Altruism, Liberalism, Etc.

Recently I've gotten into some very interesting and sometimes intense discussions with folks whose political opinions differ from mine, including the indomitable Dr. OZMG. Unlike some of my conservative brethren, I will at least entertain the notions that a) I'm not always right and b) there might be good ideas to be had from the opposition. Call the entry for this evening an exercise in intellectual curiosity, not political conversion.

Over two years ago, I sat down before this machine and hacked out my vision for a positive future. It is primarily space-based, as is my wont, but its emphasis was on increasing individual freedom and capitalism in an effort to make the necessities and luxuries of life more available and affordable to all. You can click on the link for the details.

The point, however, was to look at the other side's vision of Utopia. What follows is contradictory, but is based on inputs and comments from OZMG, D2, Doc, and others.

One might start with basic premises, like "What is the purpose of a good society?" or "How does one define a good society?" The primary words that I hear described as priorities are justice, compassion, individual freedom, dignity, equality, and peace.

Given the contexts, I believe these words are meant to convey the following:

• Justice: Individuals receive what they deserve (pay, respect, legal rights) based on fundamental individual rights.
• Compassion: This is a favorite of OZMG, and I totally get it (though we seldom practice it on ourselves). Ideally, individuals should have some feeling for the suffering of others and, based on that empathy, take constructive action to alleviate that suffering.
• Individual Freedom: This overlaps with a word I use, but while I focus more on economic and political freedom, the liberal definition tends to focus more on freedom of social expression and lifestyle choices (e.g. homosexuality).
• Dignity: This is a particular favorite of one friend of mine. She generally means by this the dignity the individual seeks or deserves through productive work or self-determination.
• Equality: While conservatives tend to emphasize equality of opportunity, liberals emphasize equality of results, both economic and social. The desire here is for less dramatic economic differences between rich and poor, more social equality afforded to (again) homosexuals, minorities, or other groups perceived to not have power under the current structure.
• Peace: This is relatively straightforward--absence of violence or conflict. Again, I dig it, and I can relate. We all could use a lot more of it, especially our troops overseas. Peace under a liberal definition also usually implies domestic tranquility: lack of domestic violence against individuals or social groups and (one might hope) peaceful resolution of political conflicts.

Admittedly, these definitions are filtered by a conservative, but I used to be a LOT more liberal, so let's just assume for now that my definitions are correct, and that these are the guideposts that people who disagree with me wish to use to order society. The next question becomes, in my mind, how do you implement these ideas in the real world of our current political structure?

Using my reductive definition, "justice" means that everyone gets what they deserve. If I understand my liberal friends correctly, a truly just social or economic system would ensure that the same groups of people (minorities) do not always end up poor, but eventually reach a point where they enjoy a standard of living equal to others who have been rich...or at least richer. The current methods generally applied to achieve justice and equality are income redistribution in the form of taxes on the rich and direct welfare or transfer payments to the poor. Another angle being tried is judicial activism, where judges who more strongly support economic equality are promoted to the bench to ensure the outcomes liberals want to see happen.

On the subject of compassion, I too would like nothing better than to see the weak lifted up and the strong to show mercy. And as a social phenomenon, there are things you can do to encourage compassionate acts. Shame, shunning, and social taboos are excellent weapons against bad behavior, bullying, discrimination, etc., and have met with some success. There are some challenges with acting strictly from a sense of compassion, one of them being a willingness on the part of some individuals to take advantage of the compassion of others. Also, there are times when compassion requires what others call tough love. "Yes, I care about your suffering, and I am willing to help the symptoms of it; but you, too, must do your part to change the behaviors that led to the bad circumstances in your life." The liberal resolutions to this, I believe, focus on therapeutic means and government (federal, state, local) efforts to alleviate the social circumstances (poverty, broken home, discrimination) that cause an individual's life to turn out badly.

Individual freedom, again, is something that I have no objection to in principle. There are many social taboos that have loosened considerably in the culture over the past 40-50 years, such as condemnation of abortion, cohabitation, promiscuity, illegitimacy, and homosexuality. Let's say, for the purposes of this essay, that these are unavoidable trends and that punishment by shame, shunning, or taboo are counterproductive. The argument from the left seems to be that these issues of lifestyle or personal choice should not, in fact, be socially punished but celebrated. Okay, great. But when any or all of the behaviors result in declines in standard of living or personal happiness, what is to be done to mitigate those outcomes?

