This week, I had an article published in The Space Review, about liberals, and space activism.
I reproduced it below. Join me over the fold.
In last week's Space Review, in an article titled "Space cadet" Politics, Mr. Nader Elhefnawy offered up an examination of how and where space activists are most likely to fall in terms of political leaning, and how those of various political leanings are more likely to view space policy. Mr. Elhefnawy stated that one of his reasons for writing the article was to try and answer the question of why more progressive/liberals are not excited by and supportive of space exploration.
This is not the first time in recent history that an article at the Space Review addressed the issue of liberalism and space advocacy. A few weeks before, in a review of the 1972 movie Silent Running, Dwayne Day had a short discussion about the lack of liberal pro-space activism. And both articles implied that the liberal/progressive community is either neutral (or even pessimistic) when considering whether advancing technology is beneficial or harmful for humanity.
However, both articles lacked something when discussing these conclusions – evidence. I will admit that Mr. Elhefnawy’s article did cite a recent study about public attitudes concerning the issue of nanotechnology. This really provides us with only a single data point to the issue of technology as a whole, and is only tangentially related to the issue of support for spaceflight, and space development. By and large, the evidence they mentioned is dated – citing Kurt Vonnegut’s pronouncements from the 1960s about spaceflight can hardly be considered as recent data.
The traditional refrain of liberal opposition is based on a combination of hippie mythos, and certain members of the Democratic Party – people like senators William Proxmire and Walter Mondale. Both were either critical of NASA, or moved money away from NASA. However, hippie culture is generally viewed as reaching its zenith in the late 60s and early 70s, and both Proxmire and Mondale have not been active in politics for many years (indeed, William Proxmire died in 2005).
It is time to reconsider the myth of liberal opposition to spaceflight, space exploration and space development. And the best place to start is with the de-facto head of the Democratic Party – President Barack Obama
Enter the President
Depending on whom you ask, President Barack Obama is either a die-hard liberal, or a center-left moderate. During the 2007-2008 campaign and election, Senator Obama’s position on space underwent a major change. His first pronouncement about space came in an education document, where he proposed funding part of his education plan by delaying Constellation. It next came up when he released a 2 page policy paper on space. This paper seemed to provide only lukewarm support and limited development in the area of space policy. Ironically, it focused more on NASA’s support for STEM education, rather than on human spaceflight. From then on, there were the occasional pronouncements about space and NASA, but there was a fear that then candidate Obama was potentially hostile when it came to the issue of space development, particularly over the issue of human spaceflight. However, this began to change after the end of the Democratic primary. Indeed, the week that final decisions were made about delegate counting was also the week of the 2009 International Space Development Conference, and a forum on space policy by representatives from the various presidential candidates. Then, for most of the summer, candidate Obama was silent on space policy. All of this changed on August 2, 2008, when he made a major announcement in Titusville Florida. This was followed up by a 6 page policy paper, outlaying positions on a variety of space issues – from the often cited "spaceflight gap", to interagency cooperation, and international rules of the road for conduct in space. This was further on display throughout the remainder of the campaign, at events such as the Mars Society’s candidate forum.
Some attributed this change in policy to Obama merely being opportunistic, and wanting to win Florida. But if this was just a blatant attempt to get votes, a question presents itself – Why would Obama propose such a developed policy? Why consider such space specific questions that are unlikely to resonate with anyone outside the truly committed space activist community? Why not simply endorse some variation of Constellation, and leave it at that? One thing worth noting is that Obama does interact with and listen to the activist Democratic base – how much he acts upon their comments is open for debate, but he does interact with them. And, if reports from Bill O’Riley and Bernie Goldberg are to be trusted, then one of the best examples of the liberal activist base can be found at Dailykos
The Great Orange Satan
In 2005, my political activities started expanding to the online world. However, I had been following various space blogs for awhile. One thing I noticed was that, despite events happening within the space community, such as the flight of SS1, and VSE, there was a lack of recognition about space, at least within the liberal activist blogging community. While I considered doing my own personal blog, I ultimately decided that working on a collaborative blog made more sense – although I didn’t have as much control, I was ensured that more liberals and progressives would see my posts, whether in article form or comment form. And that brought me to Dailykos.
