise, he is askedwhether he would be willing to surrenderhis career in exchange for an end to hostili-ties, and Spock swiftly intervenes. I believethe captain feels that Starfleets mission hasalways been one of peace, he says. Kirk tries

to disagree, but is again interrupted. Later, hedecides that Spock was right. His originalskepticism toward the peace mission was onlyprejudice: I was used to hating Klingons.

Tis represented an almost complete inver-sion of Star reks original liberalism, and in-deed of any rational scale of moral principlesat all. At no point in the shows history hadKirk or his colleagues treated the Klingonsunjustly, whereas audiences for decades havewatched the Klingons torment and subjugatethe galaxys peaceful races. In Errand of Mer-cy, they attempt genocide to enslave the Or-ganians. In Te rouble with ribbles, theytry to poison a planets entire food supply. Tedungeon in which Kirk is imprisoned in thisfilm is on a par with Stalins jails. Yet neverdoes the Klingon leader, Gorkon, or any ofhis people, acknowledgelet alone apologizeforsuch injustices. Quite the contrary; hisdaughter tells a galactic conference, We area proud race. We are here because we wantto go on being proud. Within the context ofthe original Star rek, such pride is morallyinsane.

Yet in service to Spocks mission of elevat-ing peace over right, the film portrays theKlingons not as thugs, but as misunderstoodcasualties of human bigotry. Kirk and hiscrew, says Gorkons daughter at the Enter-prise banquet,represent a homo sapiens-onlyclub, devoted to such chauvinistic values as

inalienable human rights. Why, the veryname, she quips, is racist. Gorkons pacificovertures are stymied by conspirators whoassassinate him, and while pursuing the mur-derers, Kirk decides that he, too, is at faultbecause he has not simply let bygones be by-gones. Abashed, he confesses, I couldnt get

that he was ever born to set things right, buthe knows it is his duty. Likewise Kirk. WhenMcCoy asks him what good it will do to pun-ish Kodos after a lapse of two decadesDoyou play god, carry his head through the cor-ridors in triumph? Tat wont bring back thedeadKirk answers, No. But they may resteasier.

For Shakespeare, justice is less about thegood prospering and the bad suffering thanabout a harmony between the world of factsin which we live and the world of words we in-habit as beings endowed with speech. Whenthe two fall out of syncwhen Claudiusscrime knocks time out of jointthe resultis only a perverse and temporary illusion.And Kirk is, again, not impressed by illusions.Who are you to [judge]? demands Kodossdaughter. Kirks devastating reply: Who doI have to be?

Tis clear-headedness had evaporated byDecember 1991, when the movie sequel Starrek VI: Te Undiscovered Countryappeared,only months after Roddenberrys death. Teprevious films had focused on questions ofloyalty, friendship, and Spocks need for feel-

Te fixed moral stars bywhich the franchise oncesteered have been almost

entirely obscured.


5/7



past the death of my sona reference to anearlier film in which a Klingon crew stabs hisson to death in an effort to extort the secretof a devastating weapon. Kirk can hardly beblamed for withholding forgiveness, consid-ering that the Klingons have never asked forit. Yet Star rek VI demands that Kirk letgo of his grievancesand the galaxysun-

asked, and accept that they will forever gounredressed. Justice is only a human culturalconstruct.

Te contrast with Conscience of theKing is jarring. It even affects the manyShakespearean references that pepper bothdramas. For the orthodox bard, repentanceis always a precondition of forgiveness, andconscience is the inescapable enforcer of nat-ural law. Tus in Conscience, Shakespearesmeditations illuminated Kirks thoughtson guilt and judgment. But in the film, thepoet is quoted only to obfuscate. Star rekVI even twists Shakespeares actual words.

Te Undiscovered Country of the titletowhich Gorkon proposes a toast at the ban-quetis not, as he claims, the future, butHamlets metaphor for death. o be or notto be, that is the question which preoccupiesour people, another Klingon tells Kirk. Yetwhere Hamlet sought the resolve to take uparms against a sea of troubles, Kirk learnsnot only to suffer slings and arrows, but tocease calling it outrageous. When he does,Gorkons daughter congratulates him forhaving restored her fathers faith. ButKirk is a victimof Klingon aggressionheneeds no redemption.