The argument for dignity, again, is an economic one: individuals should not be "left on the street," as a friend so baldly put it, when they are deprived of work or health insurance. They should have the right to a decent job capable of supporting themselves and/or their families. If businesses can't or won't automatically provide jobs (a topic for another day, I assure you), then it would seem that government becomes the employer of last resort. This assumes, of course, that the government has something for the unemployed person to do that is in within their skill base. And, conversely, if the person is not interested in the dignity of work, the government (or someone) must determine what level of support is appropriate to keep the unemployed healthy and whole to avoid the indignity of poverty.

The establishment of peace, internationally and nationally, seems an obvious activity for any government. Ideally, the government establishes the conditions that reduce tensions between nations and individuals. At home this would include much that has been mentioned above, such as increasing economic justice and reducing discrimination. Internationally, this means reducing the number of reasons other nations might dislike us and increasing the number of reasons to like us. This is a very American approach to things, and I happen to practice it in my own personal life. However, I am also painfully aware that there are some individuals (or nations) who, no matter what the well-meaning person does, will never be satisfied. Indeed, these same individuals/nations are so keen on pursuing their own interests, they will deliberately take advantage of the well-meaning person/nation's desire to do well to further their own. I am still awaiting to see a resolution to this problem, especially when the self-interested person or self-declared enemy takes blatant hostile action.

What I've posed here are my best takes on the positions of those I disagree with politically. I'm trying to think like them and see the positive sides of their opinions, but I do have questions, and they're embedded throughout. Comments welcome.

Potpourri CV

This has been in my inbox for awhile. Veronique Koken and her partner Howard Chipman, a doctor with his own Czech L-39 jet fighter, have opened an astronaut training center called Aurora Aerospace in the Tampa Bay (Oldsmar) area. The training, a la carte or all together, is not cheap ($8,000 for the whole thing), but sounds like quite an adventure. The full package includes, per the brochure:

• L-39 flight
• Zero-G flight
• Spacecraft/L-39 simulator
• "MAD" machine
• High altitude hypoxia training
• Ground school
• Flight suit, leather jacket, L-39 model, t-shirt, cap, and more

This is a two-day experience that operates out of a local airport in Oldsmar, and it includes a medical screening to ensure that your body can handle all this stuff. I was just flipping through the brochure and noted that the L-39 has ejection seats if needed. Well, jump in as you see fit. I've already made my choice: Earth is my home. For those of you so inclined, I'll add the link to my permanent rotation.

*

Yesterday's Lunar Crater Reconnaissance and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) was a little disappointing from a visual point of view. To be blunt, I saw nothing--no flash, no plume of stuff thrown into the air--nada. I admit to having a little fun with this. I posted Marvin the Martian as my user image on Facebook and asked, "Where's the kaboom? There's supposed to be a moon-shattering kaboom!" Part of that was to express my shared disappointment that the NASA simulation graphics were more dramatic than the actual event; part of it was to poke fun at the people I griped about on Thursday who thought the mission was going to somehow damage the Moon. Now, of course, the mission is being pummeled in the press. If there weren't any fireworks, the press assumed, the mission was a failure. The truth is, until they sort through the data, we won't know what they've got. But the only real reason that LCROSS matters is, if we find water ice on the Moon, we can build long-term bases and permanent settlements there. NASA can't say that because the administration isn't talking about it. However, in my off-duty hours as a National Space Society person, I think that's exactly what they should be talking about. If you agree, join NSS today, and start the campaign to get that started. I want my hotel (not home) with a view of the Earth!

Oh yeah: our president--the guy who was elected nine months ago--has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Let's consider what some previous winners have done:

• Mediated between countries at war (Theodore Roosevelt, Ralph Bunche)
• Ministered to the needs of the poor and suffering (Mother Teresa, UNICEF, the International Committee of the Red Cross)
• Negotiated a peace treaty (Menachem Begin, Anwar Sadat, Henry Kissinger)
• Fought for the rights of prisoners (Amnesty International)
• Fought for freedom of conscience (Andrei Sakharov)
• Fought for equality under the law (Martin Luther King, Jr.)
• Designed a plan to help rebuild countries destroyed by war (George C. Marshall)

