Decoding Star Wars: A Neoconservative Saga in Space?
[Editor’s Note:] More than just the most lucrative film franchise in history, “Star Wars” has also entered the analytical realm of political science. On January 6th, Michael McKoy, an assistant professor at Wheaton College, published an article in The Washington Post titled “Three ways ‘Star Wars’ is a neoconservative universe.” The article argues that “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” is a cautionary tale about regime change and the difficulties of suppressing rebellion, a parable about the dangers of American empire. Furthermore, “Star Wars” successfully supports several principles championed by neoconservatives.
For years, many film buffs and critics have suggested that the “Star Wars” saga subtly critiques the perils of American imperialism. Director George Lucas himself stated that the original trilogy was inspired by the Vietnam War, where a weaker insurgency defeated a powerful, technologically superior empire.
The prequel trilogy, on the other hand, has been interpreted as a deep dive into the actions of the George W. Bush administration. The villainous Sheev Palpatine’s use of terrorist attacks as a pretext to consolidate power mirrors the Patriot Act. Anakin Skywalker’s declaration to Obi-Wan, “If you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy,” echoes Bush’s post-9/11 statement, “You’re either with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
Some neoconservatives have responded to these implicit attacks on American empire through the lens of the Galactic Empire. Jonathan Last, in an article for The Weekly Standard titled “Empire Studies,” wrote, “Lucas confused the good guys and the bad guys. The profound lesson is that empire is good.” Sonny Bunch, in a Washington Post op-ed, argued that the destruction of Alderaan was ultimately the right choice.
But like the rebels on Endor, these neoconservatives may have fallen into a trap. Despite these interpretations, “Star Wars” successfully upholds several principles that have long been championed by neoconservatives. Here are three:
1. A Universe of Clear Moral Divides
The original “Star Wars” films, while intended to critique America’s involvement in Vietnam, also served as a rebuke to the cynicism and moral ambiguity of the “New Hollywood” movement of the 1970s. In “Star Wars,” brave heroes confront space Nazis building a planet-destroying superweapon. As the first trailer for “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” stated, there is a constant struggle between darkness and light.
Lucas saw “Star Wars,” along with his earlier film “American Graffiti,” as possessing an earlier moral clarity and simplicity. Like “Rocky” and “Jaws,” these films were celebrations or indictments – depending on your perspective – that ended the moral questioning of the New Hollywood era after Vietnam and Watergate. Unlike films such as “Taxi Driver,” “Chinatown,” and “Dog Day Afternoon,” which were openly cynical, these films ushered in the blockbuster era.
Many liberal hawks in the post-Vietnam era agreed with Lucas. They didn’t see moral relativism from the “New Left,” and didn’t believe that the United States and the Soviet Union were equally evil. James Mann identifies this as a key reason why some liberal hawks, including former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick and former World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, left the Democratic Party to embrace “neoconservatism.” They welcomed Reagan’s clear belief in American exceptionalism: the “shining city on a hill” versus the Soviet Union’s “evil empire.”
George W. Bush echoed this language, labeling America’s enemies as the “axis of evil.” The “Star Wars” films may have mocked Bush’s moral absolutism, but they also reflected it. If Obi-Wan believes that “only a Sith deals in absolutes,” he needs to look in the mirror and look up the definition of “irony.” This desire for a black-and-white, good-versus-evil morality was a major reason why Lucas created “Star Wars” in the first place.
2. Only Force Can Defeat Evil: Compromise Leads to Disaster
Neoconservatives believe that evil dictators can only be defeated through force, and that compromise always leads to bad outcomes. According to them, appeasement of Hitler and Mussolini led to World War II, while the Allies’ use of force led to victory. Franklin Roosevelt’s compromise with Stalin led to the communist division of Europe, while Reagan’s firm stance led to the collapse of communism. George H.W. Bush’s refusal to overthrow Saddam Hussein led to a decade of unnecessary repression and ineffective sanctions, while George W. Bush’s massive invasion ended Saddam’s regime in a matter of weeks.
While many now view the Iraq War as a mistake, neoconservatives argue that the biggest mistake was not sending enough troops, a mistake that was repeated in Obama’s policy toward Libya.
“Star Wars” tells a similar story. It was Anakin’s compromise with evil that ultimately destroyed the original Republic. Anakin was willing to embrace Palpatine’s desire for unlimited power, as Palpatine could save his wife, Padmé Amidala. Anakin naively and dangerously placed the lives of one person – or three, if you count the twins – above the millions of planets in the galaxy, leading to disastrous consequences. And Padmé died anyway.
Luke, however, refuses to compromise with evil. In “Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back,” Darth Vader implores his son to join the dark side and “end this destructive conflict,” but Luke steadfastly refuses. In “Star Wars: Return of the Jedi,” Luke again rejects the Empire’s attempts to sway him. Luke twice risks death rather than compromise with evil, and twice saves the galaxy.
“Star Wars: The Force Awakens” continues this theme, although the issue becomes complicated by the confusion between the Republic, the Resistance, and the First Order. Only Leia recognizes the threat and calls for the Republic to attack – she is the Winston Churchill of “Star Wars.” The Galactic Republic’s compromise and reserved policies lead to its capital planet, Hosnian Prime, being shattered into debris like Alderaan. The “Star Wars” story is a fitting description of neoconservative fears about Iranian nuclear power.
3. Complex Feelings About Democracy Itself
Neither neoconservatives nor the “Star Wars” saga fully express their views on democracy. Both superficially endorse democracy and see it as an ideal. The importance of “freedom” and “liberation” is a constant moderation of the policies implemented by Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush. Characters in the prequels insist that maintaining democracy is the best form of government, but the facts show the opposite.
A corrupt and inefficient parliament cannot prevent the Trade Federation’s invasion of Naboo. Queen Amidala declares in the Galactic Senate chamber: “I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die while you discuss this invasion in a committee!” It is military force, not democratization, that saves Naboo – although here the force is just an army of Naboo’s aquatic native Gungans and a 10-year-old boy in an autopilot fighter. When Anakin later tells Queen Amidala that the democratic system doesn’t work, she strongly disagrees but cannot explain why.
Neoconservatives similarly doubt how much democracy can do in the face of threats. Jeane Kirkpatrick, in her well-known Kirkpatrick Doctrine, argued that right-wing authoritarian dictatorships are a stronger bulwark against domestic communist insurgents than democratic governments.
This is why neoconservatives support long-term authoritarianism after overthrowing a regime: to ensure that the country becomes stable, they prefer American-style democracy to communism or Islamism.
Jonathan Chait argues that the inherent flaws in democracy are why neoconservatives support spreading it abroad – thereby better maintaining American supremacy. In any case, democracy is seen as weak and unreliable, requiring strong American guidance.
In other words, neoconservatives don’t need to support the Empire. The “Star Wars” story itself embraces the “shining city on a hill” – an empire under the world’s attention – America, not that empire in a galaxy far, far away.