What is the Dark Side and Why Do Some People Choose It
Mark Thornton asks: Why did Anakin go over to the dark side? This is a crucial question and Lucas must provide a plausible and sensible answer because the Darth Vader role is really the foundation of Star Wars. In our world, we see the dark side all too often in government. Once again, George Lucas will capitalize on real life in order make science fiction meaningful to a mass audience. Once again he has taught us a valuable lesson about ourselves and our society. Full Article
Comments (32)
Obi Won Mises: "Washington D.C.; you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany. We must be cautious."
Published: May 13, 2005 7:15 AM
I know I'm probably not going to be the only nerd to realize this, but I'll be the first to point it out: Luke was trained by Obi-Wan "in the original Star Wars movie," and was trained by Yoda in the second.
But going along with the post, it is my understanding that in Sith the Emperor makes the case for the dark side on the grounds that --while it is always dismissed as evil-- it is simply power; good and bad are nothing more than distinctions characterizing its usage. To that end, I further gather the Emperor argues that the dark side's power can be used for peace, which, if it is true, is I think a brilliant -- and redeeming -- move by Lucas in adding a fascinating dimension to the Emperor: Does he truly believe that he can use the dark side for the greater good, or is he simply saying that to dupe Anakin?
For the purposes of relevance, I'd like to explore the former and juxtapose it with politicians in general and perhaps our current President specifically: Both believe that the extension of war and the conferrence of power can be used to ultimately deliver peace, but it never occurs to them that these very instruments inhibit such an end.
I don't know if Lucas intended his film as an analogy to modern times or whether it just came to him naturally, but wouldn't it be so much more interesting if, all this time, the Emperor was not a one-dimensional personification of evil, but a misguided, well-intended samaritan who actually thought what he was doing was right?
I believe that the instrument of government and the more well-intended politicians are no different (though I doubt most politicians can shoot lightning from their fingers...well, maybe Dick Cheney) in their belief that, ultimately, through force* we can accomplish what is right. While I personally don't abide by that belief, I can certainly see --and even understand-- others that do: We both want the same end, but we differ in the means by which we should achieve it. It certainly makes a convincing case for the dark side...
I think this is what Thornton approaches in his article, and if this is what George has done, our father Lucas is not truly dead.
*yes, the pun was intended
Published: May 13, 2005 7:39 AM
Mark,
If ordinary teachers are not on the dark side, they surely must be on the grey side. While the rest of society pays taxes through the nose, "ordinary teachers" secure more administrative layers and early retirement at age 52 while mandating nonsense in our schools.
Maybe not the Dark Side, but "ordinary teachers" are certainly no Jedi Knights.
JBP
Published: May 13, 2005 7:44 AM
Now that it is almost over, there is now a new website thanking George Lucas for 27 years of Star Wars to present 1,000,000 signatures and stories to him later this summer. Look at http://www.thankyougoerge.com
Published: May 13, 2005 8:07 AM
I have'nt read the Dark Side article yet.
This is a belated comment on the Cantillon article.
DO go read it. The presentation of Political Economy within the article is VERY educational.
Now I guess I must read the Dark Side article. LOL.
Respects,
Joseph Zack
Published: May 13, 2005 8:34 AM
Very good take on the [presumably] the last movie in the "Stars Wars" series.
I like the author's take o the movie.
The folks who commented on the "meaning" of this last movie, were , likewise very interesting.
I particularly like the notion that the "emperor" might be an individual who wants "good" by utilyzing the "Dark Side". That he agenda is expediancy [sp?]. Not unlike the Chief Executive who now inhabits the White House , as I write this missive.
If Lucas, has this in this last movie, I believe that the movie will certainly be very most interesting.
J.Z.
Published: May 13, 2005 9:04 AM
Yoda defines the "Dark Side" very well in _Empire Strikes Back_,
"A Jedi uses his power for knowledge and defense, never for attack."
