The President of Free Space, Part 1

August 29, 2008

I’m not a gambling lady, but if I had to pick right now, I’d say the Democrats just lost the election. Now, don’t get me wrong -- I’m a registered Democrat, which I’m assuming is OK for you to know even though (especially?) because I’m a reporter and have had it drilled into my head by the hard-core teachers at the Medill School of Journalism (a sort of Hogwarts for reporters-in-training) who implored their protégés to live an objective, detached life, particularly in the political arena, for professional integrity.

Thirty years have passed since I set foot in the door and I’ve decided it’s OK to shed the cloak for a higher calling. I’ll tell you straight up what happened: While my son plowed through Tess of the d’Urbervilles for his high school IB English Class, I entered the world of Ayn Rand with my first reading of Atlas Shrugged.

If you haven’t read the book, it’s not going to help you much to read the Cliffs Notes , or Wiki report. Like sex, or watching rockets launch , you just have to experience it. I’d be happy to give you a book report on it another time, but suffice it to say it’s a POWERFUL portrayal of what happens when rationality and scientific processes break down.

Now back to the story of the day -- John McCain’s selection of 44-year-old Sarah Palin of Alaska to be his running mate.

First off, if the Republicans want to absolutely STOMP the Democrats, they would cancel the upcoming convention in Minnesota, or at least scale it way back and donate the money to any one of a billion worthwhile causes. That will show they have a heart, which is mostly what folks hold against the party. The Democrats, on the other hand, have always won my vote, though the candidates sometimes seem to lack a brain, because they positively ooze with compassion, empathy and those highly valued Judeo-Christian attributes of caring for those who can’t care for themselves. Besides, what’s the convention going to accomplish that hasn’t already happened?

Rational thought, the foundation of science, the reason why there are rovers scratching the sand on Mars today, has been largely absent from the American political scene, and perhaps the American way of life for a long time now. Institutions created to solve specific problems, became incarnated (think FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society) and never went away. That’s what NASA is fighting now. Its leaders know the agency needs to dematerialize, shed its expensive and deadly shuttle program, and return to its core roots of space exploration. (You can read here what administrator Michael Griffin and others have to say on this subject.) Will they be successful? Who knows.

McCain’s selection of Palin brought the Republicans to the Democrats’ dinner table. She diversifies the ticket; she’s easy on the eye; she’s even a former reporter. What’s not to like? The only team that would have been more attractive would have been if Barack Obama had picked her.

So now that the beauty and ethnic portions of the presidential contest are over, let’s move on to a discussion of substance: Free Space will explore in the coming two months the single issue of space exploration as a window into how the candidates view the world. It's not about what they say or what they promise, but about their processes (or lack thereof) and whether they are rational, i.e. scientific, or based on emotions.

You could take any topic -- education, business, foreign policy -- and do the same, but I happen to know a lot about space and I happen to believe it’s cool and important. Plus, for you (us) nationalists, it's just about the only major enterprise where America still reigns supreme.

We talk a lot about freedom in this country, criticize its absence abroad, but do we really practice it? As a Democrat who has taken a sharp turn to the right, I’m often as confused as anyone about the road ahead. We often cannot pick our path, but we can choose our travel partners. I pick my old J-school buddies, Morality and Integrity, and invite you to journey with us on a scientific quest to illuminate the meaning of free space. I'd prefer to not do this in a vacuum (pardon the pun) so please use your hands or whatever tools you use to communicate these days, and be generous with feedback.

Comments

[Tavi Greiner]

Ayn Rand was a brilliant woman!

Very much looking forward to your upcoming "exploration" of the candidates "processes".

[Saber]

A very well written letter and thanks for the tip on the book. I'll be sure to pick it up.

[Lori Cuthbert]

Ah, I think the exact opposite: the Repubs have gone and handed Obama the election with the choice of a neophyte, conservative fossil-fuel-earth-mother. but I'm looking forward to your analysis, esp. since it's fueled by reading Ayn Rand!

[Dave Mosher]

I'll echo the above: looking forward to the next two months of Free Space. Let's do this thing!
As for Atlas Shrugged: I'll reshuffle it to the top of my book queue. I still have to get through the Fountain Head (on page 455) super-quick so I can get to Atlas Shrugged :)

[Susan Kohl]

Looking forward to more. I think you've picked an excellent topic for observation and discussion.

