Nine years ago I gave an impromptu talk to about twenty-five West Point cadets. The previous day their instructors and I had taken them on a staff ride of the Antietam battlefield; that evening most of them attended a showing of the just released film, Starship Troopers. I put the two experiences together to create Starship Troopers, Civic Virtue, and the American Civil War, which I subsequently gave as a lecture in a military history class and posted online as a web presentation.
In the presentation, I maintained, “Critics thoughtlessly consider Starship Troopers to be a novel about fascism. It is not. It is about classical republicanism as expounded by the Renaissance political thinker Niccolo Machiavelli.” That’s true of the novel, I think. But it isn’t true of the film, as I discovered while listening to the director’s commentary on the DVD.
At the outset of the commentary, director Peter Verhoeven and screenwriter Ed Neumeier quote part of the TIME magazine review of Starship Troopers by critic Richard Schickel. Here’s the relevant passage from the review:
Starship Troopers contains an unexplored premise. There are two classes in this futureworld: civilians, who have sacrificed voting privileges for material ease, and warriors, who earn the right to rule by their willingness to die for the state. In short, we’re looking at a happily fascist world. Maybe that’s the movie’s final, deadpan joke. Maybe it’s saying that war inevitably makes fascists of us all. Or — best guess — maybe the filmmakers are so lost in their slambang visual effects that they don’t give a hoot about the movie’s scariest implications.
Verhoeven and Neumeier chuckle derisively at that, because for them, fascism is the exact theme of the film. Regarding the genesis of Starship Troopers, Neumeier remarks that he thought that a lot of action films were implicitly fascist anyway, so why not do an action film that hit the concept head on? And lest anyone suppose that Verhoeven and Neumeier liked the idea of fascism, Verhoeven notes that anytime the viewer sees something in the film that looks fascist and finds it disquieting, the viewer should know that the film makers share that sense of disquiet — they think it’s “Bad! BAD!” as Verheoven says at numerous points throughout the rest of the commentary.
Watching the film again, and having recently attended a forum on church and state in Ohio’s electoral politics, I was reminded of an article by Chris Hedges that appeared early last year in the New York Times (January 6, 2005). In it, Hedges reported:
Fritz Stern, a refugee from Hitler’s Germany and a leading scholar of European history, startled serveral of his listeners when he warned in a speech about the danger posed in this country by the rise of the Christian right. In his address in November, just after he received a prize presented by the German foreign minister, he told his audience that Hitler saw himself as “an instrument of providence” and fused his “racial dogma with a Germanic Christianity.”
“Some people recognized the moral perils of mixing religion and politics,” he said of prewar Germany, “but many others were seduced by it. It was the pseudo-religious transformation of politics that largely ensured his success, notably in Protestant areas.”
. . . [Stern] stops short of calling the Christian right fascist but his decision to draw parallels, especially in the uses of propaganda, was controversial.
“When I saw the speech my eyes lit up,” said John R. MacArthur, whose book “Second Front” examines wartime propaganda. “The comparsion between the propagandistic manipulation and uses of Christianity, then and now, is hidden in plain sight. No one will talk about it. No one wants to look at it.”
* * *
[Stern] warns of the danger in an open society of “mass manipulation of public opinion, often mixed with mendacity and forms of intimidation.” He is a passionate defender of liberalism as “manifested in the spirit of the Enlightenment and the early years of the American republic.”
“The radical right and the radical left see liberalism’s appeal to reason and tolerance as the denial of their uniform ideology,” he said. “Every democracy needs a liberal fundament, a Bill of Rights enshrined in law and spirit, for this alone gives democracy the chance for self-correction and reform. Without it, the survival of democracy is at risk. Every genuine conservative knows this.”
In reflecting on Stern’s remarks, I feel pulled in a couple of directions. On the one hand, the linkage between Christianity and patriotism is nothing new in the United States. Americans have long conflated the two as part of the country’s “civil religion.” In the nineteenth century the linkage was quite explicitly between (evangelical Protestant) Christianity and patriotism. In the twentieth, this expanded to include what is generally called “Judeo Christian values.” But even in the twenty-first, there is a widespread sense that other faith traditions are alien to what is truly American, and the notion that an atheist might be patriotic still seems close to a contradiction in terms.
My point is that “mixing religion and politics,” in some ways, is an old story in American life. If it didn’t lead to fascism in the darkest days of the Cold War, which most Americans understood as a contest between a Judeo Christian-based democracy and “godless Communism,” then it seems unlikely that it would do so today.
