On Mon, 27 May 2002, Steve Sloan II wrote: > I finally got around to seeing the movie yesterday afternoon. > > Attack of the Clones Spoilers... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It looks like the Jedi brought the death of the Republic and > their order on themselves. Annakin gave a speech about how > he would prefer a dictatorship to democracy, because of all > the useless, crooked, untrustworthy, bickering politicians. > I doubt he came up with those ideas in a vacuum. We saw a > lot of Jedis saying the same sorts of things about > politicians -- Annakin just took the next logical step > from their attitude.
I saw something similar but slightly different. Yes, the Jedi are not a democratic organization, and the model of government Anakin proposes does look a lot like the Jedi council: a body of discussion where one leader has the final say. And it's true that the Jedi tend to have a puritanical contempt for the impurities of electoral politics. Anakin's attitude, I think, stems chiefly from naivete and from the fact that he really clings to (and practically worships) his two political "idols," Padme and Palpatine. So his mistakes are that he thinks a) there really are some politicians who can be trusted with such great power, and b) it's possible to scale the governing structure of the tiny Jedi Order up to the massive galactic Republic. I felt that Obi-Wan's lecturing about the untrustworthiness of politicians -- hamhanded though it was -- wasn't about the evils of democracy so much as an attempt to get Anakin to look more realistically at the people he idolizes (and temper his hormones in the process). > The moment Palpatine suggested that he > temporarily suspend democracy in the Republic, essentially > so he can "make the trains run on time", Jedi bigwigs like > Yoda and Windu fell all over themselves to help him. ...but *this* I did not see. I thought Yoda & Co. seemed to be trying very hard to remain out of the political process itself. It's true that Yoda chose to appropriate the clone army to save his Jedi; but refraining from doing so would not have kept the army out of Palpatine's hands, and it doesn't seem reasonable to expect Yoda to murder several hundred thousand innocent people, even if they are clonetroopers, just to prevent that. One striking thing, though, was Yoda's refusal to let the Senate know that the Jedi were not operating at full capacity, Force-wise. In this he displays an organizational protectiveness, putting the Jedi's interests above the public's, that mirrors the kind of turf-guarding we've seen lately in the Church and in the US intelligence community. Yoda's failure isn't a contempt for democracy, I think, but it may very well be his insular protectiveness. Plus, in Obi-Wan's case, I see a failure to address Anakin's issues as they are: he's trying to mold Anakin in the manner of a Padawan-from-birth Jedi, rather than as a Padawan with serious issues owing to his early life. Despite Obi-Wan's genuine affection for his student, what Anakin needs is a therapist in addition to his mentor. Dooku > may have found the Dark Side's political ideas so attractive > because of the attitudes he encountered growing up in the > Jedi order. I think Dooku and Anakin (and later, Luke) all seem to embody a theme about obligation. We have obligations to ourselves, to family and friends, and to society. The Jedi Order deprecates the first two obligations and focuses almost exclusively on serving society (except when Yoda slips). I suspect that Dooku, like Anakin, was frustrated by being forced not to exercise his power to the fullest. (Maybe it's just that Yoda lives so damn long that none of his underlings ever get promoted.) Personal fulfillment comes from meditation and attunement with the Force and from the Jedi community, but for Anakin and perhaps the occasional guy like Dooku, that's just not enough. Anyway, when Dooku confronts Yoda, it's with the same "I'm stronger than you could ever teach me to be," attitude that Vader displays towards Obi-Wan in ANH. When Luke runs off to save his friends in ESB, it's in direct contradiction to the lessons that Obi-Wan teaches Anakin, that Yoda tries to teach Luke, and that Yoda doubtlessly taught Dooku. There's a tendency for institutional concepts of duty to fossilize. It makes society easier to manipulate for people like the Emperor, and it thwarts the personal needs of people expected to live in it. People who buck the trend--following their "living Force" instincts more readily than their formally defined duties--may turn out well (like Luke and Qui-Gon Jinn) or poorly (like Dooku and Anakin). Fear of the poor results motivates Yoda to squelch too much of his pupils' individuality as a group. I wonder if Qui-Gonn, being a more flexible and open-minded personality, would have understood Dooku better than Obi-Wan, and if he would have truly made a better mentor for Anakin and a better investigator of the Sith. Heck, maybe killing Qui-Gon *specifically* was an important part of Darth Sidious's plot in TPM. Perhaps he was the one Jedi most likely to sniff out Dooku's true intent given the chance, so it was important that he in particular be destroyed. In addition to the dark side of the Force, Sidious is exploiting the predictable tendencies of the Republic's more hidebound institutions, the Jedi included. Perhaps Qui-Gon represented a maverick creative tendency among the Jedi that needed to be deterred to protect Sidious's grand scheme. Marvin Long Austin, Texas "Never flay a live Episiarch." -- Galactic Proverbs 7563:34(j)