This is merely a restatement of the Non Aggression Principle, which many of us rabid anarcho-capitalists consider the definition of libertarian.
Emperor Palpatine, by making the allusion to "Peace through Strength" gives one of the most successful and seductive arguments for the initiation of force. We see it all around us every day, in prohibitions and licensure, legal monopolies and limited liability. Hitler didn't say, "Let's kill lots of people", he said, "These people have tried to harm you. They must be controlled, their power to hurt you taken away. To do so we must be strong and resolute, we must ACT."
How many times have those who fear liberty said things like, "If everyone had a gun, there'd be rivers of blood in the streets. People would be killing each other over fender-benders" or, "Without the SEC, your money would be stolen by bogus stock brokers and lying corporate execs."
The same people who dread these things support the initiation of force, the Dark Side, to make them safe, to enforce "peace". Lucas didn't invent the idea, and I fully expect that in 1977 he didn't envision anything this ephemeral or lofty. I'm sure that he was thinking that using the Force for attack meant literal corruption, evil, lust for killing, etc.
Didn't the myth of King Arthur teach us the same thing? That power corrupts? It's easy to say that might does not make right, but the more might one has, the easier it is to say, "I'm right".
Published: May 13, 2005 9:53 AM
Solzhenitsyn said the dividing line between good and evil was not between peoples but right down the middle of every human heart.
I was waiting for a punchline saying that this was a joke or a parody of the liberals "the problem is with single mothers, so we need welfare to help them". Or lack of government provided healthcare so she died.
And the libertarian - "the slave would be a capital good and it is in the owner's interest to take good care of it, much like you would take care of a really nice car" so the Mother shouldn't have died anyway.
Fatherhood? Isn't that merely another alternative lifestyle fad that is out of vogue except for those nasty monotheists (Where are fathers in Atlas Shrugged)? Or that Tatooine happened to be a totally free market - apparently one where market justice arises, but decisions can be based on the result of pod races instead of actual guilt or innocence.
The Dark Side is the desire for control. Non Servum as it has been put - and personified - for at least 2000 years. It is easier to be a totalitarian dictator when you provide bread and circuses and hide the swords or guns around corners or in shadows. Most aren't sadists. Even when they are, it is often self-limiting (consider Iraq before and after - the fear level of the ordinary Iraqi, and note Christians are fleeing).
Vader did nothing about the slavery and such on Tattooine - not even take it over, though he would have the power to do so.
The first step toward the dark side was hate - for Luke (who was the cause of his family's murder and watched as his friends were killed). And trying to do good out of hate, he wanted to kill Darth Vader. This is where most Christians fall. War is evil, but they want to remove Saddam. Theft is evil, as is a debased currency, but they want to remove poverty.
Vader's redemption comes when he decides he cannot let his son be killed after his son has renounced his vengance.
We will see how the movie shows his seduction to the dark side. But ultimately we all have choices, and often the most difficult one is to decide for the good in principle when the only means of addressing suffering or doing other goods would require evil. Ron Paul does this all the time. For once you've chosen the dark side once, there is no more principle can stop the pragmatism. And there is always some pragmatic good which can be done by violating a good principle.
Anakin was a slave - Vader enslaved the galaxy.
Anakin saw his mother die - Vader murdered an entire planet.
Anakin had no father - Vader was redeemed when he saved his son.
Yet how will we act - do we decide daily? Do we let other people live with their compromises or even compromise ourselves? Do we excuse evil as just circumstances? Are we intolerant of differences which may be evil but don't harm us, or are we indifferent to the destruction of that evil?
The USA was only free as long as they avoided compromise of principle. But they had a strong moral sense and backbone. They regulated themselves and tolerated no external regulation. We don't regulate ourselves so demand the government do so.