Dailykos (sometimes referred to as the Great Orange Satan), for those uninitiated, and despite claims from the conservative media, is easy to understand. It’s a collaborative blog, which means that anyone can become involved. There is no application process – if Rush Limbaugh wanted, he could easily start posting on it. Its primary purpose is about electing Democrats, and pursuing a Democratic Agenda. For details about its inner-workings, I recommend reading the Dailykos FAQ, which is very straight forward. Two points worth noting – in addition to commenting, people can also recommend your diary, by clicking the recommend button on your page. The higher number of recommends, the more people will likely see your post. Another option available is that people can tip you, in something called a tip jar – this isn’t as strong as a recommend, but still demonstrates that you read the post, and it impressed you. Prior to my first posting, I searched Dailykos, and only found the occasional piece on space, although by and large, there wasn’t anything.
My very first blog post went up on Jan 01, 2006. It was titled "Space Development – a winner in 06 or 08?" (be aware that due to a an update in the software that runs Dailykos, earlier posts like that have lost some of the formatting in the comments section). While I admit I was more optimistic about the timeframe for space development then, what is more relevant to the point of this article is the response to my initial posting, and a promise to further postings about space in the future. It drew 159 comments, and in a poll about the price to orbit, 51 people voted, with a plurality of people voting that the price per pound to orbit was in excess of $100,000. While this was by no means scientific, it did give a starting point for how people at Dailykos might view ideas about space development. While I haven’t completed a specific count of the number of space activists vs space detractors, my impression is that the situation was slightly in favor of the detractors, although not necessarily by much.
I followed this up for a few days with various posts, related to price to orbit, the NewSpace industry, and whether sustainability is practical without space development. However, between the lack of readers, and less time to prepare entries than I would like, I was unable to continue regular posting at Dailykos. In March of 2007, I did however offer a report about the first launch of SpaceX’s Falcon 1. In that story 31 different comments were made by a total of 8 people (myself included) 5 very supportive of both SpaceX and space in general, 1 hostile to SpaceX, and 1 somewhat hostile to space in general.
The Space Revolution Series
All of this changed when I attended the 2007 International Space Development, in 2007. While I am a regular reader of various space blogs, I was amazed at everything that was happening, and everything that was being reported on. And yet, if one examined the liberal blogosphere, there was almost no mention of the various announcements and events related to space development. It was here that I came up with the idea for the Space Revolution Weekly News (SRWN). The specific point of this series was to provide the readership of Dailykos a weekly report about what was happening within the space sector. I will admit a preference towards Newspace, but I tried not to neglect any area of human spaceflight. In addition to the weekly reports, I also provided an occasional in depth post about a particular space topic – danger from space radiation, a call to action asking people to blog more about space, and the launch of Genesis 2.
One problem related to blogs, which has been true for me, is that there isn’t always a clear way to measure readership. However, by considering the number of recommendations and tips I receive during the blog posting, when Space Revolution Weekly News was an ongoing series, the trend was towards a greater number of people reading my blog posts. While the numbers were small, they did grow over time. This, I would argue, demonstrates at least the possibility for a larger liberal space community.
Since that time, although my blogging has become more erratic (due to time constraints), I still manage to provide reports about major events or developments. Such diaries included discussing Senator Obama’s various comments and policy papers about space, the official unveiling of SpaceShipTwo, a consideration of the economic growth that near term space development might offer, and commenting on various conferences I was able to attend.
During this time, I’ve met a number of pro-space people at Dailykos – some who work in industry, some who are mildly interested, some who would consider themselves activists, some who are just interested amateurs. They may range from people who represent the site, like Darksyde, or well known comic artists like Stormbear, to lesser known people who regularly comment in space posts, like BBQ Chicken Madness and Bill White.