On the other hand, I have never never in my lifetime seen a large segment of American Christians so actively engaged in partisan politics, nor a major political party so dependent on that segment as an indispensable part of its base, nor a national political establishment so riven by interparty hostility as I do today. And “today” happens to come five years into a “Global War on Terror” that only two days ago saw the President sign into a law the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that, among other things, nullifies the legal principle of habeas corpus for anyone the executive defines as an “unlawful enemy combatant,” including, apparently, American citizens.
In a television interview Tuesday evening, constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley commented:
People have no idea how significant this is. Really a time of shame this is for the American system. The strange thing is that we have become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. The Congress just gave the President despotic powers and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to Dancing With the Stars. It’s otherworldly. . . . People clearly don’t realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I’m not too sure we’re gonna change back anytime soon.
A few points about Turley’s remarks. First, I think he’s dead right about the apathy or sheer ignorance of most of the American public — a confirmation, to my mind, of Machiavelli and Heinlein’s emphasis on the importance of civic virtue to a healthy republic and the dangers that arise when civic virtue is lacking. Agree or disagree with the necessity of the Military Commissions Act, it remains incontestable that this legislation has major implications for basic American civil rights to which most of us are oblivious. That’s a serious query against a citizenship bestowed without meaningful cost on the part of its recipients.
Second, although most Democrats voted against the bill (see here and here), I have so far not seen them give it anywhere near the public attention it deserves. They seem to have found their courage when it comes to the Iraq War — now that over 60 percent of Americans are unhappy with how that conflict is going — but remain cowed when it comes to the “Global War on Terror.” Which didn’t stop House Speaker Dennis Hastert from accusing them of placing “their liberal agenda ahead of the security of America,” adding that Democrats “would gingerly pamper the terrorists who plan to destroy innocent Americans’ lives [and create] new rights for terrorists.”
Third, a bill like this could never have passed in peacetime. It passed now because most Americans a) accept the idea that we are indeed engaged in a war on terrorism; and b) view the terrorists as little different from the Bugs depicted in Starship Troopers — that is to say, it’s next to impossible to view them as human beings to whom “inalienable rights” apply, regardless of personal merit. We have already, in effect, decided as a society that the struggle against an enemy trumps the considerations enshrined in the Bill of Rights. We’ve abandoned important checks and balances that are vital if one assumes, as did the Founders, that concentrated power is always a danger. Those are two significant steps in the direction of fascism. The only steps that really remain are the celebration of struggle as an intrinsic good and the open bestowal upon the president of the unimpeded powers we have already given him tacitly.
In that sense, the future of Starship Troopers — the film, not the novel — may be closer than we think.
14 Comments
I think Schickel was wrong to link the movie to the book. Verhoeven & Neumeier used the novel only as a point of departure; there was virtually no thematic similarity that I could see. The book was about citizenship in times of peril; the movie was a compelling satire about fascism. Both stand (tall, in my opinion) on their own merits.
Great post, agree with your conclusions. I would only add two points – first, the movie was a ridiculous adventure movie that should never be linked to the book (agree with Ralph there). It was what it was – but the Gestapo raincoat worn by Neil “Doogie Howser” Harris at the end and the govt ads “Do you want to know more?” hammered the fascist theme home.
Other point is that our military is turning into a religious organization not unlike the Templar knights. I keep running into older retired military officers who state their unease with the growing amount of open Christina prosthelizing within the ranks. It’s not getting better, and it’s worrisome.
The linkage between the movie and the book are pretty thin, as the working title was Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine, most of the writers never read the book, and Verhoeven reportedly read only part of Starship Troopers. Basically, the took the name characters and part of the theme and pasted them in for marketing purposes. That doesn’t detract from the basic fascist message of the movie, though.
It seems to me, though, that our historical record shows that Americans frequently turn their backs on the ideals enshrined in our founding documents in time of real and perceived crisis – internment camps during World War II, and the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War are just two examples. While we withdrew from the precipice after those wars were over, the current conflict appears to have no end. With no clear-cut political or military goals, how do we determine when the crisis has passed and return to normalcy? That’s the problem with concepts like the “War on Terror” or the “War on Drugs”: they have no definable end-point, which means that “temporary” measures can easily turn into permanent losses.
I think the question to answer is how to combat the problem, and why more “average” Americans aren’t concerned by these changes? Do they not really understand due to the nature of the modern media, do people not understand because of lack of education in the areas of civics and history, or have they been deceived into thinking that the changes in checks and balances are temporary due to our history of restoring political freedoms at the end of previous conflicts? Is part of the problem that the United States does not have a vocal and determined minority party that uses its resources to work against changes and educate the public?