Published: May 13, 2005 9:54 AM
In Galatic Old Republic the Jedi's were guardian's of peace and justice till they were destroyed so the Empire could carry out "Crises" and use them as an excuse to declare totalitarion martial law throughout galaxy. Then they make a comeback: Jedis and the Alliance.
In Old Republic in real life, the militias were the guardians of Liberty and Justice till they were destroyed by socialists, bolsheviks and such politicians. Then New World Order increased power by creating "crises" and justifying tyranny through them. www.infowars.com
Militias and Gun Clubs are Jedis. Larger freedom movement like Mises Institute, LP, Cato Institute, Property Rights groups are the alliance.
www.infowars.com
Published: May 13, 2005 10:09 AM
If Jedis used their power for knowledge and defense, why do they have light sabers and not light shields?
But the point is well taken. Those with principles must be strong in acting against those who would violate them - especially those who would do so in a misguided attempt to do good.
The 1st commandment says Thou shall have no other Gods before me. The devil promises a (collective or individual) paradise on earth if we just worship him.
Arthur doesn't show that power corrupts, but the difficulty in exercising it. With the Queen's adultery, it was kill the Queen or kill the unforgiving law - brought up by the product of Arthur's own incest. The corrupt will always seek power, and there will be a morgause or mordred in any camelot. The principles would keep them out of power, which is why pragmatism is the seduction they use to remove the locks and barriers against excessive power.
Published: May 13, 2005 10:11 AM
Mark, the reason Anakin wasn't trained was explained by Mace Windu; "he is too old". It's a mischaracterization to suggest that Anakin, a 10 year-old boy "abandoned his mother". It would be slightly more appropriate to say that Qui-Gon Jinn abandoned her, but that's not true either. At about the 40-minute mark in Phantom Menace, Ani and his mother explain that slaves on Tatooine have biomechanical implants which kill the slave if they attempt to leave. This is why Qui-Gon couldn't simply take them both with him. Anakin says "I've been working on a scanner to see if I can locate [my implant]", meaning they can't simply be removed. That Anakin never returned to free his mother is not his fault, it is the fault of his master Obi-Wan Kenobi, who apologizes for his mistake in Revenge of the Sith.
Anakin's reason for turning to the Dark Side isn't at all trivial, without giving away any spoilers. I would go so far as to say that if he hadn't turned, the audience would wonder why the hell not. Anakin is lied to, and his real sin isn't being a "bastard", but believing the lie. But that just makes it all the more meaningful in Return of the Jedi when he finally stops hating and blaming everyone else, and fulfills his destiny, throwing Sidious into the reactor core.
Published: May 13, 2005 1:51 PM
"Luke, you do not yet realize your importance. You have only begun to discover your power. Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy."
Published: May 13, 2005 5:03 PM
I think that the link between a 'normal' family and honest children(and then adults) is non-existent.
The most succinct way to disprove such a link is to ask :
If evil is the result of wrong upbringing, Where is free will , then ? It does not exist ?
"The difficulties of single-parent households are well-known, easily understood, and are known to fall heavily on the children themselves who often become involved in criminal and destructive activities"
That's been proved...using wich means ? I hope it's not statitics...
"Abandoning his own mother would no doubt be the most immediate and troubling of all because he knew the pain of abandonment all too well. In fact, after she died in his arms, the young Jedi went on a murderous rampage killing all the men, women, and children of the Tusken Raider tribe "
That's the key point. So, Anakin is the victim of terrible crimes, and instead of turning against the perpetrators, his reaction is to himself destroy innocent people. Clearly, he belonged to the dark side before being a victim of injustice.
If somebody robs you, what do you do ? Do you now rob your innocent neighbour, or do you try to get your property back from the thief ?
Finally, politicians and their state are the best examples why such a causal theory of evil is wrong.
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of state officials, from Mr. President to the most obscure bureaucrat have never been the victims of any crime and are not bastards. And yet, they, who 'work' for the state, are indeed the people who most lack in moral sense in society.
