Fifty years after its premiere episode aired, Star Trek arguably remains the yardstick for intelligent science fiction on television today. Leading politicians (Barack Obama among them), CEOs (Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos), numerous scientists, astronauts and engineers tell us it has been inspirational in their respective careers.
These days, columnists like to muse about what Star Trek would be if Gene Roddenberry were still alive, which they interpret in a way to either praise or criticize recent developments. Would Roddenberry like the Abrams movies? A gay Sulu? Bryan Fuller's still unaired "inclusive" series 'Star Trek Discovery?' I don't like to engage in such speculation, so I rather look back at the political messages I see in Star Trek, and ahead at what I expect from it in the future.
It is true that the concept of a peaceful and egalitarian society runs like a thread through the tapestry of Star Trek and can already be found in The Original Series. The implementation of the idea in TOS, however, is not by far as consequential as the impression frequently created in nostalgic retrospectives (in which the alleged "first interracial kiss on TV" in TOS: "Plato's Stepchildren" is commonly cited, although it is neither true nor was such a big deal as is asserted today). We have to keep in mind in which era TOS was produced. Gene Roddenberry could not afford to disgruntle the studio bosses by including too many non-Caucasian or non-male characters in leading roles (they allegedly criticized "The Cage" for having both an alien and a woman in the cast). With these constraints, in the course of the series most women could not achieve much more than ending up as Kirk's flirt of the week. In the worst case they ended up as victims of the female gender cliché, such as Marla McGivers who falls (or rather, swoons) for Khan's macho charm in "Space Seed". Likewise, Roddenberry just couldn't offend Christians and abstained from controversial religious statements in the series, although it can be assumed he already was at least agnostic at the time. Thus, the world of TOS is cautiously secular and only a few episodes such as "The Apple" contain more than implicit criticism of how a "false god" impedes the free and natural development of a society - but without referring or only alluding to real-life religious communities. Furthermore Roddenberry himself was too closely connected with the military (through his wartime service) to criticize either the warfare of the US in the 20th century or the occasional belligerence of Starfleet in the 23rd century - although the engagement of the US in Vietnam would have given him ample motive.
The prototypical captain James T. Kirk stands for 1960's establishment America's world view. His willingness to demonstrate compromise whilst maintaining a credible threat of force is a trait shared with President John F. Kennedy (not to mention his romantic affairs ;-)). Speaking of Vietnam, Kirk's role as avatar for the US doctrine of arming Cold War surrogates becomes especially clear in "A Private Little War", in which he supplies a hitherto pacifist people with weapons just because the Klingons support their enemies.
In fact, each Star Trek series is very much a reflection of its time. TOS was created under the shadow of racial discrimination in the 1960s and commented on it in episodes such as "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" but most notably with the character of Lieutenant Uhura, who became a symbol for a society free from racial barriers. It is a matter of legend that Dr. Martin Luther King convinced Nichelle Nichols not to leave the show as he believed it was essential for a black presence on prime time television to serve as a role model for young people struggling to express both their racial identity and acceptance of it from the white majority. The racial issue still existed in the 1980s but had receded from the political and media focus of the day with the prominence of public figures like Colin Powell and Richard Parsons. Instead, Star Trek: The Next Generation tackled thorny issues like terrorism ("The High Ground") and the discrimination of sexual minorities ("The Outcast"), among many other societal topics. TNG exercised a blend of political correctness with critiques of capitalism and the military-industrial complex which had grown even more muscular during the Reagan-Bush years. For example, it would have been unthinkable in the 1960s to insult a US military uniform the way Captain Jean-luc Picard did in "Encounter at Farpoint": "I agree we still were [savage] when humans wore costumes like that, four hundred years ago." (In the particular example the uniform is that of Oliver North, the criticism of whose dealings is utterly justified. But few people may have noticed that subtle tip of the hat.)
Overall, it appears that Gene Roddenberry exerted his influence on the producers and writers to incorporate more of his utopian vision into the first two seasons of TNG than was possible at the time of TOS. Whilst this may have been easier anyway because it arguably fell on more receptive ground in the 80s and 90s then TOS in its time, TNG remains the more consequential depiction of a utopian human society than TOS. Captain Picard's statement from "Star Trek: First Contact" has become something like the franchise's credo for a better future: "The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." As he says this he almost breaks the fourth wall.
After Roddenberry's death in 1991, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise generally continued in the same vein as TNG. The Prime Directive and other noble goals of the benevolent Federation persisted but they were tested more often. Two Deep Space Nine episodes are representative of this trend - in a negative and a positive sense, respectively. In "For the Uniform" Sisko hunts down the traitor Eddington and poisons a whole planet just to apprehend the man, a war crime that apparently remains without consequences for him. In contrast, the decision to cover up the murder of a Romulan diplomat for the greater good, to make the Romulans join the alliance against the Dominion - "In the Pale Moonlight" - leaves him with the appropriate devastated conscience. DS9 repeatedly showed how the utopian society of the Federation failed to live up to its self-imposed high standards. One of the most revealing episodes in this regard is "Let He Who Is Without Sin..." with its "New Essentialists", a strange blend of eco-terrorists and law-and-order conservatives. In this and many other DS9 episodes there are no clear real-world analogies, indicating Star Trek's emancipation from the need to address real-world issues, if only in an encrypted fashion. Yet, I take the frequent challenges to the values of the fictional Federation in DS9 as a reminder that in our real world human rights must be preserved and are not a matter of circumstance, even in a time of worldwide terrorism. The double feature DS9: "Homefront/Paradise Lost" was made well before 9/11, and it is scary how it anticipated George W. Bush's and Dick Cheney's extra-constitutional overreactions to terrorist threats.
