StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Okay, I feel like I'm committing heresy by even asking this question. Surely peace, a quick resolution to a conflict, is something to be desired? And generally, I believe, it is. But here's the thing:

In the Sequel Trilogy, we see a New Republic which is so militarily and politically weak that it allows the First Order to build up its forces unchecked, and is then crippled by a single surprise attack on a single system, to the point where it can then apparently be overrun in days or weeks. Many viewers evidently find this implausible, and some, unfortunately, will use the NR's weakness as a defense of the Empire (ignoring that the Empire was unstable enough to be brought down by the tiny insurgent group that then founded the New Republic).

Now, its understandable that a war-weary galaxy might support demilitarization, and that the New Republic would be under pressure to differentiate itself from the Empire by relying on diplomacy, rather than military force, to hold itself together. One might also argue that a large and diverse galaxy cannot be effectively governed by a single entity (though the millennium of peace under the Old Republic would seem to tell against that). Or that it cannot be held together in the absence of a powerful, established organization of Force users like the Jedi Order to keep the peace (I think this may have some truth to it).

But I can't help but wonder if the NR might, paradoxically, have had greater stability if it had been forced to fight a longer war against the Empire. In the Disney canon, the Empire seems to have collapsed very quickly after Endor- going from domination of the entire galaxy to ceasing to exist as a significant military power in only a year or two. From a narrative point of view, I prefer this to the two or three decades of "new Imperial warlord emerges, threatens the survival of the New Republic, is defeated, rinse and repeat" that the old EU had, which I felt was repetitive and anti-climactic, and undercut the optimistic ending of Return of the Jedi. From an in-universe perspective, however, a longer war would have forced the New Republic to maintain a stronger military force, a more centralized government, and an outside enemy might have given them something to unite against. It could have gone other ways, of course- like a prolonged war leading to a more authoritarian government, or a failure to quickly defeat the Empire and establish peace and order undermining the NR's credibility. But it seems at least possible that a longer war might have lead to a more stable New Republic.

I'm reminded of a quote from US General/President Ulysses Grant recently, on the subject of the American Civil War. I don't have the exact quote on-hand, but it effectively argued that a short war would have been worse, because it might have allowed slavery to survive, which would have lead to future conflicts. Obviously, the situation in the Galactic Civil War is rather different, but the same underlying point may hold true: that a longer war would have created a sense of unity, and forced the New Republic to adopt measures, that would have made it more stable and secure in the long run.

I also wonder if this was partly Palpatine's plan. In the old EU, IIRC, there was an idea that he had deliberately engineered the Empire to collapse into infighting without him (see the lack of a clear line of succession). With Force precognition and political savvy on the level Palpatine appears to have practiced, he might well have foreseen that a quick defeat for the Empire would also lead to a less stable New Republic.

Thoughts?

For one, yes, Palpatine, in the old EU at least, wanted to be an immortal emperor over the galaxy forever, making new clone bodies and moving his spirit from host to host until the end of time. This is why he played his subordinates against each other. New EU, not confirmed, but it did prevent uprisings.

Focusing on your main question, the New Republic tried an old solution for a new problem. As you said, the Old Republic only lasted as long as it did due to the Jedi Order. And even then, the Old Republic had numerous problems, namely such open corruption that an aspiring dictator manuevered the Republic into a crisis that he could take advantage of. Not to mention quality of life issues for the humdrum citizens while the rich and the elite thrived, and the Senate giving in to Corporate interests, to the point that they override small sector interests like Naboo in open assembly and the small voices can't be heard. Recall the Senate scene in Phantom Menace, where Naboo can't even make it's complaint without being interrupted by two other Senators that weren't recognizedby the Chancellor. Even if Palpatine wasn't an evil space wizard playing all the angles, the open corruption in such a system was already being abused by other parties.

Another issue is that the Republic military was pretty much scrapped, because they were used to leaning on the Jedi Order. That's a problem if war comes, like it did, and you have an order of well meaning warrior monks used to mediation and investigation acting the part of generals, with children acting as military commanders.

There's also the rampant slavery, piracy, smuggling, and other threats that the Old Republic was facing, and didn't seem to be giving any real thought. The Clone Wars only exacerbated this as it made the Jedi focus more on the war effort than solving issues that needed attention, putting them on the back burner. That's not Jedi arrogance, that's them being swamped and not having enough people to solve the problem, which they didn't seem to have in peacetime. This is mostly due to Core apathy about the outer galaxy, leading to an eventual defunded Judicial Forces. So, nation with no real military, no real Galactic police, and a laughably corrupt Senate. Add those together, and you can see why Palpatine, the Hutts, and the Corporations of the Republic had a field day with the Galactic Republic.

The New Republic, grabbing such an old system without modification, was doomed to failure, no matter how long the Galactic Civil War was.

FaxModem1 wrote: ↑2018-06-09 08:15am For one, yes, Palpatine, in the old EU at least, wanted to be an immortal emperor over the galaxy forever, making new clone bodies and moving his spirit from host to host until the end of time. This is why he played his subordinates against each other. New EU, not confirmed, but it did prevent uprisings.

Focusing on your main question, the New Republic tried an old solution for a new problem. As you said, the Old Republic only lasted as long as it did due to the Jedi Order. And even then, the Old Republic had numerous problems, namely such open corruption that an aspiring dictator manuevered the Republic into a crisis that he could take advantage of. Not to mention quality of life issues for the humdrum citizens while the rich and the elite thrived, and the Senate giving in to Corporate interests, to the point that they override small sector interests like Naboo in open assembly and the small voices can't be heard. Recall the Senate scene in Phantom Menace, where Naboo can't even make it's complaint without being interrupted by two other Senators that weren't recognizedby the Chancellor. Even if Palpatine wasn't an evil space wizard playing all the angles, the open corruption in such a system was already being abused by other parties.

