Trump Politics and Lessons from Star Trek

Star Trek, Pop Culture, the 1960s, and Trump Politics

Introduction

The art of popular culture often reflects and represents truths, ideals, or realities of specific ages and eras—moments in time that are intensely highlighted and depicted in popular art as means of processing the zeitgeist. However, it can also become an important part of an era and of a movement because it acts as a kind of lightning rod or banner or signal to others who might also be looking for a cause behind which to rally and march. One example of popular art that spanned the latter half of the 20th century and has carried on into the first half of the 21st century is the show and film series Star Trek. As Gonzalez points out, Star Trek is many things to many people, mainly because as popular art it appeals to a lot of different groups and reflects many different issues and ideas that are important to or that affect those groups. Thus, Gonzalez makes the argument that the original Star Trek series was a salient component of the civil rights, feminist, and anti-war movements of the 1960s: those movements were happening as the series was being produced, and the artists behind the series reflected real life concerns and problems in the plot lines and stories of the science-fiction television drama. That is how popular art becomes a kind of magnifying glass of popular culture: it distills themes and issues, examines consequences and effects, takes real life drama and unfolds it in the safe space of the make-believe. This is not something confined to the 1960s, either. In fact, the same principles hold true today, which is why one can use Star Trek and popular culture still to analyze what can be called Trump Politics and discuss what that might portend for the future. This paper will do just that and it will also engage Gonzalez’s argument that Star Trek served as an important component of the civil rights, feminist, and anti-war movements of the 1960s.

Trump Politics

Popular culture has always had a significant impact on society and politics (Dyck). It often reflects and reinforces societal values, beliefs, and norms (MacKenzie). Popular culture also shapes people\'s perceptions of the world and their understanding of politics and social issues (Edensor).

Donald Trump\'s politics are often associated with populism, nationalism, and conservatism. During his time in office, he pursued policies that focused on America-first, such as withdrawing from international agreements, imposing tariffs on foreign imports, and building a wall on the US-Mexico border. Trump\'s politics also emphasized law and order, and he sought to take a tough stance on crime and immigration.

In the case of Trump Politics, however, there is no consistency in terms of public perception. Some have argued that his politics resemble those of a typical villain in popular culture (O’meara). Others have argued his political antics characterize him as an over-the-top hero of a pop culture dramedy (Prusa, Brummer). The character of the villain in popular culture is often a narcissistic, power-hungry, and authoritarian figure who wants to control others and bend them to his will. It is not difficult to see how Trump might fit that mold. However, it is also not surprising to find that those who align politically opposite of Trump have suggested that Trump embodies these qualities much more than he does the supposed good ones that the Right attribute to him. For those on the left, Trump and his politics are a reflection of a type of villainous character. Trump supporters, on the other hand, see him as a hero figure fighting the pernicious enemy known as the Deep State. In either case, Trump Politics calls to mind stark terms in which there is some conflict between good and evil, right and wrong.

As Gonzalez points out, on the one hand, “Trump can be viewed as reflecting the political disaffection the public feels toward official politics—as reflected in such shows as VEEP, etc.” (111). Overall, Trump Politics represents a moment of “pessimism and demoralization” in America, wherein the popular culture has reached such a state that it would seemingly back a wrecking ball to bring it all down rather than try to work constructively within the confines of that some governmental structure it seeks to destroy (Gonzalez 100). Trump Politics is a moment in which a kind of moral nihilism in popular culture has won the day. By speaking in the terms of the little guy, of middle America, Trump cast himself as the defender of working class values, the crusader pitting himself against the corruption of Washington and the “woke” politics of the new left.

In contrast, the world of Star Trek has often been seen as an idealized vision of the future, where humanity has overcome its most basic flaws and works together for the greater good. Star Trek promotes values such as diversity, tolerance, and cooperation, which are often seen as the antithesis of Trump\'s politics. Gonzalez states that Star Trek “communicates that collective decision-making (human agency) is central to the progressive dialectic” (37). At the same time, Gonzalez argues that according to the Star Trek text, “neoliberalism is posed to destroy civilization” (59). In other words, society is at a critical point in history and a change is needed in order for the next great leap forward. That change is part of the Hegelian dialectic encountered in Star Trek: “Both Hegel and Star Trek argue that the ontology of objects vis-a-via the Absolute extends to human civilizations—with Star Trek indicating that human existence itself can/will cross into a different qualitative/existential plane” (47). In some ways, therefore, it could be argued that Trump Politics represents this crossover moment; whether it is for good or for ill depends upon one’s subjective experience of that moment. Like in the Mirror Mirror episode of Star Trek, alternative realities seem to exist in which different loyalties and allegiances are manifested in our own current society. Left and Right both have their leaders and followers. Perhaps this is the difference, to some, between the Empire and the Federation.

Ultimately, Gonzalez\'s book, \"Popular Culture as Art and Knowledge: A Critique of Authoritarian Neoliberalism and the Crisis of Democracy,\" argues that popular culture can provide valuable insights into the political and social issues of our time. Gonzalez suggests that popular culture can help us understand the underlying dynamics of authoritarianism, neoliberalism, and the crisis of democracy that we are currently experiencing. But some perspective is still needed because the country is so badly divided. Some see Trump as an authoritarian, others as a heroic defender of civil liberty. Some see him as the destroyer, others as the savior. It all still depends on perspective. Popular culture also plays a part in those subjective perspectives because it is informed by and informs in turn the very people whose opinions hold Trump in one light or the other.

