Defending Heinlein: Starship Troopers
I caught myself wondering about my own motivations for writing in defense of Heinlein. Against what or whom am I defending the author and his works? At times, the answer seems to be against modernity itself. Modern perspectives. Modern social standards. Modern sensibilities. Modern definitions.
Certain segments of modern society seem incapable of viewing the past through the lens of the past. If they account for the historical then in which a story was written, it is often as blanket condemnation: Oh, well for when this was written it may have been progressive…
Worse still are those who actively seek to redefine the past and present. Those who gleefully abandon the traditional meaning of words under the auspices of inclusion and tolerance. The kind of people who think that words like fascism are, and I quote, “...kind of hard to define…” Part of the motivation for the rejection of traditional definitions seems to be that it allows them to label anything with which they disagree fascism or any other insult du jour.
Add to this confusion a movie, loosely based on a novel. A movie which on the surface is a fun, science fiction action movie. A movie which the average person writes off. A movie which becomes a cult classic for fans of schlocky, sci-fi shoot ’em ups. A movie which people discover years later had a ‘hidden’ agenda: to be the great anti-fascist movie. And because the movie is intended as a parody, then the novel on which it is based must of course be pro-fascist, right?
No. Of course not.
But for some reason, this idea sticks. And to make matters worse, people are willing to argue ad nauseam that the novel and the author both espouse fascist ideology. Of course, when pressed on what aspects of the novel are actually fascist one gets either blank stares, scenes from the movie that are not shared by the novel, or one particular aspect of the novel that isn’t actually fascistic.
Four paragraphs in and if it is not abundantly clear which Heinlein book I’m writing about, then allow me to introduce: Starship Troopers.
First published in 1959, Starship Troopers is a military science-fiction novel which follows the life of “Johnnie” Rico as he joins the Mobile Infantry of the Terran Federation. The book explores many social and political ideas through the eyes of Rico as a student, a soldier and an officer in training. According to a few sources, it was written by Heinlein as a knee-jerk response to nuclear nonproliferation.
At this time, I would like to show the same named film, directed by Paul Verhoeven, the door as it is Starship Troopers almost in name only. It may share some character names and borrow some plot points, but there the similarities end. One of these days I will do a deep dive on the movie, which I still enjoy for its own merits.
Of the movie, we shall speak no further except to say that it is the movie which has helped to drive the idea, for some, that the novel is fascistic and that by extension Heinlein is espousing fascism. The novel in no way, shape or form presents a culture which is fascist, espouses fascistic ideas or in anyway promotes same.
Many will point to the novel’s “pro military” messaging as one of the sure signs of its fascist undertones. The novel is most certainly and unabashedly pro soldier. It is not, however, explicitly pro military. Nor is being pro military inherently fascistic. Many political ideologies are pro military. Fascism, however, is overtly nationalistic and often promotes one race above others.
In Starship Troopers, there are no nations; there is only the Terran Federation. The Federation spans the entire Earth, most of the Sol system and also several exoplanets. The only race being promoted is that of the human race. The only dividing line in human society is between civilians and citizens. The book makes it perfectly clear that the only ‘rights’ citizens have that are not enjoyed by civilians are the franchise and the right to hold political office. There are a few jobs which are also reserved for veterans, such as certain teaching positions (as in History and Moral Philosophy).
“Now here are we with still another system… and our system works quite well. Many complain but none rebel; personal freedom for all is greatest in history, laws are few, taxes are low, living standards are as high as productivity permits, crime is at its lowest ebb…” -Major Reid, Starship Troopers, Robert A. Heinlein
Some will say this is most assuredly Robert A. Heinlein showing his fascistic leanings. The fact that the franchise, the right to vote, is in any way restricted means that Starship Troopers is totally fascist. Except all modern democracies restrict the franchise. I can’t think of any true democracy that is or could be classified as fascistic. The fascist doctrine doesn’t allow room for democracy and is marked by rigid single party politics and totalitarian dictatorships.
“All systems seek to achieve [a benevolent government] by limiting the franchise to those who are believed to have the wisdom to use it justly. I repeat ‘all systems’; even the so-called ‘unlimited democracies’ excluded from franchise not less than one quarter of their populations by age, birth, poll tax, criminal record, or other.” -Major Reid, Starship Troopers, Robert A. Heinlein
In the US one must be a legal citizen, of at least eighteen years of age, free of any felony convictions (or having had your voting rights restored) and not ruled mentally incompetent to be able to register to vote and exercise the sovereign franchise in federal elections. Males must also register for Selective Service. Other nations have different requirements. Judging by the number of countries which have compulsory military service, it seems that some may require military service to enjoy full citizenship. None of these countries are identified as fascist in nature.
I’ve seen many other spurious arguments for why Starship Troopers is fascist. There’s the “only citizens can give birth” argument which is negated by the fact that Rico exists and neither of his parents are citizens. There’s the “civilians don’t have any civil rights” argument, which is clearly countered by the first quote attributed to Major Reid. Many of these arguments are attributable to either lack of reading, lack of reading comprehension or conflating novel and movie.
