Politics in an Alternative Universe
a podcast review
Hello, friends, and welcome back! While the whole world was watching Jack Smith announce Trump’s indictment, I was immersed in an alternative political universe while writing this Substack. Thank you for giving me some of your time. I hope you’ll find it a refreshing break in between consulting your favorite legal experts.
If you recall, I was inspired to begin this Substack after listening to a podcast about Jo Rowling and the controversy surrounding her. That podcast covered the intersection of the two secular fields I care about most: storytelling and contemporary history. The end result was a perfect combination of education and entertainment. It was thought-provoking enough that I felt compelled to write my reaction here, yet the real driving force was love for Harry Potter. Well, I’ve got a new podcast to rave about now, one that strikes the very same balance. It’s an interview with Professor Stephen Dyson, author of Otherworldly Politics: The International Relations of Star Trek, Game of Thrones, and Battlestar Galactica.
Professor Dyson teaches Political Science and International Relations. He began using science fiction in his classes when he was teaching in China. In the West, he would reference famous events in history to illustrate his points, but he quickly discovered that the Chinese students didn’t have the same level of familiarity with those events, and even when they did, they had a completely different interpretation of them. But “Game of Thrones” was hugely popular at the time, and he realized he could use that fictional universe to communicate the principles he was teaching. Thus, he circumvented cultural biases and probably made classroom discussions a whole lot more fun.
Since I’ve only ever watched one scene - yes, one scene - of “Game of Thrones,” whatever examples he gave in the podcast kind of went past me, though it was interesting to hear that author George R. R. Martin studied the War of the Roses as a model. Luckily for me, Professor Dyson went into great detail on a bunch of old “Star Trek” episodes that I am familiar with. Not that I’m a Trekkie or anything, but I was married to one, so I’ve had plenty of exposure.
My favorite “Star Trek” discussion was the analysis of pacifism versus realism, which is a debate I’ve actually had with people. My natural tendency is toward pacifism, but as my son has pointed out to me many times, as long as there are bullies in the world, pacifism solves nothing and sometimes makes things worse. Having given into bullies in my personal life, I know this is true, but I still find fighting morally repugnant.
On “Star Trek,” the conflict is depicted in the episode called “The City on the Edge of Forever.” It became famous because Joan Collins guest starred in it, portraying an anti-war activist named Edith Keeler.
Edith is a wonderfully admirable character, but the conceit of the episode is that she will eventually get the ear of FDR and persuade him to stay out of the Second World War. Hitler will not be defeated, and authoritarianism will reign for centuries. The crew of the Enterprise will never even exist because under Hitler and his successors, the world will not develop the technological capacity for space exploration or the political cooperation that gives rise to the United Federation of Planets. To preserve the future, Kirk has to do something horrible: stand by and watch Edith Keeler die in a car accident.
Because I identify as a pacifist, I’ve got my own opinions about this. I can’t deny that Hitler is the ultimate proof of the failings of pacifism. As we all know, attempts to appease him with the Sudetenland only emboldened him. He had to be defeated by war. There was no other way.
So, in the context of the TV show, Kirk was right. Edith Keeler had to die. Realism gets the results that pacifism merely dreams of. But there’s got to be a role for the pacifists of the world. Do good intentions only lead to hell? I say it’s all in the application. Edith Keeler shouldn’t have held political power, but she was doing great work at the grassroots level. That’s my ideal of activism: direct impact. It was also the philosophy of Dorothy Day. Improve the lives of as many individuals as you possibly can. Show a troubled kid some love so that he doesn’t grow up hating. From this standpoint, the famous philosophical thought experiment of whether or not it’s right to kill Baby Hitler is too binary. Perhaps, by going back in time, you can change the conditions of his life and prevent him from becoming a monster.
Another philosophical principle the podcast highlighted was utilitarianism. It was showcased in the second of the Star Trek movies, “The Wrath of Khan.” I saw it when it first came out, but that was so long ago, I barely remembered it. All I needed to know was this: Spock sacrifices his life in order to save his shipmates. He applies the “logical” utilitarian principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number.” The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. But as Professor Dyson and host David Preiss point out, that’s not where the drama of the story really lies. Spock hides behind logic to rationalize his choice, but his real motivation is his love for the crew.
There’s much more to the podcast than that, so I hope I haven’t spoiled it for you. It’s long - about an hour and a half - but I found it riveting. I was so impressed, I’ve already ordered another of Professor Dyson’s books. I’m skipping Otherworldly Politics because I figured I already heard the main points, but he’s got a 2019 book that covers Trump and Brexit. Of course, we’re in the “after times” now, but I’m sure I’ll still learn plenty. The title is Imagining Politics: Interpretations in Political Science and Political Television, and though I haven’t watched the shows he cites (I told you I’m culturally behind the times), now that I’ve heard him speak, I can hardly wait to read more of what he’s got to say.