Ultimately, the influence of popular culture on politics and society is complex and multifaceted. While it can reflect and reinforce societal values and beliefs, it can also challenge and subvert them. The political future remains uncertain, and the role of popular culture in shaping it will continue to be a topic of debate and discussion. For Trump, some argue that his policies and rhetoric have contributed to the polarization and division of American society. Others believe that Trump has tapped into legitimate concerns of a neglected and disillusioned segment of the American population, and that his ideas and policies will continue to influence politics in the future. Currently, both seem to be true. For instance, the nation still seems impossibly divided and any hope of reconciliation feels further gone than ever before. Plus, there are candidates like Ron DeSantis in Florida, who wants to pursue more of Trump’s policies in the future. However, if Star Trek and popular culture can teach anything it is that there must inevitably be a sea change, some healing that takes place, before the country can move forward as a whole to address its own problems and issues in a most constructive way.

Star Trek as Salient Component of 1960s Movements

The original Star Trek series, which aired from 1966 to 1969, was created during a time of great social upheaval in the United States. The civil rights movement, the feminist movement, and the anti-war movement were all in full swing, and the series reflected many of the issues and concerns of these movements. Some of the ways in which the original Star Trek series can be seen as a salient component of these movements include examples like the episode “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield,” which focused on the folly of racial discrimination.

As a component of the civil rights movement, Star Trek featured a diverse cast of characters, including African-American, Asian, and Russian characters, which was uncommon for television at the time. The 1960s was a time when racial and ethnic segregation was still prevalent in many parts of the United States. This meant that people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds did not have the same opportunities as others when it came to education, employment, and representation in the media. TV networks and studios were primarily run by white men who tended to produce and promote shows that reflected their own experiences and values. As a result, people from diverse backgrounds were often marginalized or stereotyped in TV shows, or not represented at all. Many TV networks and studios also were hesitant to take risks with controversial subject matter, and this included casting actors from different racial or ethnic backgrounds. They worried that featuring diverse casts could alienate their audience or result in negative backlash from advertisers. However, Star Trek helped to usher in an era of change by reaching across the divide and bringing about change in how society was represented on the small screen (Gonzales).

In addition, the series often tackled issues related to race and prejudice, such as the episode \"Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.\" In the episode, the crew of the USS Enterprise encounters two aliens from the planet Cheron who are locked in a bitter and seemingly endless conflict. One alien, Lokai, has black skin on the left side of his body and white skin on the right side, while the other alien, Bele, has the opposite coloration. The two aliens are each convinced that their own coloration is superior and that the other is inferior and deserving of extermination. The ridiculousness of the set-up might seem extreme, but it was obviously pointed commentary about the social issue of racial discrimination in the US at the time. The episode\'s commentary on racism and prejudice is clear, as it shows how arbitrary and irrational such beliefs are, and how they can lead to endless conflict and suffering. At the end of the episode, Lokai and Bele are revealed to be the last survivors of their planet\'s war, and they continue to fight each other even as the Enterprise crew departs. The ending suggests that people who are locked in a bitter struggle like such a racist one as this will in the end defeat themselves. The USS Enterprise, unable to do anything to prevent the destruction of the people of the planet, have no choice but to move on. This again is to Gonzalez’s point that popular culture and art like Star Trek speak to the fact that change must occur in society to move to the new state of awareness.

One of the most famous episodes of \"Star Trek\" that dealt with both feminist and anti-war themes was \"City on the Edge of Forever.\" In the episode, the crew of the USS Enterprise travels back in time to Earth during the Great Depression era. They accidentally disrupt the timeline when Dr. McCoy, who is suffering from a drug-induced delirium, leaps through a time portal and alters the past. McCoy\'s actions cause a chain of events that lead to the Nazis winning World War II and a dystopian future.

Captain Kirk and Spock follow McCoy back in time to fix the timeline and prevent this dark future from happening. Along the way, Kirk falls in love with a woman named Edith Keeler, who is a social worker and peace activist. However, Kirk discovers that Edith\'s pacifist views will inadvertently lead to her death, which is necessary to restore the proper timeline. “City on the Edge of Forever” is a great anti-war episode because it shows how peace is the better path but also how it requires great self-sacrifice and heroism. The episode explores themes such as the danger of altering the past and the sacrifice required to maintain the integrity of the timeline. It also delves into the idea that even the smallest change in history can have significant consequences, echoing the famous butterfly effect theory.

But the episode also certainly explores the consequences of interfering with historical events, highlighting the dangers of changing the course of history before it is time (Gonzalez). This is another important theme in Star Trek: change occurs when it is supposed to occur—when people are ready to act and transform themselves. That is when change becomes cemented and meaningful. By attempting to prevent some harm from happening, people can make things worse. It is best to allow events to unfold organically.

In terms of feminism, Star Trek was groundbreaking in its portrayal of women in positions of power and authority, particularly the character of Lieutenant Uhura, played by Nichelle Nichols. Uhura was a communications officer on the USS Enterprise and was portrayed as intelligent, competent, and strong. She was also one of the first Black women to be cast in a significant role on a television series. In addition to Uhura, there were other female characters on the show, such as Nurse Chapel and Yeoman Rand, who also played important roles.