I don't know that is fair to judge the entire millennia-long history of the Old Republic on its final few decades, though. If the Republic had been that vulnerable all along, it likely would have been toppled sooner. And much of that corruption is directly due to Sith machinations.

Another issue is that the Republic military was pretty much scrapped, because they were used to leaning on the Jedi Order. That's a problem if war comes, like it did, and you have an order of well meaning warrior monks used to mediation and investigation acting the part of generals, with children acting as military commanders.

Indeed. To his credit, Mace Windu somewhat acknowledged this problem in Attack of the Clones, noting that there were not enough Jedi to protect the Republic, and that the Jedi were peace keepers, not soldiers.

There's also the rampant slavery, piracy, smuggling, and other threats that the Old Republic was facing, and didn't seem to be giving any real thought. The Clone Wars only exacerbated this as it made the Jedi focus more on the war effort than solving issues that needed attention, putting them on the back burner. That's not Jedi arrogance, that's them being swamped and not having enough people to solve the problem, which they didn't seem to have in peacetime. This is mostly due to Core apathy about the outer galaxy, leading to an eventual defunded Judicial Forces. So, nation with no real military, no real Galactic police, and a laughably corrupt Senate. Add those together, and you can see why Palpatine, the Hutts, and the Corporations of the Republic had a field day with the Galactic Republic.

Perhaps, but again, this seems to me more the product of a long period of deterioration, rather than a permanent state of affairs.

The Republic, even if you count just that incarnation of it, lasted 1,000 years. Compare that to the United States, which is looking more and more like the Prequel-era Republic after less than a quarter of that life span. That they managed to maintain a somewhat-functional government over a galaxy for that long is actually pretty damn impressive.

The New Republic, grabbing such an old system without modification, was doomed to failure, no matter how long the Galactic Civil War was.

See, that's not quite right. The NR is simply not a carbon-copy of the Old Republic system, nor could it possibly be. Off the top of my head:

1. No Jedi. Or, at any rate, a much weaker order (how closely tied Luke's order was to the NR government, whether it was an instrument of the state or an independent organization, is not something I'm clear on). To be fair, this isn't really a deliberate change, necessarily, so much as there not being an intact, strong Jedi Order for them to use.

2. A rotating capital. A phenomenally stupid idea from a logistical stand point, though I can definitely see the appeal in terms of creating a less hegemonic and authoritarian, more inclusive government.

3. They also demilitarized beyond the level of the Clone Wars-era Republic if the ease of the FO's victory is any indication, though this could be seen as more a return to the really old Old Republic status quo.

These are all understandable and well-meaning changes, given the need to draw a clear distinction between themselves and the Empire, and appeal to a likely war-weary galaxy, but they failed to address a fundamental problem: how do you maintain security in the absence of either a functional Jedi Order or a strong central military? The OR got away with demilitarization for as long as it did because of the Jedi. The weaker NR, still threatened by outside foes, had no comparable defenders to rely on.

Mace Windu wasn't the only Jedi to realise they were ill-suited for full-scale war - remember Qui-Gon's comment to Amidala in TPM: "I can only protect you, I can't fight a war for you."

The Jedi were very good at stopping small matters escalating to war, which meant no actual military force was needed. The NR has no such order and so needed to have at least some military force around, which in the Disney canon they apparently don't - so you have no mediators/peacekeepers and no military force to handle wars that do crop up.

To the larger question, I think we have to distinguish between whether a longer Civil War would be better for the New Republic or for the galaxy as a whole, which are two very different things. One consequence of a much more protracted civil war that I can envisage is the "Balkanisation" of the galaxy - instead of one single government and a few rebel enclaves, you have five or ten or twenty smaller nations.

This is essentially what happened in the old EU with the various Warlords - Zsinj and his territory, Teradoc's Greater Maldrood, Harrsk's Zero Command, Kaine and his Pentastar Alligment, the Eriadu Authority, the Ciutric Hegemony and so on. Now each of those wound up fighting each other and the actual Imperial Remnant forces as much as the New Republic which accounted for much of the losses suffered by the Imperial Fleet.

Now that level of devastation is a bad thing certainly - but perhaps it would connvince the peoples of the galaxy that a single, central government is not automatically the best option - consider that the last two examples they have (the Old Republic and the Empire) both collapsed into truly devastating galactic-scale conflicts. Perhaps the various sectors, oversectors, species, political blocs or corporate interests might say "you know what? fuck the Republic. We'll trade with others but we'll have our own laws."

There is an interesting example in X-Wing: Isard's Revenge that I already mentioned - the Ciutric Hegemony under Warlord Krennel. Rogue Squadron goes in undercover as part of a fancy invasion plan, and Corran Horn spends some time playing cards and drinking with some of the Hegemony pilots, who he remarks are perfectly nice guys despite being under orders from Krennel - they're serving to protect their homeworlds. After Krennel gets killed (by a capital-grade concussion missile to the face no less), it's stated that the Hegemony is joining the NR as a bloc of worlds. What if they decided to stay independent? They were stated to be self-sufficient.

This I think is a problem that comes up in these discussions quite a bit - there is an automatic assumption, both in-universe and out, that a central galactic government is the optimum solution. I never understood the stated motivation of the Rebel Alliance in "Restoring the Republic" - why do you want to bring back a system that allowed the Seperatists to rise to such a threat in the first place? Even before Palpatine took over as Chancellor, the Trade Federation are able to blockade an entire world and have it be legal! They only needed the Queen to sign a treaty after they'd invaded.

