FLIPPING THE REPUBLIC: WHAT IF WE TOOK "STARSHIP TROOPERS" MORE SERIOUSLY?

The novel, not the film. 

by Michael Gladius

Modern Right-wingers feel stuck in a conundrum. Many of them disavow the supposed “far right”/“alt-right,” which they see as collectivist left-wing faction with no self-awareness. But they feel like their only other choice is the moderate right-wing, which merely preserves the status quo, rather than improving it. However, most attempts to merely preserve the status quo are inherently reactive strategies that cede the initiative to the enemy, no matter how aggressively they are pursued. 

Robert Heinlein’s theories in the sci-fi novel Starship Troopers provide a third choice. Everybody knows of the 1995 B-rated satire by Paul Verhoeven, but this was a satire, not a faithful adaptation of Heinlein’s ideas. The book on which the movie was based describes a meritocratic-aristocratic republic that provides a guide for proactive change, rather than the Laotian-style neutralism of the moderates. 

So what are Heinlein’s actual theories? In his society citizenship is not given at birth; instead, it is earned by two years of public service. Everyone has a right to apply, and can’t be rejected except in extreme circumstances. The right to vote or hold office is reserved exclusively for the citizenry; non-citizen civilians are not permitted. 

The first reason why Heinlein’s thesis is so brilliant is that it flips the logic of a republic on its head. The logic is simple: voting and public service/fighting go hand-in-hand. The traditional model of a republic is a system in which voters are conscripted en masse when war is declared. Their right to vote kicks in automatically when they are old enough to fight. Heinlein reverses this order, however, by having both the army and the republic be volunteer-only. 

Voting is not automatic or systematic, but has to be earned through difficult service. Rather than a republic built on passive systems, it requires willpower and sacrifice from men.

For modern right-wingers, the 20th Century should be seen as the failure of systematic solutions. Humans are not machines or livestock, and a society is only as good as its people. Morality, rather than rationalism, is the way forward. 

Heinlein’s book repeatedly admits that most people volunteering aren’t the greatest individuals in society, but what sets them apart is their morality: they volunteer because they believe in the system and are willing to put themselves on the line for it. 

Most of the book is very meditative and philosophical, with the teachers and leaders being very Socratic with their underlings. Rather than a “shut up and obey” mentality that tells conscripts what to think, the leaders go out of their way to answer hard questions and constantly challenge the new volunteers in how to think. Rather than a factory-produced kind of man, the republic seeks fully-developed individuals to thrive off.

The second reason Heinlein’s thesis is so brilliant is because it recognizes the difference between control over oneself and control over others. The biggest criticism of his thesis is from those who believe it would be innately totalitarian. Heinlein disputes this, and his counterargument relies on pointing out democracy’s greatest weakness: democracy entails giving up control over your own life in order to have a fraction of control over everyone else’s. 

Civilians in his fictional world freely renounce this control over others’ lives. By remaining non-citizens, they retain maximum control over their own lives, and are allowed a broad array of rights and freedoms that enhance their own lives without giving them control over others. Those who volunteer for citizenship are constantly reminded that they are freely losing this control over their own lives, and that the power they seek isn’t as big or amazing as it looks from the outside.

Heinlein was firmly against conscription because he believed it would lower standards and openly said it was a form of slavery. As Christopher Dawson wrote in his 1915 essay on the modern state, the state of modern western man is to possess great political liberty but to have less and less control over his own life. This centralization of political and economic power should be an obsolete concept, as it seamlessly leads to communism. 

Heinlein believed very strongly in the concept that those who wished to accomplish something should roll up their sleeves and do it themselves, a very American ethic, and his book argues that those who desire control over the lives of others as leaders of countries, should be forced to feel what it’s like to lose control over their own lives, as a prerequisite. Most right-wing literature and films of the 1950s focused on the notion of the hero who has too many volunteers and must pick the qualified from among them, and this ethic has not entirely been forgotten by the West.

Another point in favour of Heinlein’s system is that it addresses the dreaded careerist. In the modern-day republics of the West, careerism is an easy punching bag. Careerists are the ones who have no loyalty except to their fat paychecks, and are readily associated with inept men embedding themselves in the system, while the better-qualified are let go. 

Heinlein’s system improves on this by giving career men a place, but locking them into it for 20 years at a time. The average volunteer, by contrast, spends around two years in public service, then becomes a citizen. During his service he has no decision-making authority, and can therefore appreciate what it feels like to be on the receiving end of his future political power. The careerist, however, only gets the right to vote after completing his service. Thus, a typical careerist would not be allowed to vote earlier than the age of 40. The trade-offs are fair, and thus turns careerism from a liability into an asset: only the true believers who survive get to vote.

In conclusion, the modern right needs to stand for something other than a passive status quo, and Heinlein’s thesis is a solid direction. It’s anti-systematic, even to the point of being pseudo-libertarian. It’s filled with both aristocratic virtues and philosophical self-criticism. It has the strengths of both medieval heroic chivalry and Roman order. By turning the idea of the republic inside out, the problems of mass democracy can be addressed without throwing away real social progress.