The politically insightful Battlestar Galactica Season 4.5
The twice Emmy-nominated and Peabody award-winning new Battlestar Galactica is the most politically-insightful show EVER in the history of American pop culture -- far more complex and dramatically-realistic than 24 or The West Wing. This re-imagined show (which is nothing like the usual escapist sci-fi, let alone the atrocious 1970s show from which it derives only vaguely its premise) intelligently explores themes ranging from terrorism, torture, war, religious faith, political campaigns, the tension between civilian and military authority in a fragile democracy, abortion, stem-cell research, genocide, marital problems, labor disputes, and, most recently throughout Season 3, the complicated politics of collaboration in an occupied regime and the meting out of justice afterward.
While the writing never feels too aping of current world issues, Ronald D. Moore and his staff show greater understanding of history and world affairs than most of the US media (except PBS) with its short-term sense of causality and American nationalist leanings that have led most recently to a war in Iraq that went largely unquestioned until it was too late.
It challenges conventional perceptions in US culture in very thoughtful ways. For example, the third season premiere – for which the show has been nominated with an Emmy for Outstanding Writing -- had the "heroes" engage in suicide bombings against the "villains" because, unlike most of the US media, the head writer understands that terrorism is a means, and not morally worse than war since both are terrible and violent means of solving political problems. This is not to say I agree with anything resembling Al Qaeda or its followers, but the American Revolution (especially in the South, where US soldiers would engage in hit and run attacks and use deceptive propaganda about British-allied natives raping white women) and French Resistance in WWII were terrorism, and Hitler used war, proving that war can be just as deplorable as terrorism in its goals and means.
There are two definitions of “terrorism” as far as I can tell. The scale definition relates to extreme strategies adopted by a weaker actor against state actors; the latter are able to enforce unjust laws and use overwhelming, selectively-targeted force to achieve their ends. American Revolutionaries shocked Britons by violating “civilized” warfare protocol with their guerrilla warfare. This definition provides no moral distinction from state violence, but is the real reason states object to terrorism: it challenges their authority.
The other definition is a behavioral one of using fear to provoke compliance. State actors like Blair or Bush – Putin or Pinochet -- claim this as their justification for opposing terrorism. Yet the history shows that terrorists can and do use restraint, as in the case of Hamas, which is not nearly as brutal as Al Qaeda-type groups in its goals and methods, no matter what Sen. McCain says in implying that all terrorism is equal. History is full of examples of states using coercion – terror – to carry out their objectives, including brutal violence, even if that damage is collateral. For Sen. McCain to claim Israel’s mostly civilian killings in Lebanon in 2006 [insert present Israeli massacre of Palestinians in Gaza, now over 800 and mounting] were morally superior to the 100 [insert present Israeli death toll of 15 or so] or so military officer killings carried out by Hezbollah because they fall under the convenient rubric of “collateral damage” does not excuse them any more. We all know that when we wage war, innocents die. In this light, America criticizing Iran for sponsoring Hezbollah is hypocritical against America’s decades-long support for Israel’s terrorism against Palestinians, let alone its role in the brutality of Latin American regimes against leftist discontent in the name of the Cold War.
What is equally impressive with how these issues are discussed on Battlestar Galactica is how the characters are portrayed. There is not one hero on this show who doesn't occasionally do "the wrong thing", but feels no guilt about it because they don't realize how wrong they are; there is not one character ("good guy" or "bad") who does not show both dark and heroic traits in a way that is similar to human nature.
Without presenting simple answers, this show is so real that it can change how we traditionally look at our societies. I firmly believe this insight can reduce conflict in this world. What this program depicts so well is that “the other” is not as homogeneously terrible as we might think and that “we” are not necessarily as good or as true to our principles as we’d like to believe; each side stereotypes the other and prejudges its individuals based on what the group has done. There is no pure good or evil person in this series, only what is in-between – that we all have the capacity for kindness and selfishness, for clarity and mistakes -- which is far truer to human nature.
I am a student of history and have been disillusioned and saddened to learn from many university professors that the biographical and other works (including many on the genius of the US founders) written by many historians are actually deceptive hagiographies, as are the high school history books that seek only to uphold those on "our" side while completely denigrating those on the other. It is my strong feeling that this approach to history has harmed societies, including the US and the rest of the West. It is only when we learn about the capacity for fault and kindness in all of us, and of our great heroes’ abilities to make mistakes that we may better judge our past and plan for the future as peoples and voters.
"Battlestar Galactica" is the kind of show that best resembles the reality of human relations. Perhaps its one slightly weak area is its exploration of romance, but the painful side of love is written beautifully. It deserves attention, despite losing to formulaic shows in televised award shows. It also features an impeccable cast of actors, including Academy Award Nominees Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell.
Here is an excellent interview with the head writer about how he approaches dealing with political issues and writing morally-ambiguous characters.
The man behind "Battlestar Galactica" | Salon Arts & Entertainment
How original. 
I guess when you're under a tight budget, and don't want to hire more cast members, the easy and predictable ending wins out.
I have no cavble TV.
re Earth about 2 weeks back.