There's no simple (or even complex) explanation why evil exists...
Juan.
Published: May 14, 2005 2:03 PM
Humans have a dark side because of our sin nature, defective DNA, name it what you will.
Published: May 14, 2005 7:13 PM
One explanation for the fact that Yoda was prepared to train the adult Luke, yet earlier opposed training the pubescent Anakin as too young, might be that, by the time Luke came on the scene, the Jedi had become so marginalized, and the Empire so mighty, that there was no reason to not take a risk on Luke. There was nothing to lose: It was a long shot, but Luke represented the last chance at changing the course of events.
But doubtless there's more than that going on. Yoda surely has clairvoyant powers, as may Obi-Wan -- or else the latter has simply learned to take Yoda's prescience at its word.
Thornton's etiology of Anakin's descent into evil is innately plausible, but it seems likely unconscious on Lucas's part. Lucas, from what I gather from his media interviews, is a rather typical Hollywood Left/liberal, an unlikely champion of liberty against the State.
I've no idea whether anybody's remarked this before, but "Lucas" sounds remarkably like "Luke." I wonder if he's reimagining his own story and that of the parental-filial relationships in his own family.
Published: May 15, 2005 1:35 AM
George Lucas' account of why Anakin became a Sith Lord is that he gave into fear. Remember Yoda in Episode I: "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering". And while I haven't yet seen Episode III, I have heard that in it, Anakin turns to Palpatine/Sidiouys after he starts to fear that his beloved Padmé will be killed.
In any case: you have all gotten it wrong! The Sith and the Empire are the good guys!:-)
At least according to the neoconservative Weekly Standard.
Published: May 15, 2005 1:58 PM
Stefan, that's a great article! Thank you for the link.
I'll gladly related the gist of what was printed in the Weekly Standard to what I posted above: They promise order, peace, under Imperial rule. Destroying the Empire only created chaos, the Rebels are merely bomb-throwing "anarchists".
Unfortunately, peace and plenty through liberty and free trade seems to have been ignored by everyone else, Lucas and Weekly Standard included.
Published: May 15, 2005 2:40 PM
Most poignent is Princess Leiha protesting "We are are a peiceful people, we have not weapons." Then Darth Vader destroys the whole planet.
Published: May 16, 2005 1:09 PM
You all may find this interesting: http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/16/cannes.starwars/index.html - I know I do, mainly because it vindicates my post; take that, We[a]kly Standard!
Published: May 16, 2005 1:46 PM
bobcode: actually it wasn't Darth Vader which detroyed Alderaan but the commander of the Death Star, Grand Moff Tarkin.
Published: May 17, 2005 3:10 AM
Thanks for all the comments on this blog. I've also received tons of email about this article. I agree with many of the points raised here and I'm sorry that I got some of the Star Wars particulars wrong--I'm only a level 1 Star Wars geek ;)
In today's USA Today there is a funny article "Politics creates a disturbance in the force" where the neocons are complaining that Lucas makes Bush out to be the evil Darth Vader. Talk about raising yourself on your own patard!
It should be pointed out that Lucas conceived of this story near the end of the Vietnam War and when Bush I was friends with Saddam and Bush II was just having a good time fulfilling his National Guard committment to his country.
editor@usatoday.com
Published: May 18, 2005 9:04 AM
Dear Mark, Miseans and Libertarians of all ilks,
To begin with, please allow me to congratulate you, Mark, on an excellent article.
Certainly, the climate created by various economic situations can and often does tend to render people more likely to "join the Dark Side." Yet, considering that Libertarian thought presumes a strong belief in personal responsibility, it is ultimately impossible for us to account for the decisions of Anakin Skywalker from merely economic and, primarily, external reasons.
Neverthless, inasmuch as Vader's armor clearly reveals the Lucas' reflections on Nazi Germany, a thorough understanding of the economic and sociological - as well as psychological - realities which gave rise to the Third Reich must inform our understanding of this creative myth (a word I use in the POSITIVE sense of a story which can help us to understand our own lives).
