I have seen the new Star Trek movie. There are only minor spoilers ahead for it, and probably nothing that would surprise anyone who’s seen the trailer or the original series, but let that sentence stand as warning.
Courtesy Paramount/Star Trek promo photo
So I’ve seen the new Star Trek movie, and I liked it quite a bit. I’ll let others discuss its merits as a movie, or a reboot, or an adventure, or what have you; I’lllet MoDowd go crazy with the Spockian parallels (no link; I don’t encourage the read). I want to use it briefly to discuss the American view of what it takes to be a leader.
There are two ways to summarize this Star Trek movie in terms of how things work out for James T. Kirk (pictured above — the one without the pointy ears).
- James T. Kirk has great instincts that lead him to be in the right place at the right time, and it is these superior instincts that lead others to trust and assist him, culminating in his ascension to captain of the U.S.S. Enterprise. Call this the “Skilled Leader” summary.
- James T. Kirk is a wild, irresponsible, extremely lucky bastard who careens from adventure to adventure, taking huge risks. By luck (or perhaps because of the odds), some of these risks payoff, which convinces others that he must have hidden and superior leadership skills. The talents of those who follow him act as a buffer against bad things happening even when he does take big risks, so his overall leadership success seems high. Call this the “Lucky Son-Of-a-Gun” summary.
A persuasive argument could be made for either side in this movie (and probably in the series as a whole). What’s interesting is not that we can’t tell which it is — it’s that the second option is a viable way to swiftly climb the ranks. And not just in Starfleet, but in the world we live in: you could switch out “James T. Kirk” with any number of current world leaders and still make a great argument for either of these paths to power being primary.
The ways that American media consider and reconstruct leadership, both in news stories and in the creative arts, seems telling of the way Americans look at and for leaders. Would we ever elect James T. Kirk president? I think we would — in fact, I think we have, not so long ago. We’ve certainly got a whole raft of Kirk-like characters in charge of our banks and automotive companies at the moment. And though we’re paying a high price for that, I think a large swath of Americans would still love to have a more Kirkian president at the helm. I understand the romance of it as well as the next amateur Trekkie — oh the adventures! — but I also understand the risk. James T. Kirk rarely loses, but he lives not only in the future, but in the fictional future. Here on real Earth, I’m not sure the second style of leadership should ever be rewarded with a real commission.
SATURN SMITH 