President Obama has done none of these things. Now I commend Obama and his speech writers for acknowledging that he's done nothing (yet?) to earn the award, but jeez, if you know you've done nothing, why accept it? So what has Obama done? The Nobel organization notes on its web site that the nomination process ends in February. I leave it to the reader to review WhiteHouse.gov to look for themselves:

• Presidential actions and proclamations
• Speeches given
• Weekly addresses given
• Nominations and appointments made
• Statments and releases made
• Press briefings given

I still think someone in the international community is setting this guy up. He's very sensitive to public and press opinion, here and abroad. If he's turned down for the Olympics, it affects his attitude toward the press, as does his surprise award for the Nobel Peace Prize. I believe he's also very susceptible to flattery. Why would the Nobel Foundation give such a prize to someone who, 12 days into his presidency, had yet to make any substantial contribution to world peace? As Obama saw it,

I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build -- a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action -- a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

Again, I appreciate his humility and candor. But you've got to wonder, don't you, why you're being given an (arguably) important award before you've done anything? Could it be a message that "We're awarding you up front so you do things in a way that will make us happy in the future"? Is this some sort of message that "We want you to remain a man of peace, and by a man of peace, we mean undoing everything George W. Bush has done"? (Sure, give Iraq back to the Baathists and Afghanistan back to the Taliban--that'll make everyone happy and safe!)

I'm very much a merit-minded person. If I've earned something specific, I take that as a matter of course. If I'm rewarded for extra effort, I'm appreciative. If I'm awarded for doing little to nothing (as I see it), I feel uneasy and try to deflect attention elsewhere. But no, our president is going to accept the award as an incentive to go forth and do things. Interesting take on things, but a little disingenuous. And if someone gave me a big prize without me having done anything, I'd wonder what game was afoot. I'm probably overly suspicious that way, but really...

*

I got this item from Lin: the Democrats are looking at a "second stimulus," as the economy shows little sign of improving (unemployment now at 9.8 percent--is it still Bush's fault?).

There are two approaches to governing in the U.S. One side tries to do what it can for the individual citizens to make it on their own with as little government charity as possible. The other side says that government needs to make sure that the goods of society are distributed as equally as possible, usually through taxation and wealth transfers. Conservatives overlook the fact that everyone isn't equipped to do things on their own; liberals overlook the fact that if you make people dependent on someone else, they'll never learn to do things for themselves. The conservative approach to governance empowers more individuals, but results in inequality of outcomes among those individuals due to differences in ability, willingness to work, and starting position. The liberal approach empowers government by giving the political class the power and (assumed) right to decide who gets what--ostensibly to raise up the poor, but more often to punish the rich.

It's been 30 years since the nation went through one of these exercises. Perhaps it will take another "Carter presidency" to hammer the lesson home. Alas, we must await the next swing of the pendulum.

*

Got this from my company yesterday: an FBI press release on a Jordanian who was looking to bomb a building in Dallas, Texas. This wasn't an old release from just after 9/11, but a fresh one, from September of this year. Our peace-loving president would do well to remember that he's supposed to maintain peace and security in his own back yard, not just in the court of world opinion. Safe bet: if he takes actions that protect Americans--you know, the folks who voted for him--he'll be regarded as an outlaw and a cowboy, just like Bush. That might do him some good and earn him a second term. As it stands right now, I don't see that happening.

That's about it for now.

Book Review: Liberty and Tyranny

Mark Levin is a very smart guy with a popular radio talk show, and he has written a very smart book about conservatism, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. Levin (his radio nicknames include "The Great One" and "F. Lee Levin," which was given to him by Rush Limbaugh, owing to his status as a lawyer and former Chief of Staff to the U.S. Attorney General. I have one gripe with Mr. Levin: his voice. He spends a great deal of his time on the radio yelling in a high-pitched, nasal tone that reminds me of some overzealous geek after one too many cocktails. And that's a pity, because like I said, Levin is a very smart guy, but his hysterics and histrionics often get in the way of an audience's enjoyment and understanding of the points he's trying to make. That's the bad news, if you decide to pick up his radio show as a regular habit (5-8 p.m. on WVNN 92.5 FM here in Huntsville). The good news is that none of that agitation is evident in this book.

What Levin has done in the space of 256 pages--more or less, I read the Kindle edition; more on that in a moment--is provide a primer the historical origins of contemporary conservatism and apply those principles to contemporary governance, covering issues ranging from national defense to environmentalism and immigration. And unlike a talk show, where the host can make assertions out of the blue and treat them as facts, Levin really is citing facts. About one fourth of the book is footnotes, citing his sources so you know he's not making things up. Nitpickers like me appreciate such things.