On the one hand, please allow me to reccommend that everyone reading this make a point of viewing Bill Moyers' interviews with Joseph Campbell in THE MASKS OF GOD. Lucas' work was very directly inspired by Campbell's work "THE HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES" and the interviews take place in the library at the Lucasfilms' Ranch.
Even more importantly, I cannot possibly stress the importance of reading Stanley Milgram's work "OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY"... which I shall discuss in a further post...
In Liberty!,
James Hines
Published: May 18, 2005 12:25 PM
The Relevance of "OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY"
Dear Mark, Miseans, Libertarians, etc.,...,
As the atrocities of the Holocaust were exposed at the end of WWII, many people - psychologists included - were inclined to attribute their horrors to some moral deficiency in the character of the GERMAN people.
As one German officer after another took the stand attempting to defend their actions on the basis that they were "just following orders", American attorneys, appealing to natural law, succeeded in persuading juries that there were certain crimes which could not be defended on the basis of such obedience.
Meanwhile back at Harvard, the intellect of a profoundly insightful sociologist, Dr. Stanley Milgram, was unsatisfied by the notion that these atrocities were the result of any quality which was "uniquely German."
Milgram's reflections led him to believe that there was something deeply ingrained in the human psyche from the long process of evolution which inclines us to ignore our most fundamental instincts of morality and compassion when those considerations come into conflict with the voice of authority - whether real or presumed.
Milgram then proceeded to design an experiment to test this hypothesis.
He placed advertisements in newspapers offering (to the best of my memory) about $20.00 for assistants in a scientific experiment addressing the effects of electric shock on memory. Applicants were provided a sheet discussing the possible effects of electric shock on memory and then shown a film so that participants would appreciate the signs of heart failure which might result from such experiments. Participants were then offered the choice of receiving or administering the shock. One person would volunteer to receive the shock and the other would then agree to administer them.
As it turned out, the "subject" of this double-blind study was NOT the person in the chair or his memory: the subject was the person ADMINISTERING the "shocks". Actually, no real shock was ever administered; the "applicant" sitting in the electric chair was a confederate of Milgram's trained to act as though he were being shocked.
At the end of Milgram's study (which was reproducible and which WAS reproduced many times, with consistent results) it was revealed that roughly 2/3 of us are prepared to continue adminstering shock - or inflicting pain - on one another so long as we are directed to do so by persons in positions of merely PRESUMED authority. The people directing the applicants to administer the shock were NOT actually even scientists: they merely wore white lab coats.
Neither did these people present any real threat (beyong the loss of about $20 for participation in the study) to the participants. Remember: in Nazi Germany, those giving such orders wore sidearms or could easily obtain them to coerce the cooperation of any hesitant 'subordinates'.
To my mind, Milgram's study is nothing more nor less than a scientific examination of the general strength (or, rather, weakness) of CONSCIENCE among individuals in the general public.
In closing, please allow me to recommend that all of you read Milgram's work on OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY and also look for the recent documentary on the life of DIETRICH BONHOEFFER: a Lutheran minister who did stand up to Hitler and who, though previously a pacifist, participated in an attempt to assassinate the Fuhrer.
All too frequently, we are taught that "morality" is our inclination to conform, to "respect our elders" and to obey the commands of 'authorities.' Milgram's work would seem to suggest that genuine morality, being a corollary of compassion, is ultimately revealed by our willingness to defy - or even revolt -against such authority when our conscience demands: presuming that we have such a conscience to begin with.
Liberty is ultimately not merely a consideration of the absence of duress imposed by others, but also the result of our own courage to overcome our fears in order to that which our reason - and our hearts - demand.
