I agree with what SparkySywer said above.
I get what George is trying to say about attachment, but it bugs me that he considers emotional connection to your own mother, or simply the act of falling in love with someone, as something problematic. Anakin falling for Padme is portrayed as a dangerous thing, like it’s a “sin,” but Anakin’s behavior towards Padme doesn’t become overtly possessive until RotS. It’s hard to gauge what Lucas considers to be crossing the line from “good” love to “bad/possessive” love. And we don’t really see much of the Jedi showing that compassionate love to people. And maybe that was intentional, but I don’t think it was.
As for politics, yeah, I get what George was trying to say, but the historical parallels he makes don’t really work. The politics in the prequels line up more with modern American politics, or rather George’s personal view of American politics. George is a great creative mind and a great worldbuilder, but he’s not a great political analyst.
I actually think it’s way more possessive in AotC then afterward lol
That’s where all the “creepy” lines come from. “You are in my very soul, tormenting me,” and all that.
The politics make a lot of sense for the story, it’s just that their execution is a little baffling and inconsistent. They’re supposed to be Roman, it’s a Republic turning into an Empire with a Julius Caesar figure in Palpatine/Anakin. (It gets muddled with Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War as well.) It’s meant to be Shakespearean in the Julius Caesar or Macbeth or Hamlet sense, which is where all the over the top dialogue comes in (“So this is how liberty dies.”)
But in concept it makes perfect sense that that’s what you would do if you’re doing a story about a Republic becoming an Empire.