Gene Roddenberry, creator of Star Trek, built better than he knew. The original Star Trek and all its permutations have influenced not just popular culture, but our whole society, in innumerable ways. A few examples: the original Apple computers were designed to look like Star Trek's desktop monitors; your flip-top cell phone owes its look AND its existence to the Star Trek communicator; your iPhone or Blackberry is our generation's version of Star Trek's tricorder.
But Star Trek did more than influence the development of technology. It gave us hope for the future in a turbulent time. It showed humans of all races working together peacefully and harmoniously when the real world in 1968 seemed to be coming apart at the seams due to anti-war protests, racially-discriminatory-prompted violence, assassinations, and expanded easy availability and use of mind-bending drugs . . . to name just a few of the myriad crises overwhelming us in those deadly days.
For many of us who lived through 1968, the last eight years have been like a "déja vu all over again" experience. But Tuesday night was our breath of fresh hope. So I got to thinking. Did the late, great Gene Roddenberry somehow affect the outcome of this election?
Think about it. Is Barack Obama a real-life Mr. Spock? Spock, as you all well know, is the 1/2 Vulcan, 1/2 human Science Officer of the USS Enterprise. He is known for his impeccable logic, his coolness under fire, and his overall intelligence and knowledge. Barack Obama, the offspring of a black Kenyan father and a white Kansas mother, is one cool customer, as his steadiness in the face of the slimy campaign run against him demonstrated. He, a Harvard Law graduate, is obviously very smart, tremendously well-organized, and knowledgeable about politics and history, two of the broadest academic disciplines. If you know politics and history, you know (or know how to find out) about anything and everything.
Furthermore, Spock, the supposedly non-emotional alien being, had a deep understanding of human psychology and a great sense of humor. [The humor of Star Trek has always been under appreciated, but to my mind it's one of the show's greatest strengths and legacies. But that's a topic for another day.--Ed.] Obama's ability to connect with people demonstrates his grasp of human psychology. He has also regularly demonstrated his sense of humor, especially during some of the most grueling moments of the recently-concluded campaign.
But they are not clones. Spock was most content to be an advisor--to give his captain the information he needed but to let the captain make the final decision. Obama is a natural-born leader who is also smart enough to know when to follow the public will. He modified his stand against offshore oil drilling, for example, when the public mood indicated clearly that his position, no matter how correct (for the environment, for the country, and for the future), wasn't going to fly. Thus my oft-stated admiration for his grasp of politics being "the art of the possible."
My ultimate point, however, is that the existence of and admiration for the character Spock in the public consciousness for the past 40 years may well have played a roll in the public's acceptance of and votes for Obama in the just-concluded election. One of the greatest of human fears is fear of the unknown. That fear often expresses itself as a fear of change, even when the rational mind knows change is necessary. I am convinced that, consciously or not, Americans' familiarity with Spock made them less afraid of voting for the first African-American major party nominee for US President, thus contributing at least in a small way to Obama's large margin of victory. Remember: he didn't just win in a landslide in the Electoral College (more than a 2-votes-to-1-for-McCain margin); he won the overall popular vote by something on the order of five million votes (as I write this).
So wherever you are, Gene Roddenberry, thank you. You've helped us find our own way to improving our chances to live well and prosper well into this dangerous 21st century.
No comments:
Post a Comment