Roddenberry was so bothered by thefilms script that he angrily confronted direc-tor Nicholas Meyer at a meeting, futilely de-manding changes. He and those who helpedhim create Star rek knew that without acoherent moral codeideas they considereduniversal, but which the film calls racistone can never have genuine peace. Star rekVI seemed to nod contentedly at the haunt-ing thought Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn voicedin Te Gulag Archipelago: No, no one wouldhave to answer.

Next Generation Nihilism

the moral disarray into which the fran-chise had fallen. By 1987, when the

new Enterprise was being launched on thenew series Star rek: Te Next Generation,the liberal landscape had changed. Te showpremiered a year after feminist philosopher ofscience Sandra Harding referred to NewtonsPrincipia as a rape manual, and a year beforeJesse Jackson led Stanford student protesters

chanting, Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Civ hasgot to go! Te Kennedy-esque anti-Com-munist in the White House was now RonaldReagan, a former Democrat and union leaderwho thought the party had left him.

Next Generations Captain Jean-Luc Picard(Patrick Stewart) was more committed to co-existence and non-intervention than to uni-

versal liberty and anti-totalitarianism. Fol-lowing Spocks lead, Picard would elevate thePrime Directive into a morally obtuse dogmaand would seek ways to evade the responsibil-ity of moral judgment. ime and again, theshow featured false equivalency on a grandscale, coupled with the hands-off attitudethat the Kirk of Te Apple had dismissed ascomplicity with evil.

Consider the episode Redemption.Picard has overseen the installation of Gow-ron as chief of the Klingon Empire, a deci-sion that, though unorthodox, follows Klin-gon law. Te empire, now humanitys ally,

had invited Picard to judge the leadershipcontroversy, and the Enterprise s Klingoncrewman, Mr. Worf (Michael Dorn), haseven resigned to join Gowrons crew. But atjust this moment, rivals to the throne revoltand attack Gowrons ship in full view of theEnterprise. In Star rek VI, Kirk nearly gavehis life trying to prevent the assassinationof the Klingon chancellor, but Picard, rath-er than defend the lawful leader of an allyagainst a revolt of which he had been fore-warnedand which takes place in his pres-encechooses to abandon Gowron, and hisfriend and shipmate Worf. He orders theEnterpriseto withdraw, rather than be drawninto a battle his own actions helped precipi-tate. If that were not enough, Gowronwhomanages to survive this ficklenessrequestsaid against the rebels, whom they all knowto have been collaborating with the Romu-lans, deadly enemies of both the Klingonsand humans. Yet Picard again refuses, citingthe non-interference directive that Gowronhas already waived by requesting assistance.Picard, the Klingons learn, is not a very valu-able friend.

What accounts for this incoherent foreignpolicy? Nothing less than Picards commit-ment to non-commitment. He represents anew, non-judgmental liberalism far shallowerthan that embraced in Roddenberrys era.Where Kirk pursues justice, Picard avoidsconflict. Just as Kirks devotion to universalprinciples goes deeper than politics, so doesPicards sentimentalism. When it comes tothe universe of real suffering, real need, anda real search for truth, he is content not todecide, not to take responsibility, and not toknow.

Insurrection

I , -sion of the older Star rek,the culminat-ing moment in Next Generation is the

1998 feature film, Insurrection. It opens withPicard lamenting that hes been relegated toboring diplomatic roles. Can anyone remem-

ber when we used to be explorers? he grum-bles. But soon he learns better. Te Enterprisecrew is introduced to the Baku people, wholive in the kind of agrarian idyll that the spacehippies had sought in Te Way to Eden. Al-though filmed like a Crate & Barrel ad andscored with pastoral melodies, the Bakus vil-lage is shockingly primitive. Tey rake, plow,weed, and blacksmith by handnot becausethey dont know better, but because they rejectmodern devices: Tis village is a sanctuary oflife, one of them, Sojef, tells Picard:

Our technological abilities are not ap-

parent because we have chosen not toemploy them in our daily lives. We be-lieve when you create a machine to dothe work of a man, you take somethingaway from the man.

