Trek Against Trump

So Glenn Hauman, the administrator of this website, called and asked if I was interested in being a part of a new movement, Trek Against Trump. Apparently an assortment of Trek-related individuals were signing onto a letter that urged voters to turn away from Donald Trump and vote for Clinton. Was I interested in signing on as a supporter. I said, “Sure.” What could be the harm?

Boy, did word get out. Every major (and a lot of minor) media outlets covered it. And a goodly number of high-profile individuals lent their name to the undertaking, including J.J. Abrams, Wil Wheaton, George Takei, Chris Pine and something like seventy others. You can read more about it here

There are well over a thousand comments in the reply section and many of them are exactly what you would expect from Trump supporters. Condemnations of Hollywood-type daring to voice an opinion, declarations that they were going to stop supporting Trek, and–my personal favorite–the shouts of “How dare you bring politics into Star Trek.” Right, because Star Trek never reflected politics. Except for “Omega Glory” which featured the Constitution. And “Patterns of Force” with Nazis. Or “Private Little War” which was a Vietnam metaphor. Or “Bread and Circuses” which features a government at odds with worshipers of the Sun (except no, it’s “the Son,” i.e., Jesus. So politics AND religion.) Or “The Way to Eden” with hippies seeking to leave civilization behind. Or “Conscience of the King” which was a metaphor about hunting Nazis. Or the entirety of “Star Trek VI” which was inspired by the end of the Cold War and the USSR’s collapse. And that’s not even getting into the pre-Vietnam/post Vietnam mindset that governed the way the ships operated in Original Trek vs. Next Gen: the former aggressively interfering despite the Prime Directive because the Enterprise was America and we knew best; the latter hewing tightly to the Prime Directive, hesitant and insanely reluctant to mix in because we didn’t have the right.

So yes, Star Trek is about politics and always has been, and this latest movement by dozens of its most ardent supporters and workers is consistent with that philosophy.

Vote for Clinton.

PAD

24 comments on “Trek Against Trump

  1. I personally love seeing the “How dare your bring politics into Star Trek?!?” one myself. Not just here, but over the decades. I just end up staring at the screen (probably with my head doing that that sideways tilt dogs do) and wondering if these people ever actually watched a single episode of Star Trek in any generation or if they have but they’re just colossally stupid.

  2. Monday was the first time I watched a whole presidential debate and Tuesday I registered to vote and it will be for Hillary because to quote Idris Elba from Pacific Rim “We’re canceling the Apocalypse!

  3. Or “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield,” which was a metaphor for racism and racial politics. Or “The Cloudminders,” which was about economic injustice. Or “Plato’s Stepchildren,” which was about the corruption of power among the ostensibly enlightened elite. Or “A Taste of Armageddon,” which was about the societal normalization of war and terror. Or “Assignment: Earth,” which was about the dangers of the nuclear arms struggle. Or …

    Suggesting that Star Trek ought not to be about politics is doltish. Though I have no doubt that any of those episodes, were the show airing today, would draw more significant protest now than they did at the time.

  4. I am shocked — shocked! — that Trump supporters would be close-minded and ignore people’s first amendment rights. (And yes, that was sarcasm.)

    To paraphrase the old political criticism of the Dixie Chicks, it sounds like the Trek opponents attitude is “Shut up and ignore space.” Being a celebrity doesn’t mean someone gives up their opinions or their right to express those opinions. If anything, many celebs are blasted for *not* using their popularity and greater forum to express support or condemnation for something.

    I so hope Stephen Colbert covers this…

    1. Of course, the real irony is that, until he chose to run for President, Trump was nothing more than a–wait for it–celebrity himself. He can present himself as a businessman if he wants, but that didn’t keep him from also attaining celebrity status in the process. Hëll, he got mentioned on “Designing Women” at least twice to the best of my recall and on “The Golden Girls” (well, the memorable time was in a negative way–in a “Jeopardy” dream sequence, Dorothy calls Merv Griffin the “anti-Trump”).

      1. Considering that one of Trump’s (many) financial disasters was as a result of butting heads with Griffin over (i think) a casino…

      2. And of course we learned on Quantum Leap that Dr. Samuel Beckett was responsible for inspiring little Trump to consider real estate.