There are many other gripes I’ve heard and read about Starship Troopers. Many are as stupid as accusing Rico of committing war crimes, based on current day rules of engagement… Someone called it boring because it wasn’t the shoot ‘em up they thought it should be. The one complaint that stands out and should be called out, though, are the people who assert that Heinlein is advocating for violence as the only solution to life’s problems.
This seems to be based almost entirely on people misconstruing one of the novel’s central themes: sometimes violence is the answer. Heinlein completely rejects the idea that “violence never settled anything” because it’s a ridiculous statement. It is provably false by anyone who has ever studied history.
… One girl told him bluntly: “My mother says that violence never settles anything.”
“So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you.” -Starship Troopers, Robert A. Heinlein
For anyone who is not a student of history, Carthage was the capital of the Carthaginian empire and was completely destroyed by the Romans in 146 BC. It is safe to say that violence most certainly settled the affairs of Carthage and the Carthaginian empire. The same could be said of some ‘modern’ cities, such Hiroshima.
With Oppenheimer in theaters there has been renewed debate as to whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and/or Nagasaki, but the fact is that both cites were bombed and whether actually needed or not, that use of force, that violence, most certainly settled the war in the Pacific and brought an end to WWII.
“...Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.” -Mr. Dubois, Starship Troopers, Robert. A Heinlein
Notice that Heinlein does not say that violence is the only option or that it is the only way to settle a dispute. It is, however, the often necessary solution when all other options have failed. After diplomacy has failed... After economic sanctions have failed… After all other options have been exhausted and since nations often can not “just walk away”… What option is left? War (which is to say a very specific application of violence). How else do you stop a megalomaniac bent on world domination?
Heinlein also asserts that violence or force is also the source of all other authority and that the exercise of the franchise is also an exercise of force. Both of which are true. The “peaceful transfer of power” is merely window dressing for the implied threat that the citizens or the police or the armed forces will step in to ensure that the will of the voters is followed.
All laws are enforced at the end of a gun. This fact is true no matter how many people choose to ignore the implication. If you don’t believe this is true, then skip paying your taxes for a year or two. Eventually a bunch of men with guns are going to show up at your house and drag you into court.
This inescapable fact, that all laws are enforced at the end of a gun, is why I cringe when I hear some busybody say “there ought to be a law” about anything. Given the current problems with police use of force, “there ought to be a law” might as well say “you risk death by your actions” because there’s always a chance that some trigger happy cop decides you’re resisting arrest and are a threat…
One point Heinlein also makes is that sometimes you use a small amount of force immediately to avoid having to use a large amount of force in the future. In other words, sometimes violence properly applied can prevent the need for further violence in the future. You could be housebreaking a puppy. Or you could be putting a bully in his place.
It’s anecdotal, but I was once in an altercation in school which resulted in my suspension for the last three days of the school year. We had a free day and we were in the gymnasium. I was in the bleachers watching others play basketball. It all started with taunts from a group guys my age, which I ignored. I even tried to move away. They followed.
Verbal taunts were followed by members of the group beginning to throw small items at me. This was noted by a teacher and they were told to stop. Which they did, until the teacher stopped paying attention.
Wads of paper became change, which I wisely pocketed. One boy even threw his shoe. Then someone had the bright idea to rip the cover off a text book and throw that. They missed and I laughed.
*wham*
Textbook square to the back of the head. Other people nearby had been watching this interaction and mostly ignoring it or laughing at me. When I turned around and started up the bleachers, everyone went quiet...
Except one kid. He was laughing and pointing and acting like he was King of the Assholes. When I growled, “Who threw it?” everyone pointed at him and moved away. I honestly don’t know all these years later if he was the one who actually threw the book or not. Nor do I care. One punch might have ended the battle, but I used far more that day.
When I look back on that incident, I feel no regret. I tried everything I could think of to deescalate, to be diplomatic, to extricate myself from the situation. Short of leaving the gym entirely, this group would have followed me anywhere I moved to. Possibly they would have followed me out the gymnasium, had I left. The group may have jumped me in the hall, all things considered. They had decided I was a target. They thought I wouldn’t stand up for myself.
They thought wrong. One kid paid a price. Dozens learned a lesson.
For the next two years no one ever pushed me to that point ever again. Generally, I got bullied a lot less than I had previously. All it took was one time for someone to really, truly push me to the point of all out violence and after that no one else thought it was worth the risk.
Many is the time, though, that I’ve walked away before violence has become necessary. I’ve talked and joked my way out of some hairy predicaments, including once being held at knife point by a drunk veteran. I’ve never looked at violence as the go to solution. But I will never say it’s not a solution. And that is ultimately the point Heinlein is making.
One of these days I will write an in-depth look at the movie Starship Troopers. I’ll breakdown what the movie gets right, note its many shortcomings and point out the things it does well outside the lore of the novel. I’ll also dig into why it’s not the satirical anti-fascist masterpiece some people think it is. One of these days… Up next in this series I’m either going to talk about Number of the Beast or The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I’m also getting ready to start on the third installment of Max Caldwell: EIO, so be sure to subscribe so you can get notified when new content is published. It’s completely free!