IN LIBERTY!,
James Hines
District Chair for the Libertarian Party of AL,
Mobile District
Published: May 18, 2005 12:54 PM
Children are far better off if they learn basic virtues like delaying gratification, patience, dicipline, and temperance while they are young. This might be no different than the ability to learn languages, so although when they are adults they have full free will, and the spirit is willing, often the flesh is weak. Ask anyone trying to quit smoking or some worse addiction. Conscience - or the will to follow it - is best strengthened and informed during childhood. Forming it later usually involves a great deal of pain and suffering.
As to Milgram's studies, I would note that our country has aborted 40 million children, but that is OK because in 1973 the supreme court said that they didn't know when life began. With Casey, they said we all have the right to form our own reality. Now with medical technology improving and saving 26 week or less gestation infants, and with 4D ultrasound, that question is settled, but we don't want to stop what is objectively murder (l4l.org has further arguments). We are beginning to kill the weak and disabled - and the elderly (why respect them?) which will solve the demographic problem. And the Nazis learned the sterilization program from us - it started in California in the 1930s and didn't end until the 1960s in places.
The Nazis were a breaking with existing though failed authority so it isn't purely conformity. And the Nazis were careful not to advertise their atrocities widely. And people might not even follow "authority" as such as it might just be a herding instinct.
Published: May 18, 2005 3:29 PM
I remember here in Oz back when the first (Ep. IV) came out, one of the local Commie intellectualoid journals hated it. In particular they hated the pluralistic nature of the Rebel Alliance, the decentralised and federal nature of the Old Republic and the prominent role of smugglers and other black market types had as key players in the rebellion. Also they didn't like
it that it was a rebellion not a revolution.
One of our mainstream newsmagazines (The Bulletin) picked up the commie's review and oblivious to the politics made some kind of wisecrack about "and we thought it was only a movie".
Those commos had been right after all, if they has hated Star War IV they would have had a stroke over "Firefly"!
Published: May 22, 2005 12:07 AM
By the way there is an interesting Star Wars post that discusses Tocqueville's take on democracy and empire at HNN's Liberty and Power blog here.
"The People's Romance is [Klein's] explanation for why so many Americans have come to love bigger government over the past century. Their specific objectives in Washington differed—liberals stressed charity and social programs for all, while conservatives promoted patriotism and spending on national security—but they both expanded the government in their quest for a national sense of shared purpose."
"The result, though, has not been one happy community because America is not a clan with shared values. It is a huge group of strangers with leaders who are hardly altruists—they have their own families and needs. Tocqueville recognized the inherent problem with the People's Romance when he described citizens' contradictory impulses to be free while also wanting a government that is "unitary, protective and all-powerful."
People try to resolve this contradiction, Tocqueville wrote, by telling themselves that democracy makes them masters of politicians, but they soon find that the Force is not with them, especially if they're in the minority. Republicans used to rail helplessly at Democrats for taxing them for destructive social programs and curtailing their economic liberties; now Democrats complain about the money squandered on the Iraq war and the threat to civil liberties from the Patriot Act.
For those Democrats, the signature line in this "Star Wars" is the one spoken after the chancellor, citing security threats, consolidates his power by declaring that the republic must become an empire. Senator Padmé listens to her colleagues cheer and says, "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."
She's disgusted with them, but their enthusiasm is understandable. The chancellor has tapped into their primal desire to unite in one great clan with a shared purpose. They're in the throes of the People's Romance."
The People's Romance and the Dark Emperor, two sides of the one debased coin.
Published: May 22, 2005 12:33 AM
John Tierney wasted one of his biweekly NY Times columns on a gratutious liberterian-slanted exegesis of Star Wars-- http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/21/opinion/21tierney.html.
Published: May 22, 2005 2:42 PM
RESPONSE TO TZ,
Dear TZ,
Thank you for your comments.
I heartily agree with you not only that Americans, generally, have become far too calloused as regards abortion but that Libertarians PARTICULARLY need to reexamine our position - or lack thereof - as regards this issue.
