A Sith Lord Deals in Pragmatism

The following review contains information about the story of the latest Star Wars movie that some readers may not want to learn prior to viewing that movie.

After the first two duds of the Star Wars prequel trilogy, "Revenge of the Sith" is a surprisingly interesting movie. The story revolves around the decline of the Republic, a complex narrative harkening back to the lessons of Rome and mid-century Germany and offering a warning to modern America. Chancellor Palpatine uses the pretext of war to solidify his power and erode the checks and balances of the Republic.

However, one need not dismiss the criticisms of the new executive powers in America in order to warn against the paranoia of the left. Claims that Bush "stole" the election or entered the war in Iraq for political purposes are unfounded. Engaging in a war is not automatically a sign that a Republic has degenerated; indeed, sometimes a Republic must do so for its own survival.

Yet in the context of the movie's Republic, Senator Padmé is exacly right. The Chancellor has essentially just become a dictator -- so that he can establish peace and defend the Republic, of course. Padmé watches the procession and comments to a friend, "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause." That is how portions of liberty have been lost in the United States.

The relationship of the Chancellor with Anakin Skywalker is a horrifyingly credible one. The Chancellor appeals to Anakin's love for his wife, lies about the Jedi, and rationalizes his own power grab with appeals to public interests. The movie's lesson is that a person can choose to be good or choose to be bad. Anakin chooses to become evil, and his rationalizations are transparent.

Yet, despite the movie's excellent themes of politics and free will, George Lucas introduces some horrible ideas as well. Perhaps the left is so blinded by hatred for Bush that it praises the movie as a criticism of Bush, without seeing the profoundly anti-liberal undercurrents of the movie.

The Jedi are similar to Plato's philosopher kings in that they are trained from childhood to be virtuous public guardians without a private life. (The Jedi's ability to "use the force" is an inherited trait.) Much of the story revolves around Anakin's taboo marriage to Padmé. A major reason Anakin feels alienated from the Jedi is that he feels pulled between his loyalty to the group and his love for his wife.

While Yoda is a bad-ass little green man with a fancy sword and expressive ears, he is also a moral midget. Yes, he is on the right side in the wars to preserve the Republic and defeat those who would undermine and rule it. Yet the advice he gives to Anakin is terrible, reprehensible. Indeed, despite Lucas's intention, it is apparent that Yoda's bad advice helps to push Anakin to the "Dark Side."

Anakin goes to Yoda for help and explains his fears that his wife may die in childbirth. Yoda responds by telling Anakin to let go of his values and feel glad when a loved one dies. It's no surprise that Anakin rejects Yoda's repulsive, anti-moral advice.

What Yoda should have told Anakin is that his love for his wife is a prized value, and that it's understandable for Anakin to be worried about her. Yoda should have said that best way for Anakin to help his loved ones is for him to be a moral person and seek the help of virtuous friends. Yoda should have explained that unjust means tend to produce bad ends, and that evil people rationalize their immorality by lying about their values and goals. Yoda should have explained that Anakin would be unable to help Padmé by acting immorally. And that, even if by some wild stretch Padmé's life was dependent upon helping to overthrow the Republic, Padmé's own values are impossible without liberty and a moral spouse. The price of raising one's children under tyranny is not one worth paying.

Yoda encouraged Anakin to see only the possibilities of selfless service to others or the destruction of others. Of course, those are not the only two possibilities. The third way is rational self-interest, or "self-interest, rightly understood." In fact, Anakin destroys his wife, the Republic, his friends, and his own life by by choosing the path of evil and tyranny. Yet Anakin fools himself into thinking he can use unjust means to achieve benevolent ends and control the centralized power he helps to create.

Yoda also encourages Anakin to embrace subjectivism. Look to your feelings, Yoda tells him. So when Anakin tells the Chancellor that the Sith (those who use the "Dark Side" of the force) are controlled by their passions, the Cancellor reminds him that the Jedi, too, use their passions. This prompts Anakin to say that the Jedi are selfless, while the Sith seek to enhance their own power. But if the standard is one's own passions or feelings, why is one choice better than the other? Rational self-interest is impossible to those whose lives are guided not by rationality but by feelings.

The segment that seems most directly to criticize Bush -- and the segment over which Republicans are most annoyed -- is when Anakin says, "You are either with me, or you are my enemy." To this, Obi-wan responds, "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes."

Oh, really?

So, according to Obi-wan, only a Sith would say something like, "Murder is wrong." Or "racism is wrong." Aren't those absolutes?

There is a particular context of relevance to the movie in which absolutism is bad. That is absolutism of political power. That is the sort of absolutism Anakin seems to be invoking. Yet Lucas obscures the proper distinction, as do those who criticize Bush.

Moral principles are absolute. Pragmatism is the assault on moral principles, the view that one's choices can be made moment by moment, without guiding principles, with a view toward some sort of benefit, but without the necessary framework that establishes what are values and how they are achieved. Liberty is absolutely a value. Individual rights are absolutely a value. Yet a Sith Lord wishes to subvert absolute moral principles and rationalize his power grab through pragmatism -- it's for peace, for safety, for security, for the good of the whole. Obi-wan and Lucas are wrong. A Sith Lord does not deal in absolutes: a Sith Lord deals in pragmatism and rejects moral absolutes.