Levin's primary purpose is to provide his conservative fan base--and even non-conservative Americans with a direct contrast between liberal and conservative approaches to governing the country. To hammer his point home (which will no doubt irritate liberal readers), he dispenses with the word "liberal" early in the book, preferring instead to use the term "Statist." He isn't much nicer to neo-conservatives in the Republican Party, whom he refers to as "neo-Statists." And what, exactly, is a Statist? I will refer to the New Oxford American Dictionary, which is resident on the Kindle 2 (one of many advantages of an e-book):

statism, n. a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.

In any case, Levin provides concise, non-hysterical examples of "Statist" approaches to governance, quotes American Founding Fathers on the issue at hand, and then adds his own explanation of the contemporary effects of liberal policies. It is an effective approach.

Another advantage of the Kindle is that you can highlight, underline, or "mark up" passages without feeling like you're screwing up your chances of reselling the item at the university bookstore. The machine also has a menu function that allows you to go back and reread all the passages you underlined or highlighted. So, for grins, here are the items that caught my attention in Levin's book:

Reason and science can explain the existence of matter, but they cannot explain why there is matter. They can explain the existence of the universe, but they cannot explain why there is a universe. They can explain the existence of nature and the law of physics, but they cannot explain why there is nature and the law of physics. They can explain the existence of life, but they cannot explain why there is life. They can explain the existence of consciousness, but they cannot explain why there is consciousness.
Science is a critical aspect of human existence, but it cannot address the spiritual nature of man. In this respect, science is a dead end around which the Atheist refuses to reason.

***

The Conservative may ask the following questions: If words [in the U.S. Constitution] and their meaning can be manipulated or ignored to advance the Statist's political and policy preferences, what then binds allegiance to the Statist's words [in judiciary precedents]?

***

Liberty and property go hand in hand. By dominating one the Statist dominates both, for if the individual cannot keep or dispose of the value he creates by his own intellectual and/or physical labor, he exists to serve the state.

***

If homeless people lack a place to live, it is not because of God's will or nature. it is because the rules of property are invoked and enforced to evict them, if necessary by force. (Quotation by Former Harvard University law professor Cass Sunstein and President Obama's pick to run the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs)

***

Of course the best way to stimulate the economy would be for the federal government to slash capital gains taxes, corporate income taxes, and individual income tax rates, thereby increasing liquidity available to individuals and businesses to make decisions about their own economic circumstances.

***

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. (Quotation from F. A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom)

***

When the individual or even a large business makes a wrong decision, its impact is limited and more easily absorbed by the free market. However, when the Statist makes a wrong decision, its impact is far-reaching, for he uses the power of government to impose his decision on as many individuals and businesses as possible, which distorts the free market itself.

***

The waiting times for surgeries [in the United Kingdom] is a systemic disaster. Patients wait between one and two years to receive hip and knee replacement surgeries. Across specialties, one in seven patients waits more than a year for treatment. Children must travel to the United States to receive certain cancer treatments that are unavailable under Britain's health system.

***

A few well-placed political appointees and their bureaucratic support staff ration health-care resources and decide who gets treatment and who does not and, ultimately, who lives and who dies.

***

But the technology most despised by the Enviro-Statist is the automobile because it provides the individual with a tangible means to exercise his independence through mobility.

***

No society can withstand the unconditional mass migration of aliens from every corner of the earth. The preservation of the nation's territorial sovereignty, and the culture, language, mores, traditions, and customs that make possible a harmonious community of citizens, dictat that citizenship be granted only by the consent of the governed--not by the unilateral actions or demands of the alien--and then only to aliens who will throw off their allegiance to their former nation and society and pledge their allegiance to America.

***

Moreover, rather than Americanize aliens and use public and private institutions to inculcate them with the virtues of American culture, language, mores, history, traditions, and customs, the Statist is cultivating a cultural relativism in which the cultures from which the aliens fled are given equal accord with the American culture.

***

And most important, how can the alien comprehend the nation's founding principles and pledge allegiance to them if he cannot be sure of their intended meaning?

***

[T]he moral imperative of all public policy must be the preservation and improvement of American society. Similarly, the object of American foreign policy must be no different.