One person of particular mention is Vladislaw. Vladislaw has been writing close to at least 1 post per day about space since he started posting at Dailykos. These posts can vary in their content – from discussing the NASA March Madness tree, to an in depth discussion about Kondratiev waves, and how they could relate to space development. In addition, he always provides a poll question about space. I am convinced that, if someone had the time, there is a fair amount of data that could be gleaned from his postings about the liberal space community, and how large it might be. I also wish more people in the space activist community read his postings – I rarely see them mentioned outside of Dailykos, and there are many excellent points made in the diaries, and many connections worth following.
I will admit that, despite this, it is important to remember that Dailykos is a huge blog, and there are over 100,000 users involved in Dailykos, and so many of these numbers pale in comparison to the total number of people involved. But this does indicate at least the potential for more liberals and progressives. This is further backed up when there is a major posting about space, more often than not people are supportive of space in general, and even human spaceflight.
Netroots Nation
In addition to the Dailykos blog, there is a convention, called Netroots Nation, which brings together many of the liberal activist base. Originally called Yearlykos, last year it morphed into Netroots Nation. Many major names attend – for example, last year both Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore were in attendance. And in 2007, 7 of the 8 Democratic presidential candidates attended. It is not uncommon to see many candidates or liberal elected officials in attendance.
At last year’s Netroots Nation, largely thanks to the work of Andrew Hoppin (although Bill White and I provided some auxiliary support) there was a panel at Netroots Nation dedicated specifically to space. The panel consisted of 4 people. Three of the panelists, Lori Garver, Patricia Grace Smith, George Whitesides, are well known in the space community. Below are videos of the panel. Due to a technical error, until 12:30, into the panel, there is no audio, which means much of Mr. Whitesides’ comments were not recorded. However, many of his comments can be found after the videos.
Mr. Whitesides talked about the need for long term vision, in this particular case the idea that one day, we'll have more people off planet than on planet. He noted that there needed to be more dialog between everyone. He also talked about how NASA & Space can help us deal with the various challenges we face, like global climate change and clean renewable energy.
Mr. Whitesides provided a good framework for where things stand - he noted that currently NASA receives $17 billion, and the military space budget is about double that amount. He also noted that, with the rise of commercial space, more people were considering space issues beyond the traditional NASA scope.
In particular he noted that there is a great deal of turmoil in NASA that is driven by the human spaceflight program. However, there are 5 key areas for NASA:
- Embrace climate change - This has been a signature issue for NASA, and given the dangers we face, NASA can play a powerful role.
- Embrace its potential as catalysis for commercial spaceflight – Many within the space community are aware of the emerging entrepreneurial space industry, and Mr. Whitesides noted how NASA could substantially help to advance the industry.
- Embrace international collaboration - Space projects can be large scale, and spreading the risk among various governments can help us deal with these risks and costs.
- Space militarization (and more specifically weaponization) is not a good thing - A shooting war in space is a bad idea.
- Dealing with the energy issue - key to the issue of climate change, is coming up with new renewable forms of energy. NASA, and space, can help, ranging from acting as a technological incubator, up to things like Space Solar Power.
Finally, Mr. Whitesides closed with a comment about how human spaceflight has had lots of changes, and we need continuity - changing the plan every four or eight years doesn't allow for the long term planning that will be needed.
After the panel, in conjunction with then Senator Obama’s call for input into the Democratic national Platform, we held a meeting to discuss what issues we would like to see included, with regards to space policy. What resulted was the following statement, sent to the Democratic Platform committee.
The United States has a unique and powerful relationship with space - from the glory days of Apollo, to today's Mars Rovers and the International Space Station, the United States has been an important player in the long term use of space. That relationship needs to continue, and further developed. In particular, there are 3 points that must be incorporated into the platform related to space
1. The United States, in cooperation with other countries and private individuals/organizations/companies, must move humanity towards a spacefaring society.
Moving humanity into space, and truly incorporating it into the sphere of human existence, will have massive long term positive impacts, ranging from new resources and industries, to a greater understanding about ourselves and the universe. To become a spacefaring society, we will need many people and many groups involved - other governments, entrepreneurs, engineers, scientists, even artists and musicians will play a role. Vital to this is the