Out of universe it's the same. This very thread is proof of that - "would this be better for the New Republic?" rather than "for the galaxy?"

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2018-06-09 05:55pm

FaxModem1 wrote: ↑2018-06-09 08:15am For one, yes, Palpatine, in the old EU at least, wanted to be an immortal emperor over the galaxy forever, making new clone bodies and moving his spirit from host to host until the end of time. This is why he played his subordinates against each other. New EU, not confirmed, but it did prevent uprisings.

Focusing on your main question, the New Republic tried an old solution for a new problem. As you said, the Old Republic only lasted as long as it did due to the Jedi Order. And even then, the Old Republic had numerous problems, namely such open corruption that an aspiring dictator manuevered the Republic into a crisis that he could take advantage of. Not to mention quality of life issues for the humdrum citizens while the rich and the elite thrived, and the Senate giving in to Corporate interests, to the point that they override small sector interests like Naboo in open assembly and the small voices can't be heard. Recall the Senate scene in Phantom Menace, where Naboo can't even make it's complaint without being interrupted by two other Senators that weren't recognizedby the Chancellor. Even if Palpatine wasn't an evil space wizard playing all the angles, the open corruption in such a system was already being abused by other parties.

I don't know that is fair to judge the entire millennia-long history of the Old Republic on its final few decades, though. If the Republic had been that vulnerable all along, it likely would have been toppled sooner. And much of that corruption is directly due to Sith machinations.

Going by Wookiepedia, the last thousand years was the Galactic Republic. Before that was a separate government known as the Old Republic, which was destroyed by the Sith. They're still considered the same government, but there's a separation due to a period of the government being deposed for a while.

There's also the rampant slavery, piracy, smuggling, and other threats that the Old Republic was facing, and didn't seem to be giving any real thought. The Clone Wars only exacerbated this as it made the Jedi focus more on the war effort than solving issues that needed attention, putting them on the back burner. That's not Jedi arrogance, that's them being swamped and not having enough people to solve the problem, which they didn't seem to have in peacetime. This is mostly due to Core apathy about the outer galaxy, leading to an eventual defunded Judicial Forces. So, nation with no real military, no real Galactic police, and a laughably corrupt Senate. Add those together, and you can see why Palpatine, the Hutts, and the Corporations of the Republic had a field day with the Galactic Republic.

Perhaps, but again, this seems to me more the product of a long period of deterioration, rather than a permanent state of affairs.

The Republic, even if you count just that incarnation of it, lasted 1,000 years. Compare that to the United States, which is looking more and more like the Prequel-era Republic after less than a quarter of that life span. That they managed to maintain a somewhat-functional government over a galaxy for that long is actually pretty damn impressive.

Yes, it wasn't always that way, but it was a root from which the problems grew.

Wookiepedia

many Coruscanti looked with disdain on what was in reality nothing more than a gaudy impersonation. To them, these lifeforms on the galaxy's fringes appeared barbaric, with most worlds still lacking weather control or struggling with geological disturbances and food shortages. Additionally, many outlying worlds, lacking the protection of a federal military found themselves continually harassed by numerous pirates and criminal organizations, further ingraining the long-held view that those from the galaxy's outlying settlements lacked cultural refinement and basic civility.[5]

For centuries, a deep-rooted hatred and distrust would grow between the galaxy's outer fringes and the cosmopolitan Core, with those in the hinterlands gradually coming to believe themselves the victims of social and economic injustices. As a result of the perceived inability of the Judicial Forces in protecting outlying territories, who were often withheld in intervening after many far-flung worlds refused to provide the Core Worlds with profitable deals,

Coreworlds vs the boonies was a problem for the Galactic Republic since it's founding. This goes all the way back to the Mandalorian war, in which it was considered an outside problem by the Jedi and the Core until Revan and his posse fought the Mandalorians until they were crushed.

The New Republic, grabbing such an old system without modification, was doomed to failure, no matter how long the Galactic Civil War was.

See, that's not quite right. The NR is simply not a carbon-copy of the Old Republic system, nor could it possibly be. Off the top of my head:

1. No Jedi. Or, at any rate, a much weaker order (how closely tied Luke's order was to the NR government, whether it was an instrument of the state or an independent organization, is not something I'm clear on). To be fair, this isn't really a deliberate change, necessarily, so much as there not being an intact, strong Jedi Order for them to use.

2. A rotating capital. A phenomenally stupid idea from a logistical stand point, though I can definitely see the appeal in terms of creating a less hegemonic and authoritarian, more inclusive government.

3. They also demilitarized beyond the level of the Clone Wars-era Republic if the ease of the FO's victory is any indication, though this could be seen as more a return to the really old Old Republic status quo.

These are all understandable and well-meaning changes, given the need to draw a clear distinction between themselves and the Empire, and appeal to a likely war-weary galaxy, but they failed to address a fundamental problem: how do you maintain security in the absence of either a functional Jedi Order or a strong central military? The OR got away with demilitarization for as long as it did because of the Jedi. The weaker NR, still threatened by outside foes, had no comparable defenders to rely on.

I stand corrected, the New Republic not only had the problems that killed the Old Republic, but new ones as well. That's even worse. Point still stands that the Republic, whether new or old, didn't put resources into keeping their citizens safe, or improving the lives of anyone on outside key systems. Because of this, those outside the core suffered due to Core indifference.

