RogueLeader said:

I also like Politics of War. You know exactly what you’re getting into with that title.

It blows my mind how you’re able to go through and look at these episodes with such a fresh perspective.

So, Padmé and the other senators winning or losing this the political battle doesn’t get brought again in the series? Any references could easily be cut, but was just curious about that. I think it is great that Padmé gets a big victory on the political stage. Her slowly watching democracy die throughout the prequels is a bit depressing, so it is nice to show her succeeding for a change. I also like the implication you mentioned that Padmé in a way is making Anakin’s job more difficult by voting against the creation of more troops. This episode will definitely be some nice food for thought.

Thanks Rogue - it’s always nice to hear that you’re getting value out of the analysis.

I don’t think it gets brought up again in the series. (And if it was, it’d be an easy fix as you say.) A lot of the macroplot of many episodes is really just a bit of flavour to set up the microplot which is the character drama. On the galactic scale, none of this stuff really matters (which is one of the reasons I have the opportunity to weave a bit of a new narrative out of it in my opening text).

In the case of this trilogy of episodes, I’m sure development went like this:

First, during the season two production block, the team wanted to make a Padmé-centric politics episode set on Coruscant. Attempting to “make politics interesting”, they made it about a murder which was personally significant to Padmé which she would have to investigate, bookended by some scenes which showed Padmé’s competency as an orator on the senate floor, and showing some of the political adversity she faces.
In that episode, Senate Murders, the speeches in the senate are not important to the plot - first she gets support for a clone loan bill (to great applause), then she loses support for the clone loan bill (to great applause). Since these don’t tie in much to the episode at all, I think they’re more to show the ebb and flow of politics, you win some/you lose some, etc. But the speeches aren’t the focus of the episode - it’s still a victory in this context because she solves Onaconda’s murder.
Later, during the season three production block, the team wanted to make a Padmé-centric politics episode set on Coruscant. Why? I think, really, because they didn’t really do a politics episode with the last one there (it was more of a murder investigation against the political backdrop), or at least they felt like they hadn’t done the idea justice yet. There was also the opportunity to bring more shades of grey and corruption into the story, and the opportunity to show Ahsoka (but not Anakin) that it’s not as simple as black and white - always an important part of Ahsoka’s character.
It being season three, they were deep in the mindset of creating prequels to existing episodes, so opted to make a prequel duology to Senate Murders. Since Senate Murders went from (political) success to failiure, its prequel needed to end in success - and besides, there was a good plot there where Padmé could really work for that success, better showing her strength.
So we get the duology Heroes on Both Sides (whose supporting plot is Ahsoka learning of the shades of grey) and Pursuit of Peace (whose supporting plot is the opportunistic evil within the Republic working with the Separatists to intimidate the voting senators), which ends in Padmé’s success.
The reason it’s all a bit wonky is because the success gained in the prequel duology doesn’t quite align with the success that Senate Murders begins with. They’re ostensibly about the same thing, but when smushed together as a trilogy the point where they connect has (essentially) one heartfelt hard-won powerful winning speech, followed by a casual easy win which is quickly undone for less well explored reasons. And Pursuit of Peace establishes that that was the vote, but then in Senate Murders they undo it? With another vote? It’s unclear - mainly because that wasn’t the original intent of those scenes. So it doesn’t really work as a trilogy, even though it’s been set up this way.
And so, whilst it’s now “officially” three episodes next to each other in chronological order, if you did want to preserve all three you’d actually be best served by spacing them out a bit instead with a bit of extra exposition, so that Senate Murders wasn’t an awkward connection then an immediate reversal of the success. But, in our case, Senate Murders is pretty weak, so it’s best used as spare parts to enhance the other two.

You’re right that the slow erosion of democracy is a bit of a sadness, and Padmé deserves a good victory, and ultimately of course it’s perfectly fine to show that she’s just one of very many politicians and she’s surrounded by a stagnating and corrupt system which was just begging to collapse.

To be honest, adding rich politics to Star Wars in the prequels and Clone Wars is one of Lucas’ ideas which I think was a huge net gain. He added some really complex but important stuff, which he made more accessible, and so much of it is so relevant today:

That stability can be an illusion masking corruption and stagnancy
That artificial wars (or threats) can be used to encourage a voting population to live in fear and vote against their own interests
That war is politically complex - and many can benefit from it
That often, neither opposing side thinks of themselves as the bad guy
That corruption will always emerge because all it requires is to put personal interests above those nominally served
That money is a particularly corrupting force
That even the corrupt often consider themselves benevolent
That corruption produces opportunities to yield power to autocrats
That we are never too many steps away from autocracy
That it is the responsibility of all citizens to expose corruption and remain vigilant
That the law is not infallible, especially when it serves to protect those in power rather than the vulnerable
That sometimes, rebellion/resistance is the appropriate way to do good (OT politics)

And this is all great stuff! Importantly, it’s not too complex for kids. I have a five year old and NOTHING is too complex for her - it just needs explaining in the right way. (I guess that’s why there’s a subreddit called ‘Explain Like I’m Five’.) You can absolutely teach kids this stuff - and present it in a way which makes it accessible and interesting. And it’s fantastic that the Star Wars franchise really dives into it because we do need to give our kids an education in politics which starts early - because, as above, it’s the responsibility of all citizens to remain vigilant against corruption and autocracy. Sure, we don’t need to go too deep into the detail - the Clone Wars goes too far when it talks about 25% interest rates and schools being adequately funded - but the core principles are super and the broad ‘gist’ of this era of Star Wars covers a lot of this stuff really well.

Man, I’m suprised that I’ve written so much over the last two big posts about this particular episode. I guess since I’ve been away for a while I’ve got a big boil of Star Wars analysis which needs lancing.