Anij: But at one time, we explored thegalaxy just as you do...

Picard: You have warp capability?

Anij: Capability, yes. But where canwarp drive take us, except away fromhere?

Te Baku would have nauseated CaptainKirk. Here is a species that lives Te Applenot as captives but as willing participants.Tey have given up growth for stagnation,which they have mistaken for life. Yet the au-dience is expected to admire this. And fromthis meeting, Picard learns not to long for hisdays exploring strange new worlds.

In a denouement ultimately cut from thefilm, Picard encounters Quark (Armin Shi-merman), a member of the Ferengi, a raceof greedy capitalists. Now that the Bakuare safe, Quark fantasizes about develop-ing their home planet. Picard fends him off.

Tis world is about to become a Federationprotectorate, he says, which will end anyand all attempts at exploitation by peoplelike you. Lets ignore the whiff of racism inthe phrase people like youwhen Quarkasks how five thousand time-share unitsright there along the lake, would be exploit-ing anyone, it is a perfectly reasonable ques-tion. But Picard snidely laughs it off, and,turning to the Baku, tells them that Te


6/7



mighty Federation could learn a few thingsfrom this village.

What, Kirk would have demanded, couldthe Federation possibly learn from this village?Avillage that has chosen notto explore, that hasrejected modern agricultural methods, thathas given up growth and life in exchange foran absurd fetishizing of manual laborfor

the fundamentally childish notion that youtake something from people when you createtools and techniques that feed the hungry andliberate people to explore the galaxy. Rodden-berrys generation of Star rekwriters wouldhave thought Picards words hopelessly reac-tionaryto be precise, inhuman. But by theend of Next Generation, the liberalism thatonce preached technological progress and hu-man reason has reversed its priorities and nowregards progress as incipient colonizationand a threat to diversity and the environment.

Accident and Force

S reboot films directed by J.J. Abramsshrug at the franchises former philo-

sophical depth. In 2009, Abrams admitted toan interviewer that he didnt get Star rek.

Tere was a captain, there was this first of-ficer, they were talking a lot about adventuresand not having them as much as I wouldveliked. Maybe I wasnt smart enough. Hisfilms accordingly eschew the series trademarkdialogues about moral and political principles,and portray the young Kirk and crew as mo-tivated largely by a maelstrom of lusts, fears,and resentments.

A prime symbol of this transformationis Khan, the villain who appeared first inthe 1967 episode Space Seed, then in thesecond Star rek film in 1982 (played bothtimes by Ricardo Montalban), and most re-cently in Abramss 2013 Star rek Into Dark-ness(in which he was portrayed by BenedictCumberbatch). Khan presents a seriouschallenge to the series liberal conception ofequality because he is a genetically modi-fied superman. As the late Harry V. Jaffawas fond of observing, Aristotles distinctionbetween men, beasts, and gods remains theframework of the thought of the Declarationof Independence, according to which anyattempt of human beings to rule other hu-man beings, as if the former were gods, andthe latter beasts, is wrong. But Khan actual-ly ismore than a man, which raises a seriousproblem for mankinds right to liberty. In theoriginal V shows episode, and somewhatagainst his grain, it is Spock who addressesthe issue. When Kirk calls Khan the best ofthe tyrants, Spock is appalled:

Spock: Gentlemen, this romanticismabout a ruthless dictator is

Kirk: Mister Spock, we humans havea streak of barbarism in us. Appalling,but there, nevertheless.

Scotty: Tere were no massacres under

his rule.

Spock: And as little freedom.

Kirk finally explains, We can be againsthim and admire him all at the same time,which Spock characterizes as illogical. And,in the end, the crew refuses to submit to Khansassertion of a eugenic right to rule. Yet they alsochoose not to punish him even after he tries tokill Kirk and commandeer the Enterprise. In-stead, they leave him and his followers on anunpopulated planet, where he can put his tal-ents to work pioneering a new civilization. Fif-

teen years later, we learn in the film Star rek IIthat the planet was devastated by a natural di-saster soon afterwards, killing many of Khansfollowers. Obsessed with revenge, Khan man-ages to escape and, like a space-age Ahab, huntsthe aging Kirk. Only by sacrificing his life doesSpock save his shipmates.