This is like taking the Titanic, noting it does have design problems, and adding holes at the bottom so that people can swim out if needed. Sure, it's not the same exact design as the Titanic, but you didn't fix anything, only made things worse for the passengers.

FaxModem1 wrote: ↑2018-06-09 06:30pmGoing by Wookiepedia, the last thousand years was the Galactic Republic. Before that was a separate government known as the Old Republic, which was destroyed by the Sith. They're still considered the same government, but there's a separation due to a period of the government being deposed for a while.

One question about Wookiepedia: is all of this information pertaining to the new canon, or is it based on old EU stuff?

Yes, it wasn't always that way, but it was a root from which the problems grew.

Wookiepedia

many Coruscanti looked with disdain on what was in reality nothing more than a gaudy impersonation. To them, these lifeforms on the galaxy's fringes appeared barbaric, with most worlds still lacking weather control or struggling with geological disturbances and food shortages. Additionally, many outlying worlds, lacking the protection of a federal military found themselves continually harassed by numerous pirates and criminal organizations, further ingraining the long-held view that those from the galaxy's outlying settlements lacked cultural refinement and basic civility.[5]

For centuries, a deep-rooted hatred and distrust would grow between the galaxy's outer fringes and the cosmopolitan Core, with those in the hinterlands gradually coming to believe themselves the victims of social and economic injustices. As a result of the perceived inability of the Judicial Forces in protecting outlying territories, who were often withheld in intervening after many far-flung worlds refused to provide the Core Worlds with profitable deals,

Coreworlds vs the boonies was a problem for the Galactic Republic since it's founding. This goes all the way back to the Mandalorian war, in which it was considered an outside problem by the Jedi and the Core until Revan and his posse fought the Mandalorians until they were crushed.

Um... has this last bit been recanonized? Because I'm pretty sure KotOR got cut with the rest of the old EU?

I... guess anything in the Old Republic MMO would be recanonized, since its an ongoing game in the Disney era?

Leaving that issue aside (my apologies for not having kept up to date on the EU), there were certainly problems, but every society has problems, and the fact that the Republic lasted as long as it did without the problems proving fatal arguably speaks pretty well of it- certainly of its stability. Though I agree that a lot of that was likely due to the Jedi.

I stand corrected, the New Republic not only had the problems that killed the Old Republic, but new ones as well. That's even worse. Point still stands that the Republic, whether new or old, didn't put resources into keeping their citizens safe, or improving the lives of anyone on outside key systems. Because of this, those outside the core suffered due to Core indifference.

This is like taking the Titanic, noting it does have design problems, and adding holes at the bottom so that people can swim out if needed. Sure, it's not the same exact design as the Titanic, but you didn't fix anything, only made things worse for the passengers.

Agreed. The fundamental problem being: how do you maintain security in a democratic galactic state without the institution of the Jedi Order? This is the question they failed to answer. They acted as though they were the Old Republic-pre Clone Wars era, except they had external enemies and had no strong Jedi Order. There are understandable political reasons for this, but the fact remains that there was a question of existential importance that they failed to adequately answer when setting up their new government.

I'll add, again, that the Jedi Order was far from a perfect guardian- in particular, it lacked numbers (probably partly due to its unrealistic renunciation of normal and healthy human emotions, and its insistence that its recruits be small children only), and its employment of child (and slave) soldiers is despicable. That said, it did serve as an effective guardian for a long time, and could likely have fulfilled the role better, and for longer, if its flaws were addressed.

Any future for a stable non-dictatorial galactic government in Star Wars will likely depend on creating a similar organization, while hopefully addressing its flaws.

No pressure, Rey.

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2018-06-09 06:41pm

FaxModem1 wrote: ↑2018-06-09 06:30pmGoing by Wookiepedia, the last thousand years was the Galactic Republic. Before that was a separate government known as the Old Republic, which was destroyed by the Sith. They're still considered the same government, but there's a separation due to a period of the government being deposed for a while.

One question about Wookiepedia: is all of this information pertaining to the new canon, or is it based on old EU stuff?

I'm going by the Canon tab, not the Legends tab. They separate them so that you can read what used to be Canon, or is now Canon.

Yes, it wasn't always that way, but it was a root from which the problems grew.

Wookiepedia

many Coruscanti looked with disdain on what was in reality nothing more than a gaudy impersonation. To them, these lifeforms on the galaxy's fringes appeared barbaric, with most worlds still lacking weather control or struggling with geological disturbances and food shortages. Additionally, many outlying worlds, lacking the protection of a federal military found themselves continually harassed by numerous pirates and criminal organizations, further ingraining the long-held view that those from the galaxy's outlying settlements lacked cultural refinement and basic civility.[5]

For centuries, a deep-rooted hatred and distrust would grow between the galaxy's outer fringes and the cosmopolitan Core, with those in the hinterlands gradually coming to believe themselves the victims of social and economic injustices. As a result of the perceived inability of the Judicial Forces in protecting outlying territories, who were often withheld in intervening after many far-flung worlds refused to provide the Core Worlds with profitable deals,

Coreworlds vs the boonies was a problem for the Galactic Republic since it's founding. This goes all the way back to the Mandalorian war, in which it was considered an outside problem by the Jedi and the Core until Revan and his posse fought the Mandalorians until they were crushed.

Um... has this last bit been recanonized? Because I'm pretty sure KotOR got cut with the rest of the old EU?

I... guess anything in the Old Republic MMO would be recanonized, since its an ongoing game in the Disney era?

