I always thought of Starship Troopers as somewhat cautionary, kind of like Ike's warnings about the military-industrial complex (which ceased to be relevant when the Cold War ended, but which can be applied to any other government-industrial complex you care to name, like higher ed).
Agreed, Heinlein’s tale embodied a note of caution. The question to ponder, however, is this: What was he cautioning against? Certainly nothing as simplistic as the military-industrial complex.
I think he wanted his generation (which fought in WWII and believed heavily in the collective Big Institutions to improve human life and society) to think twice.
What is always interesting to me is that Heinlein wrote the most hated (by the Left) of his books, “Starship Troopers” contemporaneously with writing his beloved (by the left) book, “Stranger in a Strange Land”. In fact, he paused writing Stranger in order to write Troopers. And yet, both books have similar ideas within them. Especially the breakdown of society and government behavior that is distinctly not liberal. Like kidnapping a journalist, for example.
Anyhow, Troopers was most certainly prophetic about the end stages of society in the West, which he called the Crazy Years and developed even further in Time Enough For Love and other books.
I think the point that some form of qualification for citizenship is a good one. Whether it is “national service” is not necessarily a good one. Jerry Pournelle’s approach in the Prince of Mercenaries stories is likely better. Regardless, the realization that citizenship is about duty, not entitlement, is an important one missed by roughly 98.2% of Americans today. ;-)
You know, when the Dan Rather hit piece on George W. was big news, I had the curiosity to look into the details of the latter’s military service. I found that when one totaled up Bush’s active duty service, from basic training through flight school, it didn’t fall far short of four years, disregarding later annual training & etc. It also occurred to me that flying high-performance jet fighter aircraft, even in peacetime conditions, was not the least hazardous of military duties. At that time, a draftee served on active duty for two years—not necessarily in Vietnam, either.
As far as I’m concerned, if you wore the uniform and gave good service to country, you’re OK. George W. Bush clears that bar.
All systems, ultimately, will be corrupted because they contain humans and humans are imperfect. Heinlein knew that well the system would eventually be corrupted, as he shows us in “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress”.
Thanks for the tip. I just bought both books. I read Stranger a gazillion years ago, but have completely forgotten it.
I always thought of Starship Troopers as somewhat cautionary, kind of like Ike's warnings about the military-industrial complex (which ceased to be relevant when the Cold War ended, but which can be applied to any other government-industrial complex you care to name, like higher ed).
Agreed, Heinlein’s tale embodied a note of caution. The question to ponder, however, is this: What was he cautioning against? Certainly nothing as simplistic as the military-industrial complex.
Many of RAH’s works were cautionary. But, I think that Troopers was the most so. He really was trying to tell us “you won’t like what comes next”
This
I think he wanted his generation (which fought in WWII and believed heavily in the collective Big Institutions to improve human life and society) to think twice.
What is always interesting to me is that Heinlein wrote the most hated (by the Left) of his books, “Starship Troopers” contemporaneously with writing his beloved (by the left) book, “Stranger in a Strange Land”. In fact, he paused writing Stranger in order to write Troopers. And yet, both books have similar ideas within them. Especially the breakdown of society and government behavior that is distinctly not liberal. Like kidnapping a journalist, for example.
Anyhow, Troopers was most certainly prophetic about the end stages of society in the West, which he called the Crazy Years and developed even further in Time Enough For Love and other books.
Well, the comrades are not particularly perceptive. Heinlein may have been no Tolstoy, but he was too complex a thinker for them.
Heinlein was that rare person that could foresee the unintended consequences clearly. And the years since he wrote about them bear him out.
There’s something in that, for sure. But whether his course of treatment follows from his diagnosis is arguable.
I think the point that some form of qualification for citizenship is a good one. Whether it is “national service” is not necessarily a good one. Jerry Pournelle’s approach in the Prince of Mercenaries stories is likely better. Regardless, the realization that citizenship is about duty, not entitlement, is an important one missed by roughly 98.2% of Americans today. ;-)
Read "Starship Troopers" as a 14 year old. Loved it as a military story.
Reread it again as an adult. Loved the philosophy.
But the insiders will corrupt the system.
Look at Bush 2's service in the "Squadron of Princes" (Texas Air National Guard). Or Al Gore in the newspaper.
Bob Dole or Daniel Inouye are the exception.
But anecdotally, people are getting fed up. Can't prove it, but people are becoming more open to changing the system.
Will change come? And if so, in what form?
No idea.
I am however certain that the present system is failing us.
You know, when the Dan Rather hit piece on George W. was big news, I had the curiosity to look into the details of the latter’s military service. I found that when one totaled up Bush’s active duty service, from basic training through flight school, it didn’t fall far short of four years, disregarding later annual training & etc. It also occurred to me that flying high-performance jet fighter aircraft, even in peacetime conditions, was not the least hazardous of military duties. At that time, a draftee served on active duty for two years—not necessarily in Vietnam, either.
As far as I’m concerned, if you wore the uniform and gave good service to country, you’re OK. George W. Bush clears that bar.
All systems, ultimately, will be corrupted because they contain humans and humans are imperfect. Heinlein knew that well the system would eventually be corrupted, as he shows us in “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress”.