A subtle but VERY IMPORTANT distinction: where "manners" are largely habitual, or learned responses: Character (which I take to be characterized by consistent moral behavior) IS NECESSARILY CONSCIOUS AND DELIBERATE. Certainly one might behave in what appears to be a "moralistic" manner as a consequence of programmed responses to certain stimuli; but the less CONSCIOUS we are of our behavior, the less it may be said to be either moral - or even "immoral."
My only point is that social customs and social approval and disapproval of various behaviors is NOT a reliable guide for genuine morality. Nor does widespread approval of various behaviors (by 1930's Nazis or present day Americans or...) provide a reliable standard of moral behavior. One who KNOWS something is wrong, yet engages in such behavior expecting the reward of widespread approval is a very loathsome character indeed.
In Liberty!,
James Hines
Published: May 23, 2005 11:44 PM
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=337337
Lucas actually wrote ROTS to be a parallel to today's situation. I saw the comparison, but not as a ringing endorsement for Democrats, but for the evil and self-interest of government altogether.
--
Cornering the market on “Rightness�
The "good guys" - the Jedis - what is their plan for saving democracy? Spying on and killing the Chancellor, because they know what’s best. 1984, anyone?
It’s pretty scary what someone will do when they know they’re right – like when Obi says, "I'm on the higher [‘moral?’] ground" before slicing off Anakin's legs and leaving his "brother" to burn to death. Why did he do it? Because he was "right" and the ‘right powers-that-be’ told him to do it.
Those Jedis – they’re so petty the way they knee-jerk-oppose any idea the Chancellor comes up with first, and squabble over who can be a master and who can’t; meanwhile, the whole world’s falling apart. It reminds me of the Democrats’ filibustering and the Republicans’ “nuclear option.� And since they’re so sure that they’re "right," their plan is to assume power and fix everything quickly. Hoo boy, we hear that every four years. And yet so many things are broken, and yet costing more.
If only our world were as black and white as the Jedis. Standing up and fighting against something that’s clearly wrong is one thing. Now we’re fighting about issues like abortion rights, minimum income, and social security – issues that no one can even agree on. No wonder everything thinks they're right, and yet disagrees with everyone else (who also think they’re right). We don’t need “Jedis� or “Chancellors� assuming power to decide what’s right for us. We can decide for ourselves.
--
Government Expansion
What was it that made the Chancellor such a political threat? It was the fact that he wanted more power than he should have, and wasn’t going to give it up when he got it. But if you imagine that the Chancellor had all of that power, yet had to be re-elected every four years (and Libbies and Greens aren’t even allowed on the ballot in most “galaxies�), then you’ve got modern-day America. Maybe we have a new Chancellor, but our Chancellors sound about 10% different by the time the debates come around. The only difference is that some Chancellors vote against our economic liberties, others, our personal liberties.
If you look at Clinton and Roosevelt (who never met a government program they didn’t like), the problem of government expansion and the expansion of government powers seems bigger than with just one political party). Bush is just the present-day villain. I don’t really see either party saying that they should limit their scope, or giving power back to the people. If they did, they’d be Libertarians. Democrats are fighting what the Republicans are doing right now, but they would just be funding something else with our money if they were in charge. Besides, what government “gives back� is a portion of the money that they took from us in the first place.
When Padme said (paraphrased), "We're losing our liberty to the sound of thunderous applause," I loved it. It wasn't an anti-Republican, or anti-Democrat statement. Sure, the Patriot Act, the Real ID bill are very scary indeed. So are the proliferation of regulatory agencies, the creation of new protected classes and affirmative action. Who really represents ALL of a person’s liberties, and seeks not to “rule the world through the expansion of ‘rightness’?� Only Libertarians.