***

[F]oreign and domestic policy were supposed to serve the same end: the security of the people in their person and property.

***

Certainly America cannot export democracy everywhere simultaneously. For one thing, it is impractical. There are cultures and regimes that are not receptive to such overtures. Furthermore, the loss of American lives and the enormous financial costs in chasing such unrealistic ends would threaten the preservation and improvement of American society. It would demoralize the population and desensitize it to real threats that endanger the society.

***

The key is that these decisions must never be motivated by utopianism or imperialism but by actual circumstances requiring the defense of America against real threats.

***

The Conservative believes that unalienable rights attach to all human beings, but it is not necessarily the responsibility of the United States to enforce those rights.

***

The benchmark, again, is whether any specific path will serve the nation's best interests.

***

Terrorists, the earliest of whom were pirates, have never been considered equivalent to regular armed forces by any president up to now.

***

Republican administrations...more or less remain on the glide path set by Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. The latest and most stunning example is the trillions of dollars in various bailout schemes that President George W. Bush oversaw in the last months of his administration. When asked about it, he made this remarkable statement: "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system."

***

Reject all treaties, entanglements, institutions, and enterprises that have as their purpose the supplantation of America's best interests, including its physical, cultural, economic, and military sovereignty, to an amorphous "global" interest.

***

The book's epilogue is a call to action for conservatives to get educated on what conservatism is, how to apply it in their daily lives, and get involved in the political process before the statist approach Levin decries becomes the law of the land.

If you've never heard Levin on the radio, read this book first. It'll give you a better appreciation of the man's intellect. If you have heard him and he annoys you, you'll find this book surprisingly free from hype and hoopla. If you've heard him on the radio and enjoy his antics, you might be in for a surprise: this is a calm, hysteria-free approach to conservatism that will probably have you looking for a copy of the Federalist Papers after you're done with it. That, in itself, is worth the read.

Looking for Answers

Okay, I will take off my sarcasm hat for a moment and ask some serious questions of my liberal readers--all two of them.

• What will (or should) President Obama (or liberals currently in power--assume this addition for all) do to improve the economy and the unemployment problem?
• What will President Obama do to ensure positive outcomes in Iraq in Afghanistan?
• What will President Obama do to address America's concerns about illegal immigration?
• What will President Obama do to protect America from Islamofascist terrorists?
• What will President Obama do to ensure America's energy independence?
• What will President Obama do to improve American students' participation and achievement in science, technology, engineering, and math?
• What will President Obama do about America's space program?

Now here's the catch to answering (you didn't think it was going to be that easy, did you?): Your answers can NOT include any rips on George W. Bush or the United States in general. I am interested here in positive policy suggestions only. Anyone who decides to include a zing will either have their response edited or deleted. I'm offering you folks the floor: think positively. I want to understand the liberal "ideal state." This is called "opening dialogue."

The Mess That Was George Bush

Someone griped about the "lack of outrage" at how Bush, et al., have screwed up the country and our position in the world. My response is below.

I've been complaining about Bush for awhile now, and about the bailout since September/October because it was the wrong approach to take. It's a massive, unnecessary intrusion of government into an economic cycle, and I don't like it any better under Obama. I also didn't like his attempt to force amnesty down my throat. Or the No Child Left Behind Act he developed with Ted Kennedy. Or the Transportation Insecurity Agency. Or the prescription drug benefit expansion under Medicare. Or the insane increases in pork-barrel spending. Sorry if I haven't screamed loud enough, but there's plenty of outrage to go around. I blog and point out things I don't like, policy-wise.

As for our standing in the world, quite a few of the world leaders who didn't like Bush were totalitarians: Kim Jong Il, Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, Yassir Arafat, and Hu Jintao, to name some of the usual suspects. I would find it profoundly disturbing if anyone in that crowd actually approved of American policies (under Bush and sometimes Clinton), which have been pro-free market, pro-democracy, and anti-terrorism. If our "standing in the world" is based on getting nation-leading tyrants and corrupt, anti-U.S. bureaucrats in the UN to like us, I'll take a lower rating.

There are allies we haven't gotten along with as well as we'd like. Britain, France, and Germany come to mind, but they all continue to provide troops for Iraq and Afghanistan, as does Australia. (As an Aussie once put it, "Australia is the only ally south of the equator that you don't pay for.") They could just as easily refuse. They're not very happy with our financial system right now, because most of them were invested in it.