  5. I remarked several months ago that Trump’s campaign has changed my mind about “Patterns of Force.” I always thought it was ridiculous that Gill, while not apparently subscribing to any Nazi-esque theories of racial superiority, would think it was a good idea to use Nazi Germany as a model for setting up a government. “Go for the gold and have an actual neo-Nazi in Starfleet if you want somebody to become Space Hitler,” I thought, “But there’s no way somebody who’s not a Nazi is going to think using Nazis is going to be a good idea.”

    I’ve been proven wrong.

  6. So, if I vote for Trump, am I still allowed to support PAD by buying his work? Do I have to think of everything I spend on his writing as a contribution for Hillary? Should I get rid of my Star Trek stuff and ignore any new future Trek stuff because my politics is more important than my fan status?

    If Hillary Clinton is more important than entertaining to people whose livelihood is being entertainers, then I probably could find my entertainment elsewhere.

    And so can a lot of others.

    1. Well their opinions have no more nor less value than those of celebrities who embrace Trump. Or yours. Or mine, for that matter. I’m pretty sure that you won’t feel the same about, say, Clint Eastwood or Scott Baio, for example. I’m willing to guess that if Star Trek stars and authors were Republican, and supported Trump, you wouldn’t want to stiffle their right to free speech. And yes, the fate of your nation, or any nation, is more important to people than their livelihood. It’s more important than entertaining, whether you’re Democrat or Republican. It’s more important than anything. And they have the right to express their support for one candidate, whoever he/she might be, and their opposition to the other one, in the way they want to do it. Period.

    2. Feel free to give to Trump. He’s more than willing to part fools from their money.

    3. That’s up to you, really. I guess the question is, which is greater: Your love for Star Trek, or your hate for Hillary Clinton?

    4. I feel like this threat is issue against any celebrity who voices a political view — indeed, it’s mentioned in the original post — but you know what? You’re lying. This rarely ever happens in huge numbers, and you’re severely handicapped by the fact that most conservative entertainment is terrible.

      “I’ll go elsewhere!” is an empty threat when your other option is a lifetime of Kirk Cameron movies and Ted Nugent records.

  7. Actually, I have been starting my discussions on politics with ‘Which third party candidate are YOU supporting?’ based on the premise that any thinking American would be unable to vote for either of the major candidates…

    1. I’m writing in for Leonard Nimoy. A beloved deceased actor can do better than either of those morons.
      I’m not voting for Trump, but I’m also not going to let a vote for Clinton stain my soul.
      Don’t worry. I’m from a staunch blue state. So my electoral vote is already going to Hillary no matter what I do.

      1. YES! Presently listening to “Leonard” written by Bill Shatner. Very interesting to learn more about those two and their long friendship.

  8. Here’s a fun game. It seems to me that if you compare Trek to Trump it’s a little like matching up those characters of contrast, Goofus and Gallant. For your consideration, allow me to present a few examples:

    • Trek believes a man’s reach should extend his grasp.
    • Trump believes a man’s grasp should be judged by the size of his hands.

    • Trek’s Starfleet Academy investigates the wonders of the universe.
    • Trump’s University is under investigation.

    • Trek has Trouble with Tribbles.
    • Trump has Twitter with quibbles.

    • Trek’s Mr. Spock explodes with the violent, uncontrollable urges of Pon Farr every seven years.
    • Trump explodes with violent, uncontrollable urges twenty-four/seven.

    • Trek is about space exploration.
    • Trump is about race exploitation.

    • Trek has boorish, unkempt, arrogant characters called Klingons.
    • Trump has boorish, unkempt, arrogant characters called supporters.

    • Trek has female captains who look to the stars.
    • Trump rates female stars by how they look.

    • Trek can bend time and space with warp drive.
    • Trump can bend reason and decency with his warped mind.

    • Trek has had six TV series in 50 years.
    • Trump has had six bankruptcies in 50 years.

    And finally —

    • Trek has an android named Data who acts like a human.
    • Trump has a wife named Melania who acts like an android.

  9. I wrote a post on Facebook about celebrity opinions when I first heard about this:

    I’ve seen a number of people online complaining about celebrities campaigning against Trump, saying they’re just celebrities and their opinion isn’t worth more than others. But let’s turn it around: a lot of private citizens are also publicly campaigning against Trump. Are celebrity opinions worth *less* than private citizens? I think celebrities have the right to publicly endorse the candidate of their choice. And that also includes Scott Baio, Scott Adams, and other celebrities who are on Trump’s side.

Comments are closed.