One of the big issues in the book is that patriotism isn't just a rhetorical trick to get naive young boys to volunteer for a meatgrinder (though of course Verhoeven and Neumeier are right, it does that too). If no one stands up for a society, then that society is vulnerable to predators. Sometimes it's foreign invasion, sometimes it's internal predators like corruption and profiteering. I think this call to have a little backbone is relevant in every era. (This position is straightforwardly argued by the mouthpiece character, Dubois.)
And another issue, a little less prominent but often-criticized, is the idea of only giving the franchise to those who earn it. Heinlein later wrote that he wasn't so much advocating this particular plan for the franchise, (e.g. forwarding an alternative: only give the franchise to mothers!), but that he felt that democracy was going in a bad direction (bread, circuses, demagoguery, and holy-war-style partisanship), and that maybe this "franchise-for-all" premise should be revisited.
Why do I think Verhoeven was spitting in Heinlein's face? I probably shouldn't try to paraphrase Heinlein, because he was a complex guy with complex political opinions, but I think he generally favored military strength (though he generally did not favor a strong central government). I'm not as familiar with the Verhoeven oeuvre, but seems to be focused against military-industrial complex (though that's more straightforwardly a Robocop thing), and his anti-war rhetoric is so un-nuanced (it's so slapstick that some people thought it was pro-war) that it's tempting to believe he's anti-all-war (contrasting with people who think the phrase "just war" is meaningful, a group I feel confident includes Heinlein). As I said earlier, I think it's a bit tasteless to try to make a franchise work into a direct attack on the original.
For some contrast: IIRC, Haldeman wrote The Forever War in part as a direct reply to Starship Troopers. Haldeman had lots of direct combat experience, too (as contrasted with Heinlein, who I think never saw combat), which partially informed his views on books like Heinlein's. Personally, I think The Forever War is too good at raising new issues to be seen entirely as a reply to anything, but I understand that was a motivator.
My suspicion is that Verhoeven -- like Alex Troyas with I, Robot -- knew full well that their movies had very little to do with the source material and put on a game face in interviews. I've always wondered if the movie might not have done better in its initial run without the studio forcing that connection onto it. A film can't really be both a military dystopia satire and a good adaptation of Starship Troopers, any more than a brutal deconstruction of Objectivism would make a good adaptation of Atlas Shrugged.
Everyone assumes he does, but he denies it. For example, on his blog:
http://joe-haldeman.livejournal.com/51726.html?thread=31758#...
"Hey, you're writing an answer to Starship Troopers." I told him don't be silly -- of course the soldiers have powered suits, working in a vacuum, in space. What, they should fight in long underwear?
There is more there about his views on Starship Troopers, among other things.
That aspect of serious advocacy is completely absent from the movie.
Universal suffrage for free seems an obviously bad idea.
He lays out an interesting model for democracy, but it depends critically on permanent war.
It has been a long time since i read the book, but i think the author gives it a fair shake. Nothing really screams unfair representation to me.
That's not true in the fiction, and I can't understand how you would claim that it would "really work that way" or any other claim.
In the book, this model of government has existed for a long time, and there has been no war for a long time. So, Heinlein claims that it works without war. But, you know, maybe he's full of shit. (that's devil's advocacy; I'm generally a big fan of RAH.)
But on top of that, why would it depend on war? You're born without a franchise, like in modern democracy. But in modern democracy, you get your franchise simply by waiting 19 years (or some other number). In the book, you get your franchise by agreeing to do Federal Service. You apply, you choose a preferred form of service, you do aptitude testing, and you give up control over your own life for N years. When each term is up, you can either re-enlist, or retire. When you retire, you gain full citizenship! There's no requirement that Federal Service be military (Heinlein has claimed in other writing that he intended for "95%" of service to be non-military, but others have noted that this is less-than-clear in the book-as-written). But even if it was all military... Switzerland has a military, with mandatory civil service, but no war.
In that light, it seems a lot more like the Fifth American Republic (i think that's what they were called) in the Diamond Age. People would be required to show up at a certain place and time and perform some activity. For example, walk in a room, pour poison into a cup, leave the room. Five minutes later, walk back in the room, drink the liquid in the cup. Someone else has the job of emptying the poison and replacing it with water. They never get to see each other, but they build immense trust in their fellow citizens.
In any case, thanks, I thought mechanized infantry veterans who had actually seen combat were the only voters in the Starship Troopers system.
The movie, on the other hand, conceals the irony well enough that it bleeds over into the real world.
The book is a good read.
Except that the "we" that see that in the case of the book excludes many of its critics (and, notably, the creators of the movie), and that, in the case of the movie, it doesn't actually take "closer inspection" to see that, since it pretty much hits you over the head with it.