Attack of the Hippie Clones

So, it's not yet 10:00am, and I've already seen three articles which make a Big Deal out of some alleged political commentary in "Revenge of the Sith." From the NYT, by way of explanation of this bourgeoning phenom:

"This is how liberty dies - to thunderous applause," Padmé observes as senators, their fears and dreams of glory deftly manipulated by Palpatine, vote to give him sweeping new powers. "Revenge of the Sith" is about how a republic dismantles its own democratic principles, about how politics becomes militarized, about how a Manichaean ideology undermines the rational exercise of power. Mr. Lucas is clearly jabbing his light saber in the direction of some real-world political leaders. At one point, Darth Vader, already deep in the thrall of the dark side and echoing the words of George W. Bush, hisses at Obi-Wan, "If you're not with me, you're my enemy." Obi-Wan's response is likely to surface as a bumper sticker during the next election campaign: "Only a Sith thinks in absolutes." You may applaud this editorializing, or you may find it overwrought, but give Mr. Lucas his due. For decades he has been blamed (unjustly) for helping to lead American movies away from their early-70's engagement with political matters, and he deserves credit for trying to bring them back.

Got it? Well, I don't get it. I think this is a very confused argument, and betrays that either the author is trying to graft on some modern political context that simply does not exist, or has a deep misunderstanding of the Star Wars plot arc.

It's safe to assume that the alleged commenting here is about Iraq, and the way that G-Dub has handled the whole sitch. After all, the liberal hyperbole about the death of democracy in G-Dub's Amerikkka has always centered around his handling of Iraq, and the "rush to war" which they say nobody supported. Only the most naive of pacifists argued against reciprocity in the other Bush-supervised conflict, Afghanistan. So, the most obvious point to make in response is that these movies were written back when Nixon was in office, and way before Iraq was an issue, obvs.

So let's take this guy's argument on it's face. I think the author of the article is confused as to which character(s) allegedly represent G-Dub and American imperialism. I mean, if Annakin is spitting G-Dub's lines at the height of his (Annakin's) evil-ness, are we to assume that he represents Bush, or at least America's black-and-white imperial hubris? If so, what are we to make of the fact that it was actually Palpatine who engineered the whole conflict? Is Palpatine supposed to be Bush, then, in this argument? It would make more sense, right? After all, he's the head of the "Empire," and conjured up an enemy and a war only to advance his political aims. Isn't that the argument of the anti-war folks? So then why not have Palpatine spit the "with us or against us" shit? I just don't think that the facts in the movie or in real life can support the alleged parallels. Goddamnit! It was Sifo-Dyas who raised the clone army, the means of Imperial repression, not Annakin or even Palpatine!

But there's some other shit going on here that bothers me. If "RotS" is about "how politics becomes militarized," another alleged political jab, well, hasn't the military always been used for political ends? Isn't war, as it was so famously put, a continuation of politics by other means?

Further, what exactly is a "rational use of power"? The Republic is dying. IMO, the legitimate greivances of the Trade Federation had been co-opted by the Sith to further their quest for power. The Senate has proven to be a completely useless bureaucratic clusterfuck (much like the present-day UN, but note that these French hippies don't mention that, presumably cos there's no anti-Bush angle there), and the clone army was drafted by Sifo-Dyas to counter the rising threat from the Sith. If there is a more rational use of power than to save a dying republic, I'd like to hear it.

Ok, now, the quote. Bush expressed similar sentiments, to much elite tut-tutting, after 9/11, yes. There can be no doubt that 9/11 was a hideous terrorist attack on our nation. An attack merits a response, one that demonstrated that the pansy-ness of Clinton-era responses to terrorism against America has passed. By attempting to con-fuse Bush's "with us or against us" remarks with the Iraq conflict, isn't Lucas drawing explicit parallels between the two, and isn't that what Bush is supposedly in trouble for? I mean, if Iraq is where America crossed the line between self-defense and imperialism, why is Lucas confusing the two conflicts, one of which had near-universal support, the other hotly debated? Using language directed at the fight against terrorists to make a point about the confict in Iraq is dishonest.* Take that to heart when you start seeing those bumper stickers.


*Let me anticipate some feedback here by those who will snipe that I, on many occasions, pointed out that Saddam had concrete links to Al Qaeda. If Iraq is supposed to be considered seperately from the War on Terrorism, they will assuredly argue, isn't it inconsistent to believe that Saddam had Al Qaeda links? Well, I don't think so. Saddam did have links to Al Qaeda, but Iraq was not part of the War on Terrorism in the same way that deposing the Taliban was, or the ongoing operations in Indonesia and Pakistan. Iraq was always about letting democracy have a foothold in the Middle East. The ultimate aim of which, of course, it to defeat terrorism by never giving it a chance to grow. But it was never a "smoke 'em out" kind of operation.