Leaving that issue aside (my apologies for not having kept up to date on the EU), there were certainly problems, but every society has problems, and the fact that the Republic lasted as long as it did without the problems proving fatal arguably speaks pretty well of it- certainly of its stability. Though I agree that a lot of that was likely due to the Jedi.

Pardon the extreme comparison, but that's rather like saying that Panem from The Hunger Games had problems, and didn't suffer any rebellions until the Mockingjay revolution 75 years later. So it was stable for the duration of its existence.

The Jedi kept the peace, but they were rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Minor problems got solved, but the major causes were never addressed. Points to the Jedi for trying, though.

I stand corrected, the New Republic not only had the problems that killed the Old Republic, but new ones as well. That's even worse. Point still stands that the Republic, whether new or old, didn't put resources into keeping their citizens safe, or improving the lives of anyone on outside key systems. Because of this, those outside the core suffered due to Core indifference.

This is like taking the Titanic, noting it does have design problems, and adding holes at the bottom so that people can swim out if needed. Sure, it's not the same exact design as the Titanic, but you didn't fix anything, only made things worse for the passengers.

Agreed. The fundamental problem being: how do you maintain security in a democratic galactic state without the institution of the Jedi Order? This is the question they failed to answer. They acted as though they were the Old Republic-pre Clone Wars era, except they had external enemies and had no strong Jedi Order. There are understandable political reasons for this, but the fact remains that there was a question of existential importance that they failed to adequately answer when setting up their new government.

This is partially why the First Order came to be. The Centrists (think Hamiltonians) wanted a stronger government, while Leia's party, the Populists(think Jeffersonian) wanted more independent and autonomous systems. The Populists won, and a huge chunk of the Centrists helped form the First Order.

FaxModem1 wrote: ↑2018-06-09 07:31pmI'm going by the Canon tab, not the Legends tab. They separate them so that you can read what used to be Canon, or is now Canon.

Okay then.

Pardon the extreme comparison, but that's rather like saying that Panem from The Hunger Games had problems, and didn't suffer any rebellions until the Mockingjay revolution 75 years later. So it was stable for the duration of its existence.

The Jedi kept the peace, but they were rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Minor problems got solved, but the major causes were never addressed. Points to the Jedi for trying, though.

These aren't extreme comparisons, so much as invalid ones- a dictatorship managing to keep the prols down by divide and conquer and police state measures for 75 years, or making minor cosmetic changes to an already-sinking ship, is fundamentally different from a society remaining mostly-stable (at least on a large scale) on a galactic scale for a thousand years, apparently without a substantial standing military force, or a unifying ideological doctrine.

The OR was far from perfect, but that is a fucking enviable record compared to pretty much any real-world human society ever.

The central problem is not that the NR copied the OR- its that it could not emulate the OR due to the circumstances it was founded under, and failed to come up with an alternative means of addressing its security issues and political instability.

This is partially why the First Order came to be. The Centrists (think Hamiltonians) wanted a stronger government, while Leia's party, the Populists(think Jeffersonian) wanted more independent and autonomous systems. The Populists won, and a huge chunk of the Centrists helped form the First Order.

That seems ass-backwards to me- there's nothing "centrist" about the First Order, unless your whole political spectrum is insanely skewed towards brutal theocratic militarism. It frankly seems like something more likely to grow out of exploiting an angry populist movement. But what do I know? I'm not an EU writer.

I suppose it could work if "Centrist" actually means "wants to maintain the Imperial status quo", while "Populist" means "wants to dismantle the Imperial-style government completely in favor of greater local rule". Is that right?

I'm honestly not sure if this is more a pro-or anti-populist message though. I guess what they're saying is "Centrists are fascists and the populists are the good guys, but if the Populists win the Centrists will just impose a dictatorship and the Populists will be too weak and divided to stop them, so none of it matters in the long-run anyway"? That's... pretty fucking cynical.

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2018-06-09 07:54pm

Pardon the extreme comparison, but that's rather like saying that Panem from The Hunger Games had problems, and didn't suffer any rebellions until the Mockingjay revolution 75 years later. So it was stable for the duration of its existence.

The Jedi kept the peace, but they were rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Minor problems got solved, but the major causes were never addressed. Points to the Jedi for trying, though.

These aren't extreme comparisons, so much as invalid ones- a dictatorship managing to keep the prols down by divide and conquer and police state measures for 75 years, or making minor cosmetic changes to an already-sinking ship, is fundamentally different from a society remaining mostly-stable (at least on a large scale) on a galactic scale for a thousand years, apparently without a substantial standing military force, or a unifying ideological doctrine.

The OR was far from perfect, but that is a fucking enviable record compared to pretty much any real-world human society ever.

The central problem is not that the NR copied the OR- its that it could not emulate the OR due to the circumstances it was founded under, and failed to come up with an alternative means of addressing its security issues and political instability.

Agreed on the NR not have the OR for why it worked. However, the OR in itself was also a failed government, with no way to handle someone exploiting the holes in their government without major reform.

This is partially why the First Order came to be. The Centrists (think Hamiltonians) wanted a stronger government, while Leia's party, the Populists(think Jeffersonian) wanted more independent and autonomous systems. The Populists won, and a huge chunk of the Centrists helped form the First Order.

That seems ass-backwards to me- there's nothing "centrist" about the First Order, unless your whole political spectrum is insanely skewed towards brutal theocratic militarism. It frankly seems like something more likely to grow out of exploiting an angry populist movement. But what do I know? I'm not an EU writer.

I suppose it could work if "Centrist" actually means "wants to maintain the Imperial status quo", while "Populist" means "wants to dismantle the Imperial-style government completely in favor of greater local rule". Is that right?