Proselytizing by senior cadets and officers at the Air Force Academy has received a good deal of media coverage here in Colorado, but I’m not sure many people understand the potential issues that might arise from this. How are junior cadets, enlisted personnel, or officers supposed to deal with that type of pressure from their chain of command, and what does that do to unit cohesion? How does it interact with the phenomenon where some members of the military view themselves as morally superior to the civilians they are supposed to protect simply because they have chosen to serve in the military?
I’ve just started reading your blog. I’ve gone back and read a number of things contained here and have enjoyed them. They seem well grounded and rationally presented. What in the world happened with this one?
Professor Grimsley: “only two days ago saw the President sign into a law the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that, among other things, nullifies the legal principle of habeas corpus for anyone the executive defines as an “unlawful enemy combatant,” including, apparently, American citizens.”
I’m sorry but you are wrong. Check the act yourself, you have a link to it. The act is specifically directed at ALIEN unlawful enemy combatants. As the site mentioned. “Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as “unlawful combatants” would still have habeas rights and could challenge their detention.
Professor Grimsley: “Jonathan Turley – Congress just gave the President despotic powers.”
Anybody can say anything. That is not important. What is important is if what they say can be backed up with proof. In this case define ‘despotic powers’ and how they relate to the Military Commissions Act. If this is not done then it remains bombastic rhetoric.
Professor Grimsley: ” “Third, a bill like this could never have passed in peacetime.”
May I remind you that it wouldn’t have been needed in peacetime.
Professor: “it’s next to impossible to view them as human beings to whom “inalienable rights” apply, regardless of personal merit.”
I’m confused, when terrorists, without provocation, deliberately seek to destroy old men, women, pregnant women, babies, children, what personal merit are you talking about?
But let’s talk about inalienable rights. My little dictionary defines it as “unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.” Jefferson identified three of them: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. Now while they can’t be given away by the possessor, they can be forfeited by the actions of the possessor. When people fail to recognize these inalienable rights in others the natural consequence is the forfeiture of their own. This is not a one way street.
Professor Grimsley: “We have already, in effect, decided as a society that the struggle against an enemy trumps the considerations enshrined in the Bill of Rights.”
Just what considerations are those? I must have missed the amendment discussing the rights of alien enemy combatants.
Professor Grimsley: “Those are two significant steps in the direction of fascism. The only steps that really remain are the celebration of struggle as an intrinsic good and the open bestowal upon the president of the unimpeded powers we have already given him tacitly.”
Come on Professor, you know better than most people. Lincoln actually did do away with the right of habeas corpus during war and we, as a democratic county, survived just fine. The Supreme Court knocked down Lincoln’s act and we went merrily on our way. Here the right of habeas corpus for citizens isn’t even challenged.
By all means criticize your government. That, and not baseball, is America’s favorite pastime. But it seems to me that a responsible critic provides not only the criticisms but also the information showing the criticism to be valid. In nearly all your other posts, that I’ve read, you do a good job of backing up your assertions. What happened with this one?
Rich
Mark,
Have you read Heinlein’s own comments about “Starship Troopers” in his anthology “Expanded Universe?” It is well worth reading, along with everything else in it.
Rich, well said.
I’ve always thought that Verhoeven’s take on ST was one of the greatest sick jokes ever played on movie audiences. Basically, the whole movie is a fascist propaganda film. But the intent of the filmmakers is not to indoctrinate, but first to provoke anger at the fascist imagery/philosophy, then to turn the audience into cheering for the Nazis.
I first saw ST in a theater in Santa Barbara (a VERY liberal city), I observed this very reaction in the audience at large as well as myself. There were actually audible cheers when the “brain bug” was captured. That lasted right up until Doogie Howser arrived in his Gestapo gear… Then, stunned silence.
Lest one think that Verhoeven is a closet fascist, you should rent “Soldier of Orange”. One of the better depictions of civilian resistance against the Nazis during WWII.
“May I remind you that it wouldn’t have been needed in peacetime.”
But is this not legally “peacetime”? Unless I missed something Congress never performed its exclusive responsibility to declare war. And for some reason I have been unalbe to find any constitutional basis for an “authorization of force” being equivalent to a declaration of war. That is, unless some “activist judge” somewhere has subverted the founders’ clear “original intent”.
“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. . . . The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.” – James Madison
“Unless I missed something Congress never performed its exclusive responsibility to declare war.”
Sure they did, twice – see Public Law 107-40 and Public Law 107-243, available various places including:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
While Article 1 Section 8 says:
The Congress shall have power To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; –And; To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
…it adds neither “…but only if the Congress includes the word ‘abracadabra’” nor “…but only if the Congress includes the words ‘Declaration of War’”.
