With the eminent release of the new Star Trek film on DVD and Blu-Ray Disc tonight, I find it only appropriate to write about how I’ve always viewed the series. It’s a view I believe, or perhaps hope, that many share or implicitly acknowledge in their own right. If nothing else, I believe it’s worth exploring a little further.

Traditional Star Trek, not the new age spins on it, at least to me,  is much more than violent aliens, promiscuous aliens, or even epic space battles. It is an ultra-futuristic theater-in-the-round for depicting and exploring the greatest of all questions that has always perplexed us as human beings: what should be done.

What should be done is a moral and ethical question we all face time and time again. If we were to consult the ancient philosophers we might find that one should always strive to do what produces the greater good in any situation, with a nod to prudence should circumstances dictate otherwise, understanding that you may have to sacrifice your efforts and lose with your honor.

In a nutshell, Machiavelli and the moderns put a different spin on it. There’s is a world where sometimes you need to lower the goals, do only what’s necessary for victory, and push the limits of prudence about as far as they will go. Push too far and you become a self-perpetuating tyrant. Move on and maintain the image of decency, speak little of ill deeds, and achieve success and you’re liking to do well. Obviously this is a vast departure from classical literature.

So how does this all relate to Star Trek? First you have to know a bit about Shakespeare. Shakespeare dealt with political issues in nearly all of his history and tragedy plays. Both the Roman and English series continually grappled with the question of how should one lead a people. Rule with violence, rule with poetic justice, with prudence, or tyrannical oppression? Coriolanus, Macbeth, Hamlet, Henry IV, Henry V, Anthony and Cleopatra, Titus Andronicus, and many more all touch on that very question.

To give a more specific example, Shakespeare’s Henry V demonstrates King Henry V in his prime. Henry is a King much like Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln, willing to compromise on principle in order to server the greater good, and put aside the past once victory is achieve. The difference between such just leaders and tyrants is that they are willing to push aside their transgressions when order is restored.

Shakespeare’s Henry V was willing to go to war with France to unite the British people as one and take the pressure from the landed nobility off the throne, thus unifying Great Britain. Moreover, after the Battle of Agincourt, Henry gives the order to kill the French prisoners, citing the reasons as reciprocation for French transgressions against his own forces and knowledge that his army would face certain defeat if the French regrouped and combined against him with the prisoners.

Ultimately, Henry wins in the end, and Britain is firmly placed upon the world stage. Captain Kirk is a character much like Henry V, Churchill, Lincoln, and even Harry Truman. He faces the tough decisions, and make compromises when needed to achieve success. In his quieter moments, he is capable of returning to a principled life. Spock, on the other hand is all poetic, and incapable of leading if the series is to proceed with believable success.

To lead poetically, and adhere strictly to principle and logic is to fail. For those of you that have seen the new Star Trek, a specific example of this (Spoiler Alert) is seen when Spock decides it’s best to rendezvous with the fleet. Kirk, on the other hand knows the decision, although honorable and right, will result in the destruction of Earth. He therefore chooses to disobey orders, an act of sheer prudence. Spock reacts negatively.

Kirk ultimately defeats Spock and gains command again on principle. Kirk is willing to trick Spock into a fit of rage in order to gain command, then disobey Star Fleet orders to save Earth in what amounts to double display of prudence on the silver screen!

The real lesson Star Trek and its characters present time and time again is something with which we’re all innately familiar: there comes a time when you need to bend the rules to lead effectively and achieve success. The trick is, how far do you bend them, and are the consequences justifiable or not. Certainly one could say Napolean and Hitler did not understand this teaching properly.

On that note, I’d suggest everyone pick up a copy of Star Trek and watch it unfold for yourselves, Trekkie or not, its the human element of the film you need to witness!