[EPLogos]

Why would a community that so obviously and publicly values rationality and the scientific method also support government programs (such as those enshrined by the New Deal and Great Society programs that you cite) that have clearly been so deleterious to the body politic? Atlas Shrugged is only one tome, and a fictional one at that, that decries a government run amok in its misguided attempts justify and perpetuate itself by imposing preverse economic and other incentives on the people it supposedly serves. Does this sound familiar? How about both of our "major" political parties? The only modern political party that is in any way true to the Rand ideal is the Libertarian Party, and it seems sad to me that even the most capable and rational communities in our midst have failed miserably to understand and embrace their principles. Thanks for a provocative article.

[Jennifer Ouellette]

I'm a registered independent, have been since I turned 18. I base my election decisions on a rational assessment of who I think is the best candidate for that particular office, at that particular time -- which means I vote for both GOP and Democratic candidates as I see fit. And so I must respectfully disagree with Irene's analysis of the choice of Palin -- and also of her description of herself making a sudden turn to the right. Irene -- no way, no how are you right-wing. :)

No self-respecting conservative could be happy with McCain's VP pick, unless one is a member of the religious right. It's utterly irresponsible given his age and past bout with cancer, to choose someone of such limited experience just to win an election. Heck, even some of her Alaskan colleagues are dismayed at the prospect. Any woman who decides to vote for McCain based on the fact he chose a pretty, amiable woman as VP is voting with her genitalia, not her brain. I'm sure he's counting on that.

The selection of Palin is just further proof that Lincoln's party has not only lost its soul -- it has now lost its mind. That the GOP cares more about winning elections than actually governing the country with any responsibility. That it now routinely trades short-term thinking and "stop gap" quick fixes that merely compound problems in the long run. McCain used to be a better man than this. It's downright tragic to see him pandering so shamelessly, deploying Rove-ian campaign tactics, and being anything BUT the McCain of old.

I'm not betting on this election outcome at all. I've said all along it's gonna be close, and I'm just too "conservative" to place a bet on what could very likely be 50/50 odds. :) But historically, a VP choice doesn't have nearly the impact people think it does on an election outcome. It becomes important AFTER the election. Remember that, when you go to cast your vote.

Oh, and sorry, but I just don't get the Ayn Rand fetish. Never have, although I swear I tried. Read the book, was utterly underwhelmed. I do think America's two-party system is a hopelessly outdated institution... I'm all for shaking things up in Washington. But revolutions come with a very high price tag.

[Irene]

More confessions:

So thanks for the comments and I'm assuming my sisters and brothers have fallen silent in shock. In the emails of outrage I received from friends wondering what's happened to me was a common assumption that I SUPPORT McCain's choice and the prospect of a McCain presidency. In truth, I haven't decided who will get my vote, but as I said, my heart always lies with the Democrats.

The reason why I think the Dems will lose the election is because I don't have much faith in Americans anymore. I think as a whole we've become lazy thinkers and short-cut seekers who feel most comfortably dressed in cloaks of entitlement. (Did you know that it's common practice these days to declare federal disaster areas even BEFORE the hurricanes strike so the stream of money can start flowing early? There's something just not right about that. We don't even KNOW where the dang thing is going to hit! Why don't we spend the money building better drainage systems in the hurricane off-season?)

I'm sorry to say this, but I think McCain's choice of a running mate gives people who might have felt guilty NOT voting for Obama (yes, for factors of race -- we're desperately still trying to right a terrible wrong) an alternative and still feel good about themselves because they've voted for something other than another white guy.

So that's why I've decided to embark on a little political science venture, to strip out the emotive aspects that seem to underpin our society, cast an objective light on this one subject I happen to know about -- space -- and square it off with the candidates' philosophies, to the best I'm able to deduce.

Finally, perhaps I misuse the term "conservative." What is appealing about looking at society, economics, politics through the prism popularized by Rand is how it illuminates personal and professional accountability, a concept that doesn't seem to be warmly embraced by Americans anymore, much less our governing bodies and many of our corporations.

[Adam G.]

I read "Atlas Shrugged" while living in Brazil a few years ago. In such an intensely centralist and collectivist society the book rang powerfully true to me. In retrospect I realize that Rand really went over the top in her fiction writing, but she got her point across. She pulled me away from both right and left. Oddly enough, given all that, I am now an independent who plans to vote for Obama and can't figure out how McCain chose the running mate he did.

[Matt]

If there's one thing I believe politics could use, it's reasoned analysis fueled by logic, not emotion.

I look forward to your ongoing discussion into both candidate's stances on space exploration. I appreciate your disclaimer at the beginning revealing past, present and (potentially) future political biases. I challenge you to retain that level of rational objectivity throughout.

(And I also don't know a thing about space exploration, so I look forward to the education.)

Cheers.