Published: May 24, 2005 2:46 AM
It seems no one else realizes that Obi-Won secretly turned to the darkside. He admits it in Episode 3, though most don't notice. He says "Only the Sith speak in absolutes." With emphasis added: "ONLY the Sith." He is speaking in absolutes, therefor he is a Sith, therefor he has turned to the Dark Side. QED.
Published: May 24, 2005 4:28 AM
I just saw the movie again and there are many more symbols i did not catch the first time.
But before i go over them, It's absurd to say lucas did not imply the classic liberal message on purpose. Armidala, who is antiwar and free trade to the core, specifically says "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause" Liberty, not democracy, order, or even compassion, she knew whats really important, liberty. Then there's also the fact that Armidala led the resistence against the trade federation and their merchantile blockade in episode one, specifically implying that free trade is essential to prosperity and peace. No mainstream conservative or liberal thinks on those lines. Its true lucas often speaks down on corporations in interviews, but he himself has left hollywood to make his own private corporation outside the realm of left wing political correctness to make his movies. It seems like he speaks out against corporatism, which he implies constantly in his movies, the public private partnerships with trade federation and then the violent separatist leaders, causing mass suffering. So its more likely than not that lucas sympathizes in free will and classic liberal principles.
Anyway, some scenses that really got to me were:
1. Anakin's love for padme and his inability to control his emotions led to choose killing the jedi and surrender to Sidious. "I cant live without her" "I'll do whatever you ask me to do" -Anakin really thought he what is best, but lost all moral precedent so the end justifies any means to him
We see this alot in real life when people fearing loss vote for more social security, more welfare, or anything else to "Save" people from even risk, but willing to tax, inflate, plunder, and even destroy lives (like martha stuart or the war on terror in iraq) for what they think is compassionate. This is what lucas shows what happens when you combine greed and government force.
2. The dark side has a strong hold for emotions that challenge moral precedent in any individual's heart. Ask any anarcho-capitalist "would you murder your family, for the complete guarantee that the governments all over the world will have no taxes, complete privitization, and no chance at ever undermining property rights or civil liberties ever again?" I hope you know the right thing to do, eventhough most may have a mild temptation and intrigue to choose the other" Remember palpatine said "all the jedi must be destroyed if we want peace and justice, otherwise we will enter endless civil war" - very hobbsian or Rousseaun
3. "his abilities have made him arrogant" " a flaw more common in the jedi, too sure of themselves (Jedi) they are, even the older more experienced ones" - Yoda in Attack of the Clones
Kind of reminds me of the reasons given the fall of the classical liberal ideals in the late 19th century, they become so in love and arrogant about the ideal of equality, they were too sure that capitalism would not allow econ. inequality, that it made them apologists when it began to happen.
In this movie the palpatine exploits this trait of the idea, and that is why he is able to hide for so long, the jedi where arrogant about ability in the force. He even called Yoda Arrogant when he attacked him, so he knew (as the progressives and marxists knew econ equaility was the classic liberal flaw in arguements) to exploit this flaw as much as he can, especially through dooku and anakin.
4. Finally, for those that still arent sure, the rebellion emerges from Bail Organa "leia's adoptive father" that organizes resistence through quiet grassroots movement on alderaan, and eventually find other among the peoples that were under the speratists and still held anti-imperial views, and defects from the empire (like the later han solo) to form the resistence we see in A New Hope. Not unlike Cato and the roman empire. So i guess star wars is a melding of the many elements of history to form an allegory of the classic liberal sturggle to preserve liberty, impartiality, and the genuine compassion that does not allow to aid one by destroying another innocent one. When we need to hear that message now more than ever, we have much to thank lucas for.
"war does not make one great" -Yoda, hey i just like that line ok.
Published: May 27, 2005 5:43 AM
Interesting points, Som, but why, in spite of that great line about liberty, does Amidala talk about democracy (and so do some of the Jedi, IIRC)? It sounded to me like Lucas is making the modern liberal mistake of equating democracy with liberty.
Published: May 27, 2005 1:41 PM