I do agree Rachel that from what we see the Quorum must sign off on Lee's presidency in SQN. But I don't think that changes the fact that Lee is as dismissive of it in getting to that point as Laura has been. They both react against what they see as the Qurorum's propensity to start from their own emotions. Laura complains that they are perpetually needy and Lee that they are breathing in fear and exhaling anger. I also think that there is some pay off for both sides of the Quurom versus Lee and Laura. The Quorum do let themselves be manipulated by Zarek because they are not good at thinking things through. But both Laura and Lee are wrong in relation to them too and their combined failings in relation to the Quorom contribute to the tragedy of the Quorum: Laura knows what is required and won't do it and Lee doesn't see that if he turns Jacob he can keep them onside.
On Baltar again I think the story is giving each of them something and saying each of them is wrong. Laura's feelings about Baltar are influencing her judgement and the story calls her on her desire for vengeance. But the last Lee-Baltar exchange has Lee reverse his position from EV: Baltar presses his button about the right thing about rights and Lee responds that no the fact you are Gaius Baltar cancels that out which is exactly Laura's argument in EV.
I think the other lens of interpretation here is the show's overall examination of democracy under the conditions of war. I think the story is pretty sceptical about democracy - the way it ultimately endorses the argument for stealing the election and legitimises Adama and Roslin's post New Caprica coup seems to me the strongest argument for that - whilst clearly showing the price that is paid for diluting and indeed abandoning democracy. In the same way the story critiques idealism and what happens when it leads to disappointment in Felix. I think that if Lee is then shoehorned into being the great defender of democracy that puts him into an awkward position in relation to that theme. I do think that in part Lee's idealism is being critiqued: he accepts smart over right when he tells Laura he'll try to be wronger and in that last exchange with Baltar, and Zak spells out that there is a certain cynicism under his idealistic rhetoric. But Lee is also clearly not Felix because he adapts to circumstances and doesn't get stuck in simplifying explanations that deny complexity or his own psycho-drama. I see Lee as the idealist who learns about the world and it being a bigger place than his own preoccupations, who in part does that because he is less idealist than he seems, and Felix as the idealist who is broken by it because he has no psychological resources beyond it and so is blinded by it and can't adjust to its failure and that inability blinds him again and is his tragedy.
I'm actually not so sure the show ultimately endorses Roslin's undemocratic actions and points of view; I must admit that I usually do not do so, as a viewer, and I think that the themes of the overall series are ambiguous enough to leave the debate open and to let viewers take sides and/or pick a middle road between Roslin or Lee's positions in these arguments, while of course recognizing the flaws and consequences of both.
I wouldn't say that the overall storyline is trying to say that Lee and Roslin ultimately arrive at the same realpolitik point of view about how individual rights and democracy are expendable. I think that's quite a lot to hang on that last Lee-Baltar scene, in which Baltar is basically asking Lee to reorganize the way the new ship-by-ship Quorum is elected so that his personal non-ship-based constituency can be taken into account, which Lee has neither the legal nor the moral obligation to do, IMO. Baltar is not asking for a right, he's asking for a favor, namely for Lee to extralegally give him a Quorum seat and/or to totally overhaul the brand new election system because even though he and his cult are a minority on their ship (Galactica), Baltar has many off-ship supporters and so can claim to speak for a larger constituency than the new system accounts for.
Lee has no obligation to do any of this, and he is perfectly happy to tell Baltar not to expect any favors from him and to reiterate that he still regards Baltar as pond scum with no ounce of integrity. Lee has always regarded Baltar that way, but he has defended his legal rights anyway, and I think he was largely correct to do so, and I don't think he violates any of Baltar's legal rights in Daybreak. No individual citizen has a right to demand that elections be organized in the way that will give them the most votes, and many democratic systems today have the "you must live in your district" requirement that I see as equivalent to "your representative must live on your ship" system set up here. I don't see Lee making the same argument in Daybreak that Laura made in EV, and if Baltar *had* actually won an election and Lee then refused to seat him on the Quorum because he thought Baltar lacked integrity, I would be disappointed in Lee for that decision. I just don't think that's what was going on here, though. I think the point of the scene was to force Baltar to confront his own dissatisfaction with himself and to push him to decide to pull away from these people whose views he privately scorned even while claiming to represent them and instead take his own honest stand in defending the hybrid child. That's just my take on it, of course, although I suspect we will be thinking all this through more thoroughly soon! :)
Sorry if I'm being tiresome in delving into so much detail -- I think my larger point is just to say that for myself, I've never seen Lee as an idealist who has to learn the ways of the real world, and I think the series gives him a genuinely different perspective than Roslin in order to foster debate over these questions rather than in order to establish an overall theme of smart over right. I agree that Lee is never defined by a simple "right over smart" opposition to Roslin; both are willing to consider compromising democracy in times of need and danger, and also in moments of ambition, but I think Lee generally approaches such compromises more cautiously than Roslin does and I think he argues for salvaging a lot more of the democratic system than she does. I understand and respect those who endorse Roslin's approach to governance, but I remain in disagreement with many of Roslin's "smart, wrong" decisions (and some of Lee's).