[Scott Garfinkle]

What, exactly are "those highly valued Judeo-Christian attributes of caring for those who can’t care for themselves"? I'm very curious. (Actually, a good definition of "Judeo-Christian" would be interesting, too.) Would these attributes be closer to the traditional Jewish version of giving as a basic requirement from having received the money from G-d in the first place, closer to the Calvinist/"Victorian" version of self-sufficiency, or to the version of giving out of pity? Something else? It also makes me wonder whether your juxtaposition of the philosophically disparate Rand and Hardy is also meant to be juxtaposed with the traditional Jewish (at least) version of charity, which would have appealed to neither, I think.

[David Kennedy]

I enjoy the frankness of these articles. Too often, people are unwilling to stick there neck out and give their thoughts for fear of how they may be perceived. I also am a born and bread democrat, but agree the pary has offered little in the way of viable leadership (except they are definitely emotional, i.e. Howard Dean). Although, I will support the fact that they finally have a viable candidate, i think the country will win no matter who becomes the next leader. I so look forward to your upcoming articles conveying the candidates in a 'spacial' contenx.

[jrandomamerican]

I don't understand your advice that the Republicans should donate more money to worthwhile causes to improve their image. Conservatives have long donated more money to charity than liberals have, and that has not kept them from being slandered as being heartless and greedy while the liberals are lauded as kindhearted and generous.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/22/it-turns-out-conservatives-really-are-compassionate/

I suspect it is the fact that the ones in the media who decide whom to laud and whom to slander are generally fellow liberals pretending to be unbiased has much more to do with that than reality or rationality. Why would donating even yet more money to worthwhile causes suddenly work to improve that image for the Republicans in the next few months when it hasn't worked for conservatives in decades? Perhaps they should take a lesson from the liberals and instead of actually being generous by donating to charities they should improve their perceived generosity by just spending all day talking about how kind and generous they all are to anyone who will listen.

I admit, that I'm assuming you mean charities in general when you write "worthwhile causes." If you mean NPR, MoveOn.org, and the ACLU then yes suprise, suprise... Republicans are probably busy wasting their money on greedy things like disaster relief organizations instead.

Yes, I realize that conservative does not necessarily mean Republican, but my point is that if conservatives give more money to charities yet are precieved by the general population (and aparently yourself) as being less charitable because it's not in their culture to spend a lot of effort boasting about how much more caring they are than everyone else then why would it work for the Republican Party.

[Tom Billings]

I will be interested in discussions about future Space Policy. Glad you have the intent! A few things we might want to consider as a basis:

1.) Spaceflight today is predominantly a political act, because politicians made it that. In the early 1960s, when I tried to investigate what small groups or companies could do to build rocket engines and sub-orbital vehicles, it was made clear to me that government at all levels would be the biggest roadblock, by reason of permit denial to all who were not government contractors. Since 1983 this has gotten incrementally better, but government actions are *still* the highest portion of risk for space investors.

2.) The political basis of extensive governmental human spaceflight was lessened to 1/5th of its 1962 proportions by 1972, and shows signs of withering further, as NASA's numbers fail to add up on the Ares programs. Apollo will never happen again, because the conditions of global propaganda warfare that produced it will never appear again, at least not in any form that focuses on civilian spaceflight.

That leaves the threatened commercial "New Space" networks of small companies as the best hope for *growth* in human spaceflight, even though they are tiny today, compared to the ruins of the NASA edifice built between 1958 and 1972. Whether DC will help there, without smothering their corporate cultures in the political hierarchy's distracting desires, remains to be seen.

3.) Robotic spaceflight, while highly productive of the data that many space science people assume is the only proper thing to bring home from Space, simply does *not* address, today, the average space backer's desire to *go*there*. Thus, it cannot get sustained (over decades of effort) backing for more extensive space activity on its own. Since the budget for science missions includes large fractions for the scientists that direct operations and analyze the data, they have only so much interest in lowering costs to orbit. The 20 percent of the mission budgets that go to researchers, for actual scientific activity with the data, will *not* shrink when the costs to orbit for their spacecraft drop 100/1. Science done by government dollars will only get so cheap, and no more.

Currently, there are hopes of putting future NASA data into Virtual Worlds, so that all can walk about the places on Mars/Moon/Titan... where the latest lander took pictures, and look around for that small discovery of : "Jeez, that's weird! What is it?" eventually overturning previous theories. *That* can cut costs, but the howls from Principal Investigators who will no longer enjoy a 1 year embargo on data, and the Dept. Chairs howling about money no longer going exclusively to their Space Science programs, will ring through the halls of Congress, slowing change.

The effects of one side or the other winning the current elections are hard to see. Both campaign organizations now have more favorable space policies than last March, when Obama had promised to turn NASA's budget into an NEA piggy bank to "save public schools", yet again. We all know how good campaign promises are, anyway.