Since there are no magic words prescribed in the Constitution, since empirical observation would pretty clearly lead the classical ‘reasonable person’ to the conclusion that we are in fact currently engaged in a War, and since as shown above Congress authorized the President to go fight it and continues to fund it, the argument that we’re not really at war looks pretty weak.
If what the Congress intended was not this War, one would think with all the remedies available to them they would by now have corrected the Executive Branch’s unfortunate misunderstanding of what they REALLY meant when they made these two pieces of law.
All those documents say is that the President is authorized to use force; in effect leaving up to him whether or not to do so. That is a fundamental delegation of the Congress’s constitutional responsibility to determine whether or not military force will be used in a fashion that meets the legal definition of war and open to the executive all kinds of enlarged powers. The fact that it can be argued whether or not Congress formally declared war is a fair indication that there might be something amiss. And if the Congress meant to declare war why not use the “abracadabra” words and ensure all their intentions were clear and bases were covered to avoid this debate altogether? After all, the World War II declaration of war against Germany explicitly uses the phrase “declaring that a state of war exists”, as does the one for Japan, as does the one for World War I. No less a “reasonable person” than Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has argued–in testimony before Congress no less–that there is a real distinction “in law and practice” between declaring war and authorizing force. And if you are looking for a Congress that will responsibly remedy mistakes in whether or not a war was declared–or any other area of its responsibility–I hardly think this is the one to expect it from.
Ethan,
Take a look at the all the times the US has used military force outside US borders in our history. Now compare that to the far smaller number of actual congressionally declared states of open war. A declared war is and has been more the exception than the rule.
Re Rich’s very lengthy comment on my post: I don’t have the time or inclination to respond point by point. But with regard to whether the act applies to US citizens, at least as of last week there was real ambiguity on this issue. The law itself refers to “unlawful enemy combatants.” At least three US citizens have received this designation in the past, and constitutional scholars aren’t yet sure whether the MCA/2006 includes or excludes US citizens. Which is why I used the phrase “apparently” when I referred to US citizens.
You’re right that inalienable rights can be taken away by the actions of individuals. But that occurs after they have been tried and found guilty. The right to due process is an inalienable right.
I’m not reassured by the fact that the republic survived when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. To begin with, the situation in 1861 was far more dire than it is today, and even more to the point, Lincoln is generally considered one of our very best presidents, not just in terms of effectiveness but also in terms of moral rectitude. The idea that our survival of this arrogation of executive power in the past guarantees our survival in the present or future strikes me as a pretty slender reed on which to base one’s hopes. If someone wants to argue that enough checks and balances remain on the power of the executive to preclude its wrongful use, that’s one thing. But to assume, a priori, that it just won’t happen, is unconvincing to say the least.
That is true. But in how many of those events did the president claim extraordinary powers on the grounds that he was a “war president”? (An “authorized to use force” president just does not seem to carry the same cache.) Reagan did not proclaim himself a “war president” when he sent troops to Grenada or Lebanon; nor did Clinton when he used force in the Balkans; nor Wilson when he sent troops to occupy Vera Cruz. I think that is the distinction. With a major, declared war or rebellion, it expands the powers of the executive branch dramatically, whereas the sort or operations that can be labled peace-keeping or nation-building missions that do not rise to the level where a declaration of war is necessary does not appreciably alter the constitutional balance of power. Are there any legal scholars out there who are better informed on this than me? Seems this is one of those things that the Founding Fathers decided to exercise their sometimes maddening inclination to leave things ambiguous on.
Still, from a non-legal standpoint, I see it as a question of Congress fulfilling its responsibilities. If we could declare war on Mexico over the matter of the Texas border in the 1840s, certainly we could do the same if we face a threat to our existence and freedoms that is so serious our military must accept thousands of casualties and hundreds of billions of dollars must be committed to fighting it. The “authorization of force” approach just seems to be such a cop-out, allowing Congress to say, if things go bad, that “well, we didn’t declare war, we just authorized force, so it was the president’s decision.” If the nation faces a threat that is so serious that it requires and justifies war, then be honest about it and declare war. I can’t imagine any reasonable person opposing a declaration of war against Afghanistan after 11 September. But one against Iraq? I just recall talk of how in 2002 Democrats went along with an “authorization of force” for Iraq because they viewed it as an campaign issue they wanted to dispose of so the debate could move on to other issues. Would they have taken the same tack if faced with a declaration of war, something that has only been done six times in American history?
its the most beautifull movie
america is the best country in the world! the military is good! starship troopers was an amazing movie! and im going to go ahead and use the word jesus too. hahaha hippies…