We could go back to the Community Reinvestment Act, which mandated that banks give mortgages to risky borrowers as a starting point for that. Now, the banks decided repackage those mortgages (polish the turds, if you will) as some sort of credit default swaps, which was legal under the law.

So what can Obama do to fix all this? A global New Deal is a nonstarter, in my opinion, because the original New Deal didn't work the first time. Quite frankly, I think much of the rest of the world wouldn't give a flip what Obama did if he'd just let America go back to making money, with a few extra rules added to the road. Government takeovers of businesses will not, Not, NOT make things better, and will in fact extend the depressed market.

I've been told that it's unfair to pick on Obama and "the mess he's inherited" less than 100 days after his election. Fine. But I'll ask again: when is he expected to be held accountable for results? If you're in a hole, you stop digging. Obama was dealt a bad hand. That doesn't mean you double down and make things worse. That's what his policies and budget are doing.

Another thing Obama could do is ease up on all the strings attached to bailouts. Governments do not know how to run businesses, as GM, AIG, etc., demonstrate. Suppose a company wants to fly the CEO down to a convention in Las Vegas in the corporate jet to announce a new product that will greatly improve the company's fortunes in the future? Well, right now, the jets are out, Vegas convention hotels are cutting staff, and the press will frown on any signs of public funds being invested in frivolities like food and beverage, which are a standard part of getting people to attend big publicity events. Some corporations would be better off just declaring Chapter 11 bankruptcy until they can get their collective heads back together. That has to be less painful than knuckling under all the "necessary" government controls and strings that come with a bailout.

What drives me up the wall most about Bush is that most of the things that flopped were liberal (read: neocon) policies--Bush "reaching across the aisle" to work with Kennedy, et al.--and if they had been done by a Democrat, they would've been seen as great legislative achievements. So, once more this needs to be said: George W. Bush was not a conservative, except on cultural and (some) defense issues. Invading Iraq wasn't a conservative act. All the stuff I mentioned in the second paragraph was not conservative. It was big-government liberalism with a GOP/neocon sticker on it. Basic conservatism, for those who have forgotten, believes in a few basic principles and policies:

• A common civil society, deriving its principles from Judeo-Christian, Greek, Roman, and Enlightenment notions of freedom of conscience, association and religion, individual liberty, private property, and personal responsibility.
• Respect for individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
• Limited government that provides law & order and basic infrastructure, alllowing individuals to prosper.
• A strong national defense capable of protecting America's vital national interests.
• Low taxes and a limited government sized to match limited means.

Bush did not favor limited government intrusion or spending, and neither did the GOP during most of this decade. Obama is increasing both. We are paying the price for that lack of vision now.

Space Cadet Politics

Nader Elhenawy has a rather long, but worthwhile piece on The Space Review. Go on and read it, or my selective commentary won't make much sense.

*

I could not help being struck by the predominance of a libertarian-conservative outlook among those who follow these matters online. (I specify it as libertarian-conservative because our use of the word “libertarian” tends to overlook the long history of left-libertarianism.)
Why this should be the case is far from obvious.

The author would not be surprised by the prevalence of conservatism/libertarianism in space if he read a little more Robert A. Heinlein, who was a science fiction writer focusing on rockets. He also was a 1930s liberal and later '50s and '60s conservative/libertarian, but a capitalist all the way down the line.

Re: postmoderism as a conservative perspective

I found this twist on things interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. Classical liberalism, with its emphases on individual liberty and progress, is now part of today's conservative-liberatarians. Meanwhile postmodernism is very much a part of progressivism/liberalism, with its emphases on relativism, postcolonialism, feminism, and other -isms that question Western rationality, technology, and universal philosophies (e.g. Christianity, capitalism).

The "final frontier" of Democrat John F. Kennedy (and his disciple Gene Roddenberry) is now questioned as "imperialist" by postcolonial theorists in that same party. Progressives support green power and genetic activities because they are small, earthbound, and so not likely to intimidate or overpower the individual. Rocketry cannot help but be big--a sin in itself, for reasons that elude me--because of the sheer number of experts and money required to make it a going concern.

