That’s still the case about as much as it was and it’s bizarre to me to insist that it isn’t.
I think three things factor in here:
- We’re all grown-ups now and tremendously more aware socially and politically than people typically were in the '80s, and when were kids, whether it was the '80s, '90s, or '00s, we were inevitably less aware of the implications of stuff.
EDIT - If you see younger readers on reddit book threads and stuff you can STILL see right now that kids today, like us, are far less politically aware, esp. in their teens and twenties, when it comes to writing.
A lot of SF writers have drifted to the right, sometimes the hard right, as they’ve got older. Most don’t, most are fairly consistent, but there’s a fraction who do, and it’s notable.
There has been a conscious, aggressive, open effort by right-wing SF fans to harass left-wing SF authors and to try and push SF back to the right - and it was more right-wing in the 1970s and 1980s, you can see that and illustrate that very, very easily. And this wasn’t a response to an attack on them or anything, it was a response to the fact that right-wing SF was gradually becoming increasingly marginalized because just very few SF readers or writers were “into that”, and society in general had moved on.
As an example, I would point out that I enjoy Peter F Hamilton’s books, even though they are basically deeply dyed-in-in-the-wool small-c conservative, somewhat sexist, and certainly promote a lot of very right-wing ideas and ways of running society as successful and effective and perhaps desirable. His books tend to have rather positive portrayals of wealthy, aristocratic characters and societies, billionaires/trillionaires who are every bit as brave and forward-thinking as they think themselves, and even the down-to-earth characters tend to be small-c conservatives, with conservative little lives and conservative little problems. But he loves almost all his characters, even the badguys, and he has left-wing utopian societies in the mix too, so he’s very possible to read despite having to endure “Tales of the Mega-Rich” and just profoundly not caring about most of their pampered asses, and so on. Like Masamune Shirow he also has a fetish for hyper-violent fascist “police” who murder the shit out of people, and generally act in a very oppressive and frankly terrifying manner, but at the same time, he doesn’t present them as perfect or entirely admirable (just as “awesome”, which is still a bit dubious but…).
But I have more difficulty enjoying say, some of Pournelle and Niven’s work, which tends to assume that the future of humanity isn’t anything better than what we have, or wildly different, but either just a sort of 1970s (distinctly hetero) sex-party kind of libertarianism, or much more commonly, ARISTOCRATS IN SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE, to be very specific, 1800s aristocrats in space. They also tend to rather mindlessly portray utopians as stupid/lazy, and anyone who isn’t aligned with the military and doesn’t regard violence as the ultimate and best solution to everything as some kind of fool. But even they wrote so experimentally at times that you can see the odd book which doesn’t match up to this.
What would you mean by “anti-militarist”, just the generic belief that war is bad? Shared by the vast majority of humanity?
I mean I immediately think of Scalzi, who is definitely left-learning (practically leading the charge against the Puppies and so on), and socially liberal, but at the same time is so small-c conservative in some regards that it’s kind of creepy, and is super-pro-military in a very serious way.
Or Haldeman, who adopts the classic “the military are just doing what they’re told” posture, and has the political leadership as bad, but not the military. Again certainly for his era he is a leftist, and he’s interesting because he seems to see a future he doesn’t fit into, but without hating it or truly fearing it.