It's an interesting question. I'll do my best to answer it. I'll say right away that my answer is yes, the effort is put in to explaining why.
Should you solve a problem like the Gracchis?
I had some longer talk about Russia that I might rewrite one day, but I thought of a much, much better example.
When the United States defined its constitution, we postponed making a decision on one crucial point: slavery. We didn't answer the question, all we said was "at some point in the future, we should really get around to answering this." Only we didn't. Decades went by. Tensions rose. Economies became more and more based around the institution of slavery, societies became based around it as a function of the home. Whole populations were imported to the country. It sort of looks like we had an answer if you observed from the outside without any context, but we really didn't.
The answer that we got, where we made slavery illegal - and where we answered whether or not states took precedent over the country - cost hundreds of thousands of U.S. lives. Burnt millions of dollars of property, saw an entire region of the country devastated just trying to answer these questions. The answer was that slavery was illegal and immoral, and that the country was more important than the state.
It will seem callous and cold to say this, but slavery was a small question. It was an easy question too, you had a demonstrably better economy in the area of the country without slaves. The confederate south was fighting a war over a question with a fairly definitive answer; a working class is better to have than a slave class.
That answer cost 600,000 lives and change.
The questions we face now, from climate change to how you handle post-industrial economies, to labor automation to the extent of free trade, to the nature of the United States as a global power, those aren't questions with easy answers. Everyone thinks we need to deal with this (except climate change for....some reason), but people aren't sure how. They only know that change is necessary, but they don't want the immediate pain that comes with change. They don't want to answer the questions, because we may not like the answers.
At some point in the future we are going to get self-driving cars. We're going to get automated labor. It won't be awesome science fiction, it will be really boring, and it will be drawn out over enough time so that people don't really notice until we're all the way in to it. People are going to lose jobs, and we're going to find that all of the people who went "no jobs will always exist" were saying that based off of historical trends that applied to industrial societies and industrial innovations.
The last time we had to do this it was the Great Depression and we had maybe the best president in all of United States history for the job. FDR, agree with him or not, knew how to handle the regular people who were eating food and drinking beer. Are we going to be that lucky again? Or are we going to end up with a group of confederate leaders, who are unwilling to make any preventative changes? And if we have the latter, how many dead come out of that?
The Gracchi brothers were putting in reforms that likely wouldn't have kept someone like Caesar out of power. That may be what all democracies eventually become, dictatorships by choice when a hyper-competent, charismatic leader comes along. The problem we need to solve isn't the preservation of Democracy, it's the problem how whether or not a coming power shift, if it has to happen, is going to cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, or a handful.
Getting back to your Star Wars analogy, it's less "look at the Rebels blowing up the Death Star" and more "how do we keep people from violently seizing power and killing thousands if not more."
That's why we should solve it. Not because its high minded, but because if we aren't prepared for these power shifts, the end result is a bloody, awful war.