Daily Chronicle / Daily-Chronicle.com • Thursday, June 2, 2016
| OPINION
12
‘Star Wars’ prequels predicted current political era CASS SUNSTEIN
The Washington Post Cool people dislike the “Star Wars” “prequels” – Episodes 1, 2 and 3. The dialogue is wooden, the actors are stiff, and there’s far less energy and wit than in the beloved original trilogy. But if you’re looking for a quick guide to current political struggles – both in the United States and all over the world – you should give the prequels another chance. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, paralyzing political divisions threatened democratic governments. Disputes over free trade, and the free movement of people and goods, were a big reason. Stymied by polarization and endless debates, the Senate proved unable to resolve those disputes. As a result, nationalist sentiments intensified, leading to movements for separation from centralized institutions. People craved a strong leader who would introduce order – and, simultaneously, combat growing terrorist threats. A prominent voice, Anakin Skywalker, insisted, “We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem, agree what’s in the interest of all the people, and then do it.” And if they didn’t, “they should be made to.” Eventually, something far worse happened. The legislature voted to give “emergency powers” – essentially, unlimited authority – to the chief executive. An astute observer, Padme Amidala, noted, “So this is how liberty dies ... with thunderous applause.” That, in a nutshell, is the story of the “Star Wars” prequels: the triumph of empire over democracy, facilitated by Anakin Skywalker and resulting in autocratic rule by Chancellor (later Emperor) Palpatine.
It’s a cartoon. But before filming, George Lucas studied real transitions from democracies to dictatorships – which sometimes occurred right after nations had moved to embrace democracy in the first place. He asked why “the senate after killing Caesar turn(ed) around and g(a)ve the government to his nephew?. ... Why did France, after they got rid of the king and that whole system, turn around and give it to Napoleon?” He noted, “It’s the same thing with Germany and Hitler. ... You sort of see these recurring themes where a democracy turns itself into a dictatorship, and it always seems to happen kind of in the same way, with the same kinds of issues, and threats from the outside, needing more control.” The problem is “a democratic body, a senate, not being able to function properly because everybody’s squabbling.” In Germany, Hitler’s rise was solidified by his successful claim to unlimited authority to make law, free from any requirement of legislative permission. In the midst of an apparent crisis, signaled by a fire at the Reichstag building, Hitler demanded that authority. A chilling newspaper account from Feb. 2, 1933, reads right out of “Star Wars” (above all, the grant of emergency powers to Palpatine), but it’s real: “The power to dissolve Parliament at his discretion and to rule Germany by decree without Parliament was entrusted today to Adolf Hitler, Germany’s new chancellor, by President Paul von Hindenburg, according to the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, an organ close to the government. President von Hindenburg signed a decree for the dissolution of Parliament, which is expected to become effective before the reconvening of Parliament, scheduled for next Tuesday.” Which brings us to the present day. After the
breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia showed significant movement in the direction of democratic self-government. But amid the nation’s economic and political challenges, Vladimir Putin rose to power. He often has been a recipient of thunderous applause, not least when he defended the illegal seizure of Crimea. More recently, authoritarian politicians with nationalist tendencies have been attracting significant support in Austria, Germany and France. Their platform? Protection against terrorism and crime, economic nationalism, doubts about free trade and an insistence on a muscular government, striking against the pervasive forces of disorder. That is Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s platform as well. With respect to the Islamic State: “I would just bomb those suckers. ... I’d blow up every single inch.” He warns and threatens those who oppose him; sometimes he sues them. He doesn’t seem to think well of freedom of speech, promising to “open up” libel laws. He exclaims, “We need law and order!” When he says such things, Trump often is greeted with (you guessed it) thunderous applause. Is this how liberty dies? We can’t really know what Trump would do as president, and for more than 200 years, U.S. institutions have proved to be spectacularly robust. In our country, any question about the potential death of liberty – as occurred in a galaxy far, far way – seems wildly excessive. But here’s a lesson from “Star Wars”: That’s an essential question to ask.