By the time Khan reappears under Abramssdirection, the fixed moral stars by which thefranchise once steered have been almost en-tirely obscured. No longer the thoughtful, boldcaptain, the young Kirk (Chris Pine) is now allrashness and violence, taking and breaking ev-erything around him. He confesses that he hasno idea what he is doing. But these are not viceshe outgrows. Instead, the other characterscome to recognize these traits as proof of hisentitlement to command. When, in Abramssfirst film, Kirks recklessness briefly costs himhis ship, his reign is restored by the intercessionof an older version of Spock, played by LeonardNimoy, who journeys across the dimensions tocounsel Kirk that it is still his destiny to lead.

[]his is the one rule you cannot break, Ni-moy intones, without further explanation. Kirkproceeds to retake control of the Enterpriseinbrutal fashion. Abrams thus grounds Kirksauthority not on practical wisdom or merit,which he expressly disclaims, but on a versionof the swaggering pretension to inherent supe-riority that Space Seed had repudiated. Tenew Enterprise is governed more by what TeFederalist calls accident and force than by re-flection and choice.

Tis creates a paradox when the crew en-counters Khan in Into Darkness. Dispatchedto arrest the perpetrator of a terrorist attack,Kirk learns it is Khangenetically engi-neered to be superior so as to lead others to

peace in a world at war, Khan explainsandthat earths current military leadership weresecretly employing him as a military strate-gist. I am better, Khan says, at everything.But this is how Kirk, too, is depictedas des-tined to command just because he is better.

[I]f Khan and Kirk have the same motivation,asked critic Abigail Nussbaum, why is one of

them the bad guy and the other the hero?Te film acknowledges the similarities be-

tween the two, and even enlists the audiencessympathy for Khans terrorismbut it neveranswers this question, except in terms of per-sonal loyalty and betrayal. In an effort at ratioex machina, Nimoy is once again brought in asSpock, to tell the crew that Khan is danger-ousbut even he gives the audience no reasonto consider Khan a villain. Ultimately, Khan ispresented as evil not because he wars againstequality and freedom, but because he isntone of us, while Kirk isand because he loses,while Kirk wins. Tis arbitrariness infects the

films single effort to express an abstract princi-ple: Our first instinct is to seek revenge whenthose we love are taken, says Kirk in the finalscene. But thats not who we are. We are nottold why not, beyond this tribalistic assertion.But it iswho Khanis, and he is better at every-thing. Doesnt that make vengeance right?

Having lost their principles, the showsheroes cannot really explain, or understand,what differentiates them from their enemies,and so are rendered vulnerable to the veryforces they once opposed. Tat Nimoy wasrecruited to bless this arrangement on behalfof Star reks older generation is perverse. Butthat perversity is the natural consequence ofthe breakdown in the liberal principles thatonce guided the series. Star reks romancewith relativism gradually blotted them outuntil the franchise came to prize feeling overthought, image over substance, and immedi-ate gratification over moral and political re-sponsibility. What was once an expression ofthe Enlightenment faded into darkness.

Over nearly 50 years, Star rektracked thedevolution of liberalism from the philosophyof the New Frontier into a preference for non-judgmental diversity and reactionary hostil-ity to innovation, and finally into an almostnihilistic collection of divergent urges. At itsbest, Star rektalked about big ideas, in a bigway. Its decline reflects a culture-wide changein how Americans have thought about the big-gest idea of all: mankinds place in the universe.

imothy Sandefur is a principal attorney at thePacific Legal Foundation, and the author of TeConscience of the Constitution: Te Declara-tion of Independence and the Right to Liberty(Cato Institute).


7/7

Subscribe tothe Claremont Review of Books

Subscribe to the CRB today and save 25%off the newsstand price. A one-year

subscription is only $19.95.

To begin receiving Americas premier

conservative book review, visitwww.claremont.org/crbor call (909) 981-2200.

In an age when reflection and civil-ity are out of style, the Claremont

Review of Bookshas become one ofthe only places where important

new books are treated seriously and

in depth by reviewers who knowwhat they're talking about.

Charles Murray

politics of star trek

Documents