I'm honestly not sure if this is more a pro-or anti-populist message though. I guess what they're saying is "Centrists are fascists and the populists are the good guys, but if the Populists win the Centrists will just impose a dictatorship and the Populists will be too weak and divided to stop them, so none of it matters in the long-run anyway"? That's... pretty fucking cynical.

Well, according to Wookiepedia, the Centrists had a huge chunk of people who were Empire supporters, while others were people who just thought they should take what worked about the Empire, and apply it to the New Republic. Leia disagreed.

Centrist page

relevant quote wrote:"As for political philosophy, all we Centrists want is to take a fair look at what aspects of the Empire actually worked. Centralizing power, creating maximum efficiency, binding the worlds of the galaxy closer together. Can you honestly say it did no good whatsoever?"
"Whatever good came of the Empire came at too high a price."
"I agree completely. But what if we could achieve some of those same benefits without repeating Palpatine's mistakes?"
―Ransolm Casterfo and Leia Organa

And Leia's party, which seems almost Libertarian in it's desire to destroy the Republic's centralized power:

Populist page

They were divided into separate far-left and far-right branches. The far-left branch wanted to open voting on major decisions to the general public rather than only allow the Senate to vote on such decisions. Princess Leia Organa was not optimistic about their goal, thinking that it would only result in trillions of citizens refusing to agree rather than thousands of senators refusing to agree. By contrast, the far-right branch of the Populists wanted to dissolve the Senate so that each world would once again become a totally sovereign entity. The only thing that these two factions had in common was their shared opposition to the Centrists and their willingness to support Organa's candidacy for the position of First Senator.

So, Leia's party was an odd collection of anti-authority positions, from those who wanted to eliminate the New Republic completely, to those who just wanted to de-centralize everything. They desired the very Balkanization that Eternal Freedom was talking about. Leia feared tyranny, but sadly seemed to gut the NR of anything worthwhile as a government by preventing it.

Eternal_Freedom wrote: ↑2018-06-09 06:28pm Mace Windu wasn't the only Jedi to realise they were ill-suited for full-scale war - remember Qui-Gon's comment to Amidala in TPM: "I can only protect you, I can't fight a war for you."

The Jedi were very good at stopping small matters escalating to war, which meant no actual military force was needed. The NR has no such order and so needed to have at least some military force around, which in the Disney canon they apparently don't - so you have no mediators/peacekeepers and no military force to handle wars that do crop up.

Yeah.

In fact, it occurs to me that the Empire had the same problem- they never really had enough ships and troops to subjugate a rebellious galaxy by force, so rather than trying to build consensus or head off trouble covertly, they relied on terror tactics to deter rebellion, and quickly obliterate anyone who stepped out of line- otherwise known as the Tarkin Doctrine. This, however, was both a despotic approach and an inflexible one, which depended on an ultimately failed deterrent (the Death Star) and only lead to more revolt when that deterrent proved fallible.

The OR, meanwhile, used the Jedi as you said, to intervene and head off problems with diplomacy, espionage (including some pretty questionable stuff like mind-reading and mind-control), and small-scale commando operations.

The NR, presumably, would have had to try to find some sort of a middle path between these approaches, or a completely different path altogether. It failed to do so, and therefore failed.

To the larger question, I think we have to distinguish between whether a longer Civil War would be better for the New Republic or for the galaxy as a whole, which are two very different things. One consequence of a much more protracted civil war that I can envisage is the "Balkanisation" of the galaxy - instead of one single government and a few rebel enclaves, you have five or ten or twenty smaller nations.

That would be one of the alternative scenarios/risks, yes.

This is essentially what happened in the old EU with the various Warlords - Zsinj and his territory, Teradoc's Greater Maldrood, Harrsk's Zero Command, Kaine and his Pentastar Alligment, the Eriadu Authority, the Ciutric Hegemony and so on. Now each of those wound up fighting each other and the actual Imperial Remnant forces as much as the New Republic which accounted for much of the losses suffered by the Imperial Fleet.

Pretty much.

Now that level of devastation is a bad thing certainly - but perhaps it would connvince the peoples of the galaxy that a single, central government is not automatically the best option - consider that the last two examples they have (the Old Republic and the Empire) both collapsed into truly devastating galactic-scale conflicts. Perhaps the various sectors, oversectors, species, political blocs or corporate interests might say "you know what? fuck the Republic. We'll trade with others but we'll have our own laws."

Quite possibly.

Or it could lead to a swing back towards Imperialism anyway. "Remember those twenty years of peace and order under the Empire?" Of course, this ignores that the Empire ultimately collapsed into bloodshed as well, but people have a remarkable ability to overlook that point when arguing the "security vs. liberty" false dichotomy. Like how you'll see lots of people argue that we ought to back "strong dictators" like Saddam Hussein and Assad because they're supposedly the only alternative to Jihadism and chaos- which to me ignores that fact that if they were such effective rulers, they wouldn't have ended up being overthrown or fighting civil wars and needing Russia to bail them out in the first place.

Not that the Empire actually enjoyed a significantly longer period of peace than the NR did, but again, people are often stupid about these things, and far too many people mentally equate "authoritarian" with "strong/secure".

There is an interesting example in X-Wing: Isard's Revenge that I already mentioned - the Ciutric Hegemony under Warlord Krennel. Rogue Squadron goes in undercover as part of a fancy invasion plan, and Corran Horn spends some time playing cards and drinking with some of the Hegemony pilots, who he remarks are perfectly nice guys despite being under orders from Krennel - they're serving to protect their homeworlds. After Krennel gets killed (by a capital-grade concussion missile to the face no less), it's stated that the Hegemony is joining the NR as a bloc of worlds. What if they decided to stay independent? They were stated to be self-sufficient.

