Starship Troopers is a science fiction novel written by Robert A. Heinlein, first published in hardcover in December 1959 and then much later made into a movie in 1997. This review is on the book since the movie, although a good special effects action movie missed the entire purpose of Heinlein’s book which was as much about political philosophy and morals as it was a Science Fiction novel. The book is a first-person narrative and is about a young soldier from the Philippines named Juan “Johnnie” Rico and his exploits in the Mobile Infantry, a futuristic military service branch equipped with powered armor and futuristic weapons. Rico’s military career progresses from a recruit out of high school (creating a moral dilemma for him with his family for joining, resolved later in the book, and which sets the stage for the real message in this book) to non-commissioned officer and finally to officer all set against the backdrop of an interstellar war between mankind and an arachnid species known as “the Bugs”. Rico and the other characters in the book discuss moral and philosophical aspects of suffrage, civic virtue, juvenile delinquency, capital punishment, and war.

Reading this book shortly after it was first published, while I was in college, I loved the story as it was a simple good guys and bad guys plot. But the hidden message of service, morals and philosophy made an impression on me that never left. It was probably a factor in my opting for OCS after I got my induction notice after graduating from Ohio University in 1965.  The boomer generation and those that followed don’t have the prospective that we did about what happened and how we got into World War II. Political correctness and multiculturalism have made it impossible to discuss any of the issues that most need discussing today. Heinlein, who was very involved politically, set the stage for the book in the 22^nd century after a major global war had decimated the planet “again” and the million of veterans who had to fight and die again (being written right after WW II) basically said we have had enough and formed a new world government based on different principles than we have now.

This book reflects the turn in Heinlein’s life from liberal to conservative after WW II when like many i.e. Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan were discouraged by the social turn to the left started by Karl Mark.  The book to some degree follows Heinlein’s life as he was a graduate of Annapolis and served on the USS Lexington and later a destroyer the USS Roper in the 1930 attaining the rank of Lieutenant (Army Captain) before leaving the service (health reasons?). The story line or plot in the book is only the carrier for the true message in the book.

I think that Heinlein saw that society’s trend to gravitate toward what we call Fascism (Germany in Heinlein’s day) or Communism (Russia the U.S.S.R back then) both back then and now again today.  As W. Cleon Skousen’s writes in his book “The 5000 year Leap” there really is no difference between the two.  Both forms have a powerful central government and the only real difference being that under Communism the state owns the means of production while under Fascism or Socialism the state controls (though rules regulations and laws) the means of production. Powerful central governments are almost all lead by egotistical leaders that end up starting wars of conquest which the military than has to fight and die for.

Contrary to popular belief the American military does not want to go to war General Jack D. Ripper in the Stanley Kubrick 1964 movie Dr. Strangelove does not exist; hence Heinlein’s proposition in “Starship Troopers” that full citizenship could only be had by those that had served in the military.  The logic being that only they understood the reality of war.  Heinlein states through his Characters the principles that he sees important to creating a governmental system that would not be oppressive or war like.  Johnnie Rico relates, mostly though flash backs, these beliefs such as from his History and Moral Philosophy (subjects I have spent that last several years studying) teacher Jean Dubois and later Major Reid while Rico is in OCS (Officers Candidates School) the following ideas.

The collapse of 20th century society was because “their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of ‘rights’ … and lost track of their ‘duties’. No nation, so constituted, can endure. In response, the “reborn” society of the 22^nd Century of Rico had previously reformed itself so that only veterans could wield political power, reasoning that, “Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of his personal advantage.”

One other salient point is a statement that Rico makes when questioned by Dubois who asks him, “What difference exists between a soldier and a civilian?”  Rico’s answer is, “The difference lies in the field of civic virtue. A soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. A civilian does not.” The first thing that an American military officer does today in accepting his commission is to take an oath to defend the Constitution which is the very core of our society.  Unlike most other societies that swear allegiance to the ruler of their country.

There is much more in Heinlein’s book and it was used in the military academies to show that service and duty were the important keys to the officer core. Whether this book is still used or not I don’t know but in my recent studies of the ancient Greeks the city state of Sparta comes close to what Heinlein wrote about with his Moral Philosophy.  I would be very surprised if Heinlein did not read Plato and Aristotle before writing this book and uses that knowledge as the base along with his service within the backdrop of WW II to form the ideas in his book.

We should also keep in mind that the founders of the United States did not believe in universal suffrage and back then those that created our form of government understood that a Constitutional Republic could not exist for long if everyone could vote. It was universally believed then that universal suffrage would in short order lead to a moral decay of the citizens and an eventual creation of a Tyrant as their ruler. This process is described in much detail when one studies political philosophy and it appears to me to be the track we are now on once more!