In short, space is merely an extension of our present and past ideological battles applied to a broad canvas--the ultimate blank slate. Examples can be found in the pages of science fiction. The "Future History" short stories of Robert Heinlein collected in The Past Through Tomorrow might be seen as the genesis of the conservative-libertarian viewpoint. If you want to see an example of government-centric "New Deal" or "Great Society" liberalism in space, check out Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy, starting with Red Mars. Another "grand vision" for space is the (Carl) Saganite ethos of making the universe safe for robots, while humans stay home. Still another is that of Gerard K. O'Neill, which is more or less the vision of the National Space Society. O'Neill believed in large orbital settlements/cities in space, manufactured by and sustaining a high-tech industrial civilization. It's very difficult to find a postmodern vision for near-term space exploration because most of the component ideologies that make it up are more concerned about denouncing and undoing Western capitalism/conservatism here on Earth.

One thing that I should point out is that science and technology are essentially apolitical. You can be a communist, a capitalist, a Mormon, or a Zoroastrian--if you follow the laws of nature and build things correctly, you can get people and cargo into space. As the Soviet Union proved. As did Communist China, India, and now Iran. A human future in space is, perhaps, inevitable. The form of society that the future takes is up for grabs. So we'll see how it all sorts out. The private sector might, indeed, win the battle to control the economy in low Earth orbit...at least until the government decides to regulate them out of existence.

The Gulf Between the Parties

I wanted to share an illuminating discussion with a friend of mine. Mostly to the left of center, he manages to get along with me because I don't insist on having my way in our various political discussions. He expresses himself in a jovial and logical way, and thus I can engage in conversation with him without things getting too heated. Anyhow, he said that the difference between himself, as a liberal, and most conservatives was that he had no problem with a) the government providing "free" healthcare or b) paying more taxes.

Well, my thought after the fact (and I know he reads this blog occasionally, so of course I'll be diplomatic) was, "If you want to pay more taxes, be my guest. You have an opportunity every April 15. But don't presume that I share your willingness to let the government take more of my money."

*

As near as I can tell, the difference in attitude between left and right lies in the perception of the individual and their relationship to society.

The American liberal mindset says, "The primary social entity is the state, and it is the responsibility of the state to see that right is done to the greatest number. Individuals cannot be trusted to do what is right unless required to by human authority. It falls to an enlightened few to exercise that authority."

The American conservative mindset says, "Individuals are the most important social entities; they each know best how to pursue their own ends, and they will support themselves or provide charity to others in accordance with their personal conscience. Everyone has the opportunity to be in government, but everyone is also subject to the same flawed human nature, so no one should act like they're better than anyone else."

Now imagine these two viewpoints trying to figure out how to "fix" this mortgage mess. One side believes in government pledging support for those in need in some sort of latter-day noblesse oblige; the other side emphasizes individual responsibility in a sort of Darwinian "put up or shut up" scenario. Is it any wonder Congress is at an impasse? (Though I must point out that the Democrats, with control of both houses, could pass a bailout bill today, if they really wanted to.)

*

Another political behavior that's become of great concern to me of late, not with my friends, but within the blogosphere and various social networking pages is the utter dismissiveness of one side toward the other. This dismissiveness can take many forms, the most obvious of which is snobbery: if someone isn't Ivy-League-educated, of the right social class, associating with the right groups, or on the "correct" side of certain issues, they are beneath contempt. If they're not from Blue State America or agreeing with the ideas prevalent in those places, then they're gun-toting, Bible-thumping, inbred hicks.

Sarah Palin is simply the latest Republican target because she represents all of this, as did George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Dwight D. Eisenhower before her. And why is it that Republicans are always cast by the nation's major newspapers or television news outlets as fools and idiots while the Democrat candidates are always depicted as superior, nuanced, or possessed of higher, better knowledge? Could it be that the individuals working in those news outlets share that snobbery and contempt for the people and beliefs Republicans represent? Perish the thought!

Occasionally, I hear, "Oh, but you're different, Bart. You're pretty nice, for a Republican/conservative." Good grief, is that supposed to be a compliment? I want to respond, "Well, gosh, thanks. And you're not too condescending, for a Democrat." I mean, really! What would you say?

The Romans had this problem, once upon a time. Cicero, perhaps Rome's greatest Senator and orator, was a provincial, and so was subject to mockery of this sort. And no doubt it has happened in every large society humankind has ever built. But d@mmit, this is America. We're supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to believe that "All men are created equal." Perhaps it's time we took a step back and asked ourselves whether we really believe that still and if so, what do we mean when we say it.