While I would not consider a fragmented galaxy politically or socially ideal, it is actually the approach I likely would have taken if I had written the ST, as I consider it a more plausible outcome to the ending of the Galactic Civil War, and it avoids just rehashing "Empire vs. Rebels/Republic".

This I think is a problem that comes up in these discussions quite a bit - there is an automatic assumption, both in-universe and out, that a central galactic government is the optimum solution. I never understood the stated motivation of the Rebel Alliance in "Restoring the Republic" - why do you want to bring back a system that allowed the Seperatists to rise to such a threat in the first place? Even before Palpatine took over as Chancellor, the Trade Federation are able to blockade an entire world and have it be legal! They only needed the Queen to sign a treaty after they'd invaded.

Because before all that, the galaxy enjoyed an entire millennium of no major wars and relative peace and stability? And because the OR was the legitimate government, that Palpatine took over and turned into an Empire via treason, lies, and genocide?

Out of universe it's the same. This very thread is proof of that - "would this be better for the New Republic?" rather than "for the galaxy?"

I'd argue for the above reasons that some form of galactic government is better for the galaxy, most likely. Clearly, the NR as it exists in canon was ineffective. The Empire was as well- and also hideously despotic. The OR is the best existing model, but not a feasible one to follow in the NR's situation, at least not initially. And ideally, the NR should have tried to improve on, not simply imitate, the past.

I can agree that the New Republic should have tried to improve on the previous governments, something that in either canon didn't work out terribly well - arguably much better in the Legends Canon than the Disney canon but oh well.

Still, there is that doubt in my mind. Why is one single, central government for an entire galaxy (with not just different nations, religions and races arguing but entire different species - many of whom are totally alien to each other and will have utterly different philosophies, cultures and mindsets) automatically the best approach?

As for the Old Republic being peaceful and stable for a thousand years - perhaps. But if all it does is lead to another devastating war inanother few decades, you've just pushed the problem further down the line. In the Legends canon the previous 25,000 years have been one bloody war after another, most frequently either galactic-scale civil wars or wars instigated by various sects of Force-users vying for galactic supremacy. Makes me understand Luke's point in TLJ that the Jedi should just end - the Force and it's various adherents have done a lot of good - but with only a handful of exceptions, pretty much every major galactic war has been instigated by Force-users in some fashion.

Oh, and as for Palpatine overthrowing the Republic via lies, treason and genocide? Genocide I will grant you. Treason? Arguably yes given he was playing both sides of the Clone Wars, but since it can be argued the Republic was decadent and corrupt and needed reform you could say his efforts fall into "for the greater good" or "well-intentioned extremist" categories. It's worth also remembering that all of Palpatine's powers and authority as Supreme Chancellor were voted to him in a legal fashion. His proclamation of a New Order was greeted "with thunderous applause." It's a rather good allegory for Germany in 1930-1933, before Hitler became Chancellor, when democracy was essentially being discarded in favour of rule by emergency decree since no party could gain a majority in the Reichstag. Every step Palpatine takes as Chancellor from AOTC onwards is legal. And that is the sign that the Republic was broken beyond repair.

And as an interesting aside, I challenge you to find me an example of Palpatine outright lying in ROTS. He manipulates, stretches the truth, omits details to be sure. But outright lie? I don't think he actually does.

All in all, I don't think anyone has ever actually answered the basic question - why is one central galactic government the best solution?

Eternal_Freedom wrote: ↑2018-06-09 08:37pm All in all, I don't think anyone has ever actually answered the basic question - why is one central galactic government the best solution?

So that the Hutts don't overwhelm the galaxy with their ambitious conquests, as opposed to being take over piecemeal?

Or so that there is a system strong enough to deal with pirates, slavers, smugglers, etc, and not have a power vacuum for which they can exploit?

I am not saying that complete anarchy is better, or that a million independent sovereign worlds would be a better option. I am wondering if something like NATO might not be a better fit - a number of large, independent groups of systems that have trade and mutual-defence alliances rather than one single dominant authority.

And pirates, slavers, smugglers etc were a problem for both the Republic and the Empire anyway, so that's a moot point. As for the Hutts, possibly, but again, mutual-defence treaties are a thing in real life. This is like saying "But if we don't have a single world government North Korea or ISIS will overrun us piecemeal."

Eternal_Freedom wrote: ↑2018-06-09 08:48pm I am not saying that complete anarchy is better, or that a million independent sovereign worlds would be a better option. I am wondering if something like NATO might not be a better fit - a number of large, independent groups of systems that have trade and mutual-defence alliances rather than one single dominant authority.

And pirates, slavers, smugglers etc were a problem for both the Republic and the Empire anyway, so that's a moot point. As for the Hutts, possibly, but again, mutual-defence treaties are a thing in real life. This is like saying "But if we don't have a single world government North Korea or ISIS will overrun us piecemeal."

The Western world never fought a total war with North Korea. Humanity fought one with the Hutts for dominance of the galaxy. If such an opportunity struck itself, the Hutts would try again.

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2018-06-09 06:51pm I'll add, again, that the Jedi Order was far from a perfect guardian- in particular, it lacked numbers (probably partly due to its unrealistic renunciation of normal and healthy human emotions, and its insistence that its recruits be small children only), and its employment of child (and slave) soldiers is despicable. That said, it did serve as an effective guardian for a long time, and could likely have fulfilled the role better, and for longer, if its flaws were addressed.

