Apparently, if the State does it in the name of Order and Security, it's okay.
(My comments are in bold, but my summation is not. Quotes from the article are "in quotation marks").
Palpatine is an esoteric Straussian. And a benign dictator, "like Pinochet."
"It's a dictatorship people can do business with. They collect taxes and patrol the skies. They try to stop organized crime (in the form of the smuggling rings run by the Hutts). The Empire has virtually no effect on the daily life of the average, law-abiding citizen."
During the Cold War, it sure seems like there were plenty on the Right who never met a dictator that they couldn't do business with. Plenty on the Left, too, who freely gave away American wealth to support them, in the glorious cause of "the people," or, "the children."
The Empire is a meritocracy, unlike the elitist, divine-right Jedi. Witness Captain Piett's quick promotion from captain to admiral after Ozzel's early demise.
The Empire has manners and decorum. Note that Vader didn't even refer to the infamous Boba Fett by his name, just, "bounty hunter." And the author suspects that when Boba Fett calls Han Solo "Captain Solo," it's because he was a graduate of the Academy, the Imperial equivalent of West Point. Disregarding the fact that Han Solo owned and captained his own spacecraft.
I just disagree with this point. The only person Vader ever would have to use a title for would be old Palpy, not some bounty hunter, even Fett. And why would Fett regard Solo, a deserter, as still being worth his comission? I think that the author is a typical "patriot" who places more weight on people who serve the State, especially when they fight It's wars.
Darth Vader, to Luke Skywalker: "There is no escape. Don't make me destroy you... Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy." Obviously, the real impulse for the Dark Side and the Empire isn't "slaves or destruction or 'evil.' It's order."
And that is supposed to justify tyranny and the subjugation of liberty?
Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen weren't given due process of law, but they deserved what was coming to them because they aided the rebellion by hiding Luke and harboring two fugitive droids. Clearly they were traitors to the State.
Grand Moff Tarkin's destruction of Alderaan would've been evil, if the planet was genuinely peaceful and had no weapons. But we only have Leia's word on that (in the movies, disregarding the Expanded Universe), and she was clearly unafraid to lie to Tarkin and Vader. Thus, the author argues that such a strong spirit, like Leia Organa's of Alderaan, is a good sign that the planet really was rebellious. Which means it was fair game for the Star Wars version of WMDs: planeticide by Death Star.
Obviously, I think that most people would agree with me that a historical peaceful planet would NEVER be a legitimate target. Unless you subscribe to the Lincoln/Sherman plan of murdering civilians and destroying their homes, clearly no honorable person would obliterate a peaceful community, regardless of whether they agreed with the imperial rulers or not.
Of course, the Rebel Alliance doesn't seem to have a governing strategy or plans for a post-Empire galaxy. Their victory doesn't liberate the galaxy, rather it plunges it (supposedly) "into Somalia writ large: dominated by local warlords who are answerable to no one."
"Which makes the rebels--Lucas's heroes--an unimpressive crew of anarchic royals who wreck the galaxy so that Princess Leia can have her tiara back."
"I'll take the Empire."
Jonathan V. Last is online editor of The Weekly Standard.
Judging from the apparent bloodlust ofso many Americans, most of them on the Foreign Wars wing of the party, is it unsurprising that a neocon writing in a neocon publication would say that the Rebellion was wrong, that no matter how the ideal of liberty was crushed, and practical freedom diminished (they're not the same thing, folks), that because the Empire represented Order and Security, that it was Right, and Good, and Not To Be Overthrown?
Frankly, I found the article to be quite unsurprising. Especially from someone of the party of "patriotism," the party that supports "freedom and democracy."
Neither wing of the Statist Party supports and encourages liberty, although liberals at least seem to understand the movie.
Boeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1466 times:
It's a fucking movie for crying out loud. Jeez, how many freakin' Star Wars threads to we need? Thank God this is the last Star Wars movie. This craze will die down and be swept back into the basements of the parents of 35 year olds everywhere soon where it belongs. But I do admit, it's been a slow month debate wise, so desecting the film has provided some entertainment.