by Mindy Clegg
As a long-time trekkie, I admit that I am worried about the future of the Star Trek franchise. It might seem strange to be pearl-clutching over a piece of sci-fi intellectual property with… you know… EVERYTHING happening (war, genocide, starving children, ICE raids, colonial/imperial boomerang, gutting of the social safety net, etc). But hear me out. Our future imaginary that feels approachable and possible (as long as you ignore the impossibility of faster-than-light space travel) could face a conservative makeover. But why should that matter? Isn’t it just mass produced culture, that maybe has some liberalish politics, but ultimately just reinforces a particular imperialist ideology? That ultimately depends on how you look at it. While sometime functioning as an apologia for American empire, the show could also ask some hard questions about that empire, even as it ultimately embraced the supposed idealism of the US experiment. More importantly, the show imagines a better, more progressive future where everyone belongs. In times like these, we absolutely need these kinds of hopeful story associated with Star Trek. Changing it into a generic space action series would strip it of what made it special. Many focus on the way it champions science, but ultimately, Roddenberry sought to illustrate a humanist future where technology serves humanity, rather than controls us. We need this vision now more than ever, as everything that so many people have fought for seems to be violently being erased.
The merger between Paramount and Skydance has already had one major casualty, The Late Show. Now hosted by Stephen Colbert, the show began in the 1990s when David Letterman was passed over for the “safer” option of Jay Leno to replace Johnny Carson. Under Letterman, The Late Show had a tendency to the weird and countercultural, though less pointedly political. His tone was deeply ironic and cynical of societal norms, while taking a deep pleasure in highlighting the odder corners of American life. Gen Xers idolized him. Colbert ran a slightly more traditional program even as Letterman’s influence shines through. Colbert brought his own signatures to The Late Night, highlighing his geeky bonefides, but regularly commenting on current political events. But after a scathing take on the recent settlement between the current POTUS and Paramount, Colbert’s contract was not renewed. The show will end in May of 2026. Paramount claims the decision was due to “financial reasons.” But no one believes them. Other figures such as Jon Stewart of The Daily Show have weighed in on the settlement with the President in solidarity with Colbert’s view that it was essentially a bribe to ensure the Paramount/Skydance merger to a Trump ally’s son goes through. Many believe that under Ellison, CBS and Paramount will veer to the right, mimicking Fox News. Skydance has already announced a DEI review after the firing of Colbert. It is hard not to see that the ultimate outcome, as David Ellison has promised content favored by Trump and his movement.
What about the dramatic, fictional content of Paramount, which includes Star Trek? First, we should acknowledge the importance of culture and storytelling in human life. Humanity has self-fashioned via culture from the beginning, some humans figured out it could be a means of accruing power to a person or a class of people. Others embraced cultural production as an act of resistance to these centers of power. The technology and forms of power are different today, but it remains about class differentiation, with the elite class seeking to naturalize and justify their elevated position in society. In the 20th and 21st century, mass media was both democratizing and reinforcing of the power structure. The rise of mass mediated propaganda was a boon to the far right and how it accrued power. Autocratic regimes, in the 20s and 30s and today, sought tight control of the mass media. The far right has excelled at weaponizing social media as part of taking over a particular government. We should understand Elon Musk’s purchase of twitter in that light. Figures like Edward Bernays embraced mass mediated propaganda as a means of social control, later preferring the term “public relations”, a field which he helped establish. But it was not just used in democratic societies. The Nazis (or even perhaps the Soviet Union under Stalin) embraced mass media as a central tool of their propaganda machine. Nazi Propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels was a known admirer of American mass media and sought to shape Nazi era mass media along similar lines, but with a more state-centered focus. They even sought to dominate popular, mass culture, as argued by Joe Perry argued in this study on the history of German Christmas.1 Totalitarians regimes on the 20s and 30s embraced mass media to further the cult of personality. Since then, modern autocrats (of whatever strip) tend to embrace a similar strategy of employing the media as a face of autocratic state, right down to the embrace of autocratic kitsch. The Trump administration is pursuing a very similar strategy via their demands on mass media companies and support of allies taking over mass media companies.
So, what could that mean for some of the dramatic programming produced by Paramount? South Park just declared their defiance to Trump in their recent episode that dropped right after they cut a deal with Paramount for the new season, working in a mocking “pro-Trump” commercial at the end. It tracks with Parker’s and Stone’s history of mocking those they deem cultural elites from whatever political orientation. Their politics tends towards cynical libertarianism, a typical Gen X pose. It remains to be seen if Trump will demand retaliation against the show. What about another tent pole property on Paramount, Star Trek? If the South Park guys are able to skate by on their sardonic irony, Star Trek’s appeal rests in an idealistic, earnest authenticity. It’s worth visiting a recent video by youtuber Damien Walter, where he called Star Trek “liberal propaganda.” He’s not wrong on that, although I think we could explore the idea a bit more. So I want to engage in a bit of criticism to explore what precisely this means. Lots of culture and communication can be characterized as propaganda, after all.