Any future for a stable non-dictatorial galactic government in Star Wars will likely depend on creating a similar organization, while hopefully addressing its flaws.

No pressure, Rey.

Worth noting that the ten thousand space monks were only the later interpretation of the Jedi. At least in the EU courtesy of old stuff like tales of the Jedi we know they were once a much more diverse and inclusive organization. Even in the novelizations of the movies this is mentioned, with there being billions of Jedi on record, indicating far more than a thousand generations of ten thousand each.

They had declined in numbers significantly by the movies.


As to the Disney canon New Republic, remember that the Hutts are gone as a power due to opposition from the New Republic, so they were clearly doing something right offscreen.

FaxModem1 wrote: ↑2018-06-10 12:21am

Eternal_Freedom wrote: ↑2018-06-09 08:48pm I am not saying that complete anarchy is better, or that a million independent sovereign worlds would be a better option. I am wondering if something like NATO might not be a better fit - a number of large, independent groups of systems that have trade and mutual-defence alliances rather than one single dominant authority.

And pirates, slavers, smugglers etc were a problem for both the Republic and the Empire anyway, so that's a moot point. As for the Hutts, possibly, but again, mutual-defence treaties are a thing in real life. This is like saying "But if we don't have a single world government North Korea or ISIS will overrun us piecemeal."

The Western world never fought a total war with North Korea. Humanity fought one with the Hutts for dominance of the galaxy. If such an opportunity struck itself, the Hutts would try again.

I will concede that since I don't know much of the deep backstory for the Hutts. But by the time the OT/ST comes along, the Hutts do not seem to be a significant factor - the only time they're mentioned is in connection with Jabba, and that's more as a "he's a big crime boss" not "his species is just waiting to overrun the galaxy."

Eternal_Freedom wrote: ↑2018-06-09 08:48pm I am not saying that complete anarchy is better, or that a million independent sovereign worlds would be a better option. I am wondering if something like NATO might not be a better fit - a number of large, independent groups of systems that have trade and mutual-defence alliances rather than one single dominant authority.

And pirates, slavers, smugglers etc were a problem for both the Republic and the Empire anyway, so that's a moot point. As for the Hutts, possibly, but again, mutual-defence treaties are a thing in real life. This is like saying "But if we don't have a single world government North Korea or ISIS will overrun us piecemeal."

I realized that I never answered the first question. Mutual Defense alliances can be broken easier than being part of a government, or at least should be, making such alliances less reliable if an ally thinks they have better chances of survival writing you off than if they thought you were part of the group.

For example, the Free Republic of Mississippi might seek to make an offer of peace with a Russia attacking Alaska or California than if they were all part of the same government. It makes one less reason to not have aid in case of attack. Of course, this does depend on the Galactic Republic having outside enemies that are worth worrying about, such as the Ssi-Ruuk in the old Canon.

Eternal_Freedom wrote: ↑2018-06-10 08:14am

FaxModem1 wrote: ↑2018-06-10 12:21am

Eternal_Freedom wrote: ↑2018-06-09 08:48pm I am not saying that complete anarchy is better, or that a million independent sovereign worlds would be a better option. I am wondering if something like NATO might not be a better fit - a number of large, independent groups of systems that have trade and mutual-defence alliances rather than one single dominant authority.

And pirates, slavers, smugglers etc were a problem for both the Republic and the Empire anyway, so that's a moot point. As for the Hutts, possibly, but again, mutual-defence treaties are a thing in real life. This is like saying "But if we don't have a single world government North Korea or ISIS will overrun us piecemeal."

The Western world never fought a total war with North Korea. Humanity fought one with the Hutts for dominance of the galaxy. If such an opportunity struck itself, the Hutts would try again.

I will concede that since I don't know much of the deep backstory for the Hutts. But by the time the OT/ST comes along, the Hutts do not seem to be a significant factor - the only time they're mentioned is in connection with Jabba, and that's more as a "he's a big crime boss" not "his species is just waiting to overrun the galaxy."

I'm letting old Canon influence me here, as Darksaber showed that there were a few Hutts with expansion on the agenda. New Canon? Who knows?

Fair point, but I am still unconvinced that the single, central government is a better fit. If they had an external threat then possibly, but as you say there aren't any in the new canon, just lots of subfactions fighting over control of the central government.

Eternal_Freedom wrote: ↑2018-06-16 03:08pm Fair point, but I am still unconvinced that the single, central government is a better fit. If they had an external threat then possibly, but as you say there aren't any in the new canon, just lots of subfactions fighting over control of the central government.

Well, there is whatever enemy the Chiss were worried about that they sent Thrawn as a spy to make the Empire stable enough to fight. But known enemies? Who knows? But then the New Canon is very sparse on details outside the known galaxy.

And for an out-of-universe viewpoint, I think the ST would have been a lot more interesting with five or ten large independent states. One of them can even be Leia's New Republic, the First Order might be another of the factions composed of Empire-fanatics, apologists, general racists etc, and the others, well, could have been anything. Gives you a lot more options, explains why the First Order have the ships they do, why the New Republic can be crippled after losing one system (that isn't Coruscant) and then overrun...you wouldn't actually need to change all that much in the ST canon.

Technically, that's the Galactic Empire, they still hold the core, and are a separate entity from the First Order.

Where is the source on that? They sure as shit haven't shown up in either TFA to TLJ as best I can recall.

Eternal_Freedom wrote: ↑2018-06-16 07:21pm Where is the source on that? They sure as shit haven't shown up in either TFA to TLJ as best I can recall.

They're (unhappily) sitting in the Core, doing their own thing: source