But, as ever, I will have to think more about these ideas as we go along, and I'm very glad you are so lovely about pointing out the many challenges and ambiguities that are waiting to be explored in this story!
On Baltar again I think the story is giving each of them something and saying each of them is wrong. Laura's feelings about Baltar are influencing her judgement and the story calls her on her desire for vengeance. But the last Lee-Baltar exchange has Lee reverse his position from EV: Baltar presses his button about the right thing about rights and Lee responds that no the fact you are Gaius Baltar cancels that out which is exactly Laura's argument in EV.
I think the other lens of interpretation here is the show's overall examination of democracy under the conditions of war. I think the story is pretty sceptical about democracy - the way it ultimately endorses the argument for stealing the election and legitimises Adama and Roslin's post New Caprica coup seems to me the strongest argument for that - whilst clearly showing the price that is paid for diluting and indeed abandoning democracy. In the same way the story critiques idealism and what happens when it leads to disappointment in Felix. I think that if Lee is then shoehorned into being the great defender of democracy that puts him into an awkward position in relation to that theme. I do think that in part Lee's idealism is being critiqued: he accepts smart over right when he tells Laura he'll try to be wronger and in that last exchange with Baltar, and Zak spells out that there is a certain cynicism under his idealistic rhetoric. But Lee is also clearly not Felix because he adapts to circumstances and doesn't get stuck in simplifying explanations that deny complexity or his own psycho-drama. I see Lee as the idealist who learns about the world and it being a bigger place than his own preoccupations, who in part does that because he is less idealist than he seems, and Felix as the idealist who is broken by it because he has no psychological resources beyond it and so is blinded by it and can't adjust to its failure and that inability blinds him again and is his tragedy.
Reply
I wouldn't say that the overall storyline is trying to say that Lee and Roslin ultimately arrive at the same realpolitik point of view about how individual rights and democracy are expendable. I think that's quite a lot to hang on that last Lee-Baltar scene, in which Baltar is basically asking Lee to reorganize the way the new ship-by-ship Quorum is elected so that his personal non-ship-based constituency can be taken into account, which Lee has neither the legal nor the moral obligation to do, IMO. Baltar is not asking for a right, he's asking for a favor, namely for Lee to extralegally give him a Quorum seat and/or to totally overhaul the brand new election system because even though he and his cult are a minority on their ship (Galactica), Baltar has many off-ship supporters and so can claim to speak for a larger constituency than the new system accounts for.
Lee has no obligation to do any of this, and he is perfectly happy to tell Baltar not to expect any favors from him and to reiterate that he still regards Baltar as pond scum with no ounce of integrity. Lee has always regarded Baltar that way, but he has defended his legal rights anyway, and I think he was largely correct to do so, and I don't think he violates any of Baltar's legal rights in Daybreak. No individual citizen has a right to demand that elections be organized in the way that will give them the most votes, and many democratic systems today have the "you must live in your district" requirement that I see as equivalent to "your representative must live on your ship" system set up here. I don't see Lee making the same argument in Daybreak that Laura made in EV, and if Baltar *had* actually won an election and Lee then refused to seat him on the Quorum because he thought Baltar lacked integrity, I would be disappointed in Lee for that decision. I just don't think that's what was going on here, though. I think the point of the scene was to force Baltar to confront his own dissatisfaction with himself and to push him to decide to pull away from these people whose views he privately scorned even while claiming to represent them and instead take his own honest stand in defending the hybrid child. That's just my take on it, of course, although I suspect we will be thinking all this through more thoroughly soon! :)
Sorry if I'm being tiresome in delving into so much detail -- I think my larger point is just to say that for myself, I've never seen Lee as an idealist who has to learn the ways of the real world, and I think the series gives him a genuinely different perspective than Roslin in order to foster debate over these questions rather than in order to establish an overall theme of smart over right. I agree that Lee is never defined by a simple "right over smart" opposition to Roslin; both are willing to consider compromising democracy in times of need and danger, and also in moments of ambition, but I think Lee generally approaches such compromises more cautiously than Roslin does and I think he argues for salvaging a lot more of the democratic system than she does. I understand and respect those who endorse Roslin's approach to governance, but I remain in disagreement with many of Roslin's "smart, wrong" decisions (and some of Lee's).
But, as ever, I will have to think more about these ideas as we go along, and I'm very glad you are so lovely about pointing out the many challenges and ambiguities that are waiting to be explored in this story!
Reply
Leave a comment