Trekkies (hardcore fans of Star Trek) have long debated what sort of future Gene Roddenberry meant to model for us. Walter leans into a sort of singular answer, based primarily on Roddenberry’s own argument that Star Trek was meant as an argument for his ideal world, and hence was propaganda. That is strong evidence to support Walter’s position, including Roddenberry’s own words. But one problem with his framing is how he treats other viewpoints—just a flat, out-of-hand rejection not even taking alternative views seriously. He points to the clip of Roddenberry calling the show propaganda. Specifically, it’s propaganda about liberalism, with Walter including a clip of Captain Kirk reading from the US Constitution. In the clip, Kirk noted that the people of the Federation hold many similar documents in high esteem, but argued that none were as important as this particular one, which begins “We The People.” He continued that “they must apply to everyone, do you understand?” Strong evidence that US mid-century liberalism is precisely what is being propagandized. Science Fiction is, after all, a product and commentary on its time.
Generally speaking, I agree with the analysis that Star Trek is about promoting American liberalism, especially the Original series. I must quibble with Walter’s analysis, though. What does he mean by American liberalism? Did everyone agree about the meaning of that term during the mid-century era, at the height of the Cold War? What does it mean if that is a contested term? He also argued that Star Trek was employed as propaganda for the state and for US corporations, but he seemed to feel it was self-evident and needed little support. But if this was meant to represent mid-century American liberalism, the Federation does not seem to have private, for-profit corporations even as large-scale institutions continue to exist. Yet, Walter rejects the argument that Star Trek could be a socialist or communist, post-scarcity society out of hand. Of course the Federation does not resemble the Communism of that era. I’d argued that if we had to pin down Roddenberry’s liberalism, I would argue that it consisted of three aspects. One was a strong support of public institutions (like the military and democratic institutions like legislatures). Second was a belief in modernization theory, that societies evolve along a particular path toward a singular result (a egalitarian, space-faring society). Third, and probably most critical to understanding the show, was a strong anti-racist/anti-bigotry world-view. We are used to programs today having diverse casts, but that was certainly not the case in the 1960s. I would note that that while liberalism claims these views, but so does socialism or communism. When the show premiered, neither society lived up to these ideals. In the Cold War, both sides claimed that they promoted the idea of strong institutions that effectively solve our collective problems. Both claimed that they represented the end of history, and most importantly that they had curbed the worst bigoted human instincts. While Roddenberry was certainly working at the height of American liberal consensus, he also included a Russian character in his original Enterprise. He understood the world as in process to improving for everyone. The Federation is shown as a post-scarcity society, with basic needs met, and basic humanity of everyone assumed.2 And of course, Roddenberry might have been the creator, but certainly others influenced the show as well. Television and film are always a collective act of creation. It was Leonard Nimoy, or Spock, who invented the Vulcan salute, for example. Co-creator Gene Coon, who was story editor for the Original series, had a big influence on the direction the show took.3
Another question left out was whether or not other Star Trek series merely replicated the propaganda of the original or sought to bring in other dimensions based on the time in which it was produced. Walter pinpoints the first major sequel series, Star Trek: The Next Generation, as a platonic ideal of Roddenberry’s vision. It was the last show Roddenberry worked on prior to his death in 1991 with Deep Space Nine being that last he signed off on. Walter invokes the shows of that era (late 80s into the early 2000s) as the best of Star Trek. He shows little love for the current Star Trek series that came after the JJ Abrams’ reboot films. He doesn’t even bother to get the name of the animated comedy show Lower Decks correct, calling it Below Decks. But what if rather than Star Trek being a platonic ideal that each show needs to live up to and instead illustrates a set of ideals that shape the narrative possibilities?