• Cass R. Sunstein, Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard, is the author of “The World According to Star Wars,” from which this essay is partially adapted.
Here’s how Clinton can demolish Trump in the days to come Each party is on track to nominate the only candidate who possibly could lose the election to the other. In the latest Washington Post-ABC poll, a sizable majority of Americans considered Donald Trump unqualified to be president. But Hillary Clinton is so unpopular that they still preferred Trump to her. Anxious Democrats are wondering just how they should take him down. There are many possible lines of attack – but many of them come with drawbacks. It might be tempting, for example, to portray Trump as a misogynist. But some liberals worry that doing so will compound Clinton’s deficit among men. Democratic strategist David Axelrod suggests that Clinton stay away from this criticism because it’s unnecessary: “I think the behavior that would drive women to react negatively to him is pretty evident, and you don’t need to make that the focus of your campaign.” Clinton could attack Trump instead as a con man and a fraud. But the message may not be effective coming from her. Most voters don’t think she’s honest, either, and think she also is looking out primarily for herself. Besides, she doesn’t need to gain support from people who are being fooled by Trump; she needs to win over people who dislike him but dislike her, too. Trump’s business record might not
of what she labeled “the vast right-wing conspiracy” is genuine.) But Trump obviously is not a conventional conservative, and wears all of his Ramesh positions lightly. So a conventional left Ponnuru vs. right campaign might not clinch the case for Clinton. end up being as much of a liability for Her most powerful message against him as Mitt Romney’s was in 2012. Demo- Trump might be a non-ideological one: crats said that he had made a fortune His lack of knowledge, seriousness and by laying people off. While this was not impulse control make him too dangerous exactly true, Romney never offered a to put in the presidency. simple explanation of the basis of his That strategy would have room for business to most Americans. Trump many specific criticisms of him that has: He builds things – creating jobs in fit within the overall message of his the process – and then slaps his name on unfitness. Instead of presenting his $11 it. The creditors and customers he has trillion tax cut as a typical right-wing stiffed might tell you the truth is more scheme, for example, she could tie it complicated than that, but it puts him in together with his speculation about a good initial position. defaulting on the debt and suggest he is Democrats will be tempted strongly to far more reckless than normal conservaattack Trump as a far-right extremist. He tives. And she would have to outsource has taken positions that lend themselves some potential attacks to others. Calling to this criticism: He said women should Trump a “fascist,” for example, would be punished for abortions, has a tax plan make her rather than him look wildthat would slash taxes for rich people, eyed. and now opposes a ban on assault weapClinton would be presenting herself ons. Attacking him this way would help as the candidate of safety. This strategy Clinton win over supporters of Bernie has its dangers, too. One is that people Sanders. It’s a kind of campaign Demowill decide, as Trump campaign managcrats are familiar with running and to er Paul Manafort says, that he “can fill which Clinton would be able to bring the chair.” Another is that Clinton also real passion. (People may doubt her would become the candidate of the status authenticity, but they know her hatred quo at a time most Americans are dis-
VIEWS
satisfied with it. But this might be a risk worth taking. Henry Olsen, a conservative election analyst at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, said: “She needs to be the candidate for the person who is not irretrievably committed to blowing up the system. And I don’t think there’s a majority of those people.” The fact that the incumbent president has a 51 percent approval rating in the same Washington Post-ABC poll that has Trump slightly ahead suggests that Olsen is right. Americans already think she is qualified to be president and he isn’t. The path should be open to get them to follow the implications of that thought. “I really think this is a race about temperament,” Axelrod said. “If I were a strategist on the other side of him, that would be the thing that I would work hard.” My guess is that Clinton and her advisers will reach the same conclusion, and make Trump’s unfitness for the presidency the central message of her campaign. Her real meaning will not be explicitly spelled out, but will be unmistakable nonetheless: You may not like either of us, but you should fear him.
• Ramesh Ponnuru (rponnuru@ bloomberg.net), a Bloomberg View columnist, is a senior editor for National Review, where he covers national politics.