He put a few attempts at a moral or drama into the PT, but they fell flat -- as did his attempts to explain them in the media. "You see, Anakin's problem is he holds onto what he really wants, he can't let go, so he becomes evil." That's the kind of broad moralistic statement that withstands superficial scrutiny, but in the context of the film -- if you look at what Anakin was holding onto (the life of his wife) and why he was doing it (presumably love for her and his child) -- it doesn't hold water. (In fact, I don't think the statement withstands even superficial scrutiny. There's nothing inherently wrong with desiring things.)
Same thing with his grand statements about "how a democracy becomes a dictatorship." A ninja-magician cons a frog-donkey-man into giving a speech in the worst-constituted parliament ever seen on film, gets himself elected chancellor ("Chancellor! Me!"), connives to secretly raise two separate warring armies, and utilizes another ninja-magician to wipe out the last of his opposition. Again, there are some superficial similarities between this and other autocratic governments -- dictators tend to wipe out their opposition and take control of the armed forces -- but the memoirs of the Caesars this is not.
I suppose fluff is okay, if that's your thing, but these hare-brained attempts to imbue it with gravitas just make Lucas look foolish.