Let’s take Deep Space Nine my own platonic ideal of Star Trek. Walter argued that the 90s era Star Trek captains can be understood as philosopher kings who reject family, which makes little sense against the narrative arc of this particular show. Benjamin Sisko might have been philosophical, embracing fairness, justice, equity, historical-mindedness, commitment, and service. He was also a race man in the classical sense. But he hardly eschewed family. He was a single father to Jake after the death of his wife Jennifer at the hands of the Borg. In later season, his father regularly appears. He later marries and starts a family with a freighter captain, Kasidy Yates, prior to Sisko being taken to the celestial temple as a god. DS9 was a show that premiered after the Cold war and sought to highlight the byproducts of the colonial history of that era, asking harder questions of the liberal order than either previous show. The Federation does not escape criticism during the show. This was the first time that non-Federation citizens, like the Bajoran liaison Major Kira Nerys, are main characters who express concerns about the Federation. She regularly expresses reservations about the Federation designs on Bajor, a planet that has just thrown off a colonizer. She feared another occupation for the Bajoran people. The show also illustrates how, in conflict, the Federation does not always live up to its ideals. A major strategy used against the main antagonist the Dominion included an attempted genocide against the Founders. Nor are Federation citizens entirely happy with their government after a peace treaty with Cardassia included a land swap scheme between the two sides. The show explored terrorism with the Maquis, Federation citizens and Bajorans who turn to terrorism against what they see as a brutal occupation of their homes. The Federation aligned with the Cardassians against its own citizens. But it could be argued that the Federation abandoned its own citizens. Terrorism is a recurring theme in the show, while not telling the viewer how to feel about it. Maj. Kira, a former resistance fighter, time and again described herself as a terrorist even as she believed her actions were moral and justified during the occupation. In general, Sisko had plenty of opportunities to question his own ideals and actions, such as when he participated in the assassination of a Romulan Senator in order to bring Romulus into the war on the side of the Federation. Even the ultra-capitalist Ferengi, typified by barkeep Quark, offer some legitimate criticism of the Federation during the course of the show, such as when Quark noted how war is ultimately bad for business. The Ferengi empire represents one possible alternative to the Federation and evolves during the course of the show. DS9 is also the only Star Trek show that dealt with specific forms of inequalities in America’s past, directly addressing racism in the science fiction community in the 1950s and unrest driven by poverty. It was not a metaphor, but addressed America’s greatest failings directly and searingly.
All that aside, the ideals of the Federation stand at the end of the day, in part because people like Sisko make it have meaning by holding a light onto the past while celebrating the equity of the present. Is Sisko a philosopher king? Hell yes. But does one need to shed the humanity of family and friends to be such a figure? I would argue not so. No other Star Trek has really gone to the places that this one did, as David K. Seitz argued in his book about the series.4 Once again, this doesn’t make Walter wrong in his analysis (maybe on his ignoring the family aspect of DS9 isn’t great, given its centrality to Sisko’s character development), but the discussion around the meaning of these shows illustrates why mass culture can matter: it allows us a way to explore ideas and imagine better futures. It gives us space to have needed discussions on progressive change and how to achieve it. If we had to point to an episode of DS9 that supported that point would be “Far Beyond the Stars” where Sisko has a prophetic vision of himself as a 1950s sci-fi writer dreaming of a better future. It’s a superb example of afro-futurism with a strongly optimistic bent. Benny Russell dreamed of a better future for himself and his people, and that is what Star Trek did best, especially this particular show. But in a worst case-scenario, such debates about the meaning of shows like this might end up shut down or at least marginalized. We don’t need to agree on the meaning of a show like Star Trek because the discussion on meaning is ultimately the point. If we squash that discussion, all we really have is entertainment meant to keep us compliant after a long day of underpaid work. Destroying something like Star Trek and making it just a bog-standard sci-fi action show (like many accuse of the JJ Abram’s films) will merely prove the often problematic Frankfurt school criticism of mass culture.
The question remains will Star Trek be on the “woke” chopping block for promoting a deep sense of social equity once the merger, now approved, is completed. South Park’s most recent episode tested the limits of their recent deal. Whether they’ll see a backlash is up for question. But we should keep in mind that although these are very specific circumstances, CBS has a history of playing it safe with regards to its programming. In 1969 they unceremoniously canceled The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour under political pressure from two different administrations (Johnson and Nixon). Shows like South Park and Star Trek might be able to weather an authoritarian attack by moderating their tone and themes. This seems unlikely from Parker and Stone, but who knows about the show runners for Star Trek. Progressive and leftist fans are talking about the possible implications of this merger for the future of the show.
I’ve often thought that a way to ensure a continuation of a show that projected a progressive future would be for the fans to raise the funds to buy the show and make it a kind of fan-owned co-op along with the creatives behind the show (its current worth is about $11 billion). I don’t know if there is a precedence for fan-owned properties, but the studio United Artists was founded by artists way back in 1919 (including Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, and (sadly) DW Griffith). Whether that’s possible is another question, but it’s a suggestion for trying to protect Roddenberry’s progressive vision from the mechanations of right wing ideologues.
Footnotes
1 Joe Perry, Christmas in Germany: A Cultural History, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010.
2 Manu Saadia, Trekonomics: The Economics of Star Trek, Paris: Pipertext, 2016.
3 Ryan Britt, Phasers on Stun: How the Making (and Remaking) of Star Trek Changed the World, New York: Plume, 2022.
4 David K. Seitz, A Different Trek: Radical Geographies of Deep Space Nine, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2023.
Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.