The recent past and specifically the three Abrams movies did not seem to contribute much new or different to the Star Trek philosophy. It's unlikely that Abrams and his crew were unwilling to learn and understand how Star Trek and its future vision works. Rather than that, the new movies, just like some of the Prime Universe movies before, were designed primarily as summer 'popcorn flicks' to bring action to the screen and not spend a whole lot of time musing about the state of humanity. Yet, we may still make out differences between the philosophies of the new and the old Star Trek. The society in the "Abramsverse" appears to be more callous and more militaristic, which is also reflected in the martial set and costume design. The tone of conversations is harsher, more black and white than the shades of grey as portrayed on television. And even the fundamental principle of Star Trek that every society, every human or alien being and also every artificial lifeform is encouraged to "exceed their original programming" (as long as they don't obey "false gods") is challenged by the concept of destiny that pervades this universe. Overall, it seems that the three latest Star Trek movies are less liberal and more conformist (not only in terms of the stories, the action and the style) but also of the philosophy to our muscular times.
Star Trek has shown us a world without war and poverty and it has progressively showcased equality, by putting black or female characters in leading positions. Yet, diversity such as a gay character among the cast was missing for a long time. Homosexuality only found its way into the stories in the form of allusions such as in TNG: "The Outcast" or ENT: "Stigma". As late as in 2016, right in time for the 50th anniversary, it was revealed that Sulu (at least the one from the Kelvin Timeline) is gay and that the new series 'Star Trek Discovery' by Bryan Fuller will be "inclusive" and will have a gay character in the ensemble cast. Compared to other TV series, it has really taken Star Trek a long time to finally close this open issue. On the other hand, being homosexual should be a non-issue in the utopian world of the Federation and would not have a comparable impact as the coming out of a gay person in a close-minded society. It could come across as contrived in Star Trek if not handled with special care. It is not a secret that LGBT activists put much hope in the new series. But they should keep in mind that Star Trek still isn't meant to be a political platform in the first place but is a science fiction show in which politics is woven into the narrative.
Something of note in TOS as well as TNG is that these two series not only tried to be multi-ethnic but also multinational. The legend goes that the Pravda complained that no Soviet citizen was among the crew of the original Enterprise, and that Gene Roddenberry created the Russian character of Chekov in response. The producers of DS9, Voyager and Enterprise, however, increasingly forgot about Gene Roddenberry's idea of a united humanity. This sad development culminates in Star Trek Enterprise where the United Earth sends Enterprise NX-01 with an apparently all-American crew (plus one Brit and one Vulcan) into deep space, to make contact with aliens. Considering that Star Trek is a worldwide phenomenon, it shouldn't have such a strong national bias, which is not only present in the crew composition but just as strong in references to historical events, holidays, folklore, literature or food. We can only hope that for 'Discovery' the producers and writers will broaden their horizon and create diverse characters and stories without gender, sexual orientation, racial, national or cultural bias.
What should the political message of Star Trek be in the future? On one hand, we have the depiction of the fictional world of the Federation. This is relevant as a political statement because the Federation means nothing less than a possible (and in the case of Star Trek, overall very desirable) future of humanity. On the other hand, there are topical real-world issues that are transferred into the science fiction setting that can serve to comment on the present state of humanity.
Regarding the fictional world of the Federation (in the 23rd century as the prequel series 'Discovery' is concerned), I think that Star Trek should remain true to its own legacy - not to someone's new interpretation of Gene Roddenberry's vision, not to activists who project their topics into the series, but rather to Trek's own recorded history. What matters to Star Trek's philosophy in the first place can be found in over 700 episodes and 10(+3?) movies. Not everything is set in stone. Including truly representative characters and perhaps a bit more profanity should be a minor issue, as long as the new series recaptures the questing, uplifting spirit of TOS, and TNG, such as the curiosity and open-mindedness about the new and the alien.
The inclusion of real-life topics in stories may pose a problem in 'Star Trek Discovery' because its format won't be episodic. This is a pity because I usually liked Star Trek's stories with relevance to our time, although some innuendos did not work out. For 'Star Trek Discovery' I expect an intelligent story in the first place, a story that makes sense and a story that, if it should have a (political) message, gets it across without finger-wagging or hectoring. And although it is probably the most unsettling problem of our time, I hope the 'Discovery' won't be chasing terrorists, or have its characters swimming in angst for however many episodes because we've already had that and on television these tropes are quite exhausted.
The development real world continues to be such a developmental font for Star Trek writers and should keep them busy for a long time to come.
So here's to the next half a century of the Final Frontier.
Make it so!