[A-List] Star Wars, Their Wars

["Anne Williamson" <annewilliamson@xxxxxxx>]

Neo-cons and alleged "conservatives" expose themselves in the seemingly
innocent act of film reviewing.


Star Wars, Their Wars
by Jeffrey A. Tucker

I had been waiting for the neocon reaction to the spectacular new Lucas
film, Star Wars, Part 2: Attack of the Clones. Here we have an aggressive
allegory of the current American problem (actually a problem that dates
back, perhaps, two centuries): a once-free Republic has become an
increasingly evil Empire. As the Empire grows it both inspires and foments
rebellion, here and abroad, which provides a further excuse for
consolidating power in the center.

Lucus nicely illustrates the connection between militarism and statism with
implied references to the British, German, and American experience. Among
the profound questions raised by the movie are: How is the transition
orchestrated? Who benefits from it? How do the partisans of freedom deal
with it? At what point is revolt necessary? These are the political themes
of the new Lucas film, and they should make any partisan of the Bush
administration queasy, to say the least.

The "terrorists" in the film are the separatists led by the evil
Jedi-trained Count Dooku (Darth Tyrannus, the new apprentice of Darth
Sidious), who has a huge droid army to assist him. Combating them is the new
Chancellor Palpatine, who was only recently given power to combat rising
corruption. Once in office, he constantly harps on the dangers of the
separatists. He secretly raises up a clone army without the approval of the
Senate, and, contrary to all tradition, plots to institute a galactic
empire.

Once the separatist threat emerges, the Senate is relieved to hear the news
of the clone army, and grants the Chancellor all power, which he reluctantly
accepts, adding that he will give back all power once the crisis abates. And
yet: Clearly Palpatine had foreknowledge. He is way ahead of the game. By
the end, the identity of Darth Sidious is no longer a complete mystery: the
abettor of separatist terror and the dictator empowered to fight it are one
and the same.

Clearly this is a deeply subversive film, in the same tradition as Locke's
Second Treatise on Government or the Declaration of Independence.

What is the neocon response to this obvious attack on current trends in the
US?

National Review is the test case. Jonah Goldberg tried his hand at reviewing
the film. He ignores the political message altogether and instead
concentrates on whether the film successfully immerses the viewer in the
sci-fi world. Yes and no, he opines, and concludes: "I left the movie glad I
saw it, not disappointed."

Not that Goldberg is necessarily engaged in a coverup. It's possible that
the politics of the film completely eluded this spokesmen for the new
Buckley generation whose conservatism is largely affected.

More interesting is the review by Edward Hudgins, one-time editor of Cato's
Regulation and now head of the Objectivist Center. Now, here is a scholar
educated in the Misesian tradition (in fact, his dissertation was on Mises's
method). Unlike Goldberg, Hudgins cares about ideas and takes freedom
seriously. The politics of the film were not lost on him:

Lucas correctly sees republics potentially undermined by large armies
fighting foreign wars. After all, the Roman republic was destroyed in part
because Julius Caesar used his armies and conquests to expand his personal
power. That's why America's Founders were suspicious of peacetime standing
armies. But while the American military has never directly endangered our
republic, the concentration of power that results from permanent overseas
conflicts has.

Hudgins knows the truth. But Hudgins is quick to prevent his readers from
drawing the conclusions that something should be done to avoid this fate:
"let's not forget that a reluctance to fight for freedom, for example,
against terrorists, born from moral uncertainty, can also lead to the death
of a republic."

How interesting: The movie doesn't make that point at all! The point of the
movie is that Republics become Empires when they permit governments to
consolidate in the name of fighting threats that they themselves concoct and
inspire!

Realizing that he can't really get away with this line for long, Hudgins
further adds that "But Lucas seems confused concerning such threats to
republics." What follows is an attempt to demonstrate that Lucas is consumed
by anti-capitalism (when in fact the commercial themes of the film are
anti-mercantilist), thus making it possible for Hudgins to offer a defense
of business as the backbone to a republic.

Yet all of this is beside the point. Hudgins's attempt to avoid the central
issue spins wildly out of control when he compares Anakin Skywalker's fits
of temper to that of the "rage-filled Islamic militant." It would be more
plausible to compare Anakin's arrogance and lust for power with the typical
Capitol Hill policy wonk!

Not avoiding the central issue is a remarkable review by Jonathan Last in
the Weekly Standard - a far more brassy publication than National Review if
only because it is not shy about being dead wrong on just about every issue.
The review comes as something of relief, if only for its sheer honesty. This
is surely the only review of any Star Wars film to make the case for the
Dark Side (however, I didn't bother to check what the Neo-Nazis are saying
about the movie).

Whereas the typical viewer gets the creeps to see the way Supreme Chancellor
Palpatine manipulates events to give himself total power, Mr. Last makes the
case for giving it to him, on grounds that Palpatine is actually an
"esoteric Straussian." Even more clearly, Last attacks Lucus for not
understanding that consolidated power is a great thing:

Lucas confused the good guys with the bad. The deep lesson of Star Wars is
that the Empire is good.. Make no mistake, as emperor, Palpatine is a
dictator - but a relatively benign one, like Pinochet. It's a dictatorship
people can do business with. They collect taxes and patrol the skies. They
try to stop organized crime (in the form of the smuggling rings run by the
Hutts).

How refreshing to see the neocon position presented so clearly! There's more
here. Mr. Last makes the case against the Jedi Knights on grounds that they
are elitist, like the "royalist Swiss guard," and not democratic. The Jedi
are "full of themselves" and ineffectual. His only regret about the dictator
is that he fails to make "a compelling case - or any case, for that matter -
as to why.these planets should not be allowed to check out of the Republic
and take control of their own destinies."

But lest you think that running an empire is easy, remember that it
sometimes requires mass murder: "Imperial stormtroopers kill Luke's aunt and
uncle and Grand Moff Tarkin orders the destruction of an entire planet,
Alderaan. But viewed in context, these acts are less brutal than they
initially appear. Poor Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen reach a grisly end, but only
after they aid the rebellion by hiding Luke and harboring two fugitive
droids. They aren't given due process, but they are traitors."

He concludes by regretting the eventual abdication of Darth Vadar, and
decries Luke Skywalker and friends as "an unimpressive crew of anarchic
royals who wreck the galaxy so that Princess Leia can have her tiara back."
And the final touch: "I'll take the Empire."

We always knew that these people were partisans of the Dark Side. At least
now we have the open admission. If given a choice between those who cover
for evil or pretend it does not exist, and those who openly advocate it, I'
ll take the latter.

May 23, 2002

Jeffrey Tucker [send him mail] is vice president of the Mises Institute.

© 2002 © LewRockwell.com

Jeffrey Tucker Archives


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----