Much will turn on the world views of those who win. Our desires, for humans spreading into Space in a far larger degree than NASA currently imagines, depend on Cheap Access To Space. *None* of the candidates have spoken to this point, and none have been asked. (Maybe someone blogging can correct this?)

While Obama's initial statements may reflect his world view more than Lori Garver's crafting of the current Democrat space plank in their platform, Joe Biden's views on the subject seem a black hole, to me. McCain's statements about Space reflect someone who is interested in governmental activity in Space. Given his military background, that *might* be good for such programs as "Operationally Responsive Spaceflight", which *might*, or might not, get us cheaper orbital transport, as well. Palin, simply has not had the exposure, yet, for us to know such "minor"(accept it, we are a *minor* concern of even the most friendly politicians) policy ideas.

If the Republicans win, then Palin's views on Space will begin to matter *much* more. The Vice President traditionally ran the "Space Council", and today runs the Office of Science and Technology Policy for the White House. We do know she is likely to have different views than an establishment pol like Biden, but we are left guessing how her life till now prepares her for this.

We know she can handle the allotment of Billion dollar budgets, because she has done that well enough to have 80+percent voter approval in Alaska. She seems willing to exploit territory not presently occupied by humans. She seems not to have the ingrained policy caution of Beltway insiders drummed into her, yet. She seems to favor private means of accomplishing social goals. While these are a good basis for building an expansion into Space as a policy for a McCain administration, they guarantee nothing. In fact, neither party has Space as a major concern, and would jettison a positive program for anything political that will make it too costly, either politically, or financially.

I should state my biases. All in all, I like her being in the race, and hope she is on the winning side. I intend to vote that way, too.

Best Regards,

Tom Billings

[sari]

Hi, all. I am one of Irene's many sisters: child#1 by birth order. The topic looks interesting, Irene, but I haven't felt qualified to comment on Rand (who I haven't read) or the space program, which is more your department.

I wanted to address the comments made by jrandomamerican (who has many opinions but choses to be nameless). For the record, I am "religious" insofar as I am an observant Jew. I don't really like the term "religious", because many self-proclaimed religious people have no spiritual ties to G-d; they go through the motions and are righteous in their righteousness. Anyway, Irene can attest that I am the Jewish equivalent of a Christian fundamentalist.

If "liberals" feel that conservatives do not practice the compassionate conservatism they preach, it is because conservatives have consistently cut social service programs to the bone while at the same time deriding the poorest and most needy as somehow deserving of their affliction. We hear sound bytes galore about welfare mothers who work the system, but cuts to vital services for the medically fragile and the most profoundly delayed, whose only crime was to be born, indicate that the issue is political and that conservatives consistently ignore the Biblical mandate to care for "the widow and the orphan." Our Commander in Chief, who took us into an unholy and immoral war, has encouraged and approved benefit reductions to members of the military, who return from multiple tours broken in body and spirit. Remember, words mean nothing. Actions count.

So, yes, conservatives give more--to one time events, like Katrina, and to organizations, usually church affiliated in some way, where they have absolute control over where the money goes and to whom. The government is meant to serve ALL Americans, not just the privileged few and not just our co-religionists, and that's how the liberals see it. If a tax increase in my bracket will help the less fortunate, I am all for it, and that's probably what makes me a liberal (and one who gives over ten percent annually to an assortment of charities, both secular and religious).

Sari

[Irene]

Note to SarA: Your comment has been removed because name-calling is counter productive to effective communication. If you have something to add, please tax yourself to be more articulate and resist the urge to write off another's opinion with an ambiguous noun. Thanks for participating.
The Author

[Thoughtfull Comments]

Tom Billings wrote:

"The government is meant to serve ALL Americans".

The 'government' serves no one. The government takes resources from citizens and distributes them to those it sees fit. Charities ask for resources and distribute them to those they see fit. Can you see the difference?

"If a tax increase in my bracket will help the less fortunate, I am all for it, and that's probably what makes me a liberal"

Indeed, I believe it does make you a liberal. What law prevents you from increasing your 'taxes' to the level you feel morally obliged to pay? Why must you coerce others to pay what you feel is your just due? Instead, get your checkbook out and write Uncle a check. The 'government' will be happy to accept it and spend it.

Coercion seems to be at the very core of 'liberalism'. They see nothing wrong with making others support their causes and cannot comprehend that the end doesn't justify the means. Now, where have I heard that phrase --- ah, yes. Goes with 'from each ...'

So, I encourage you to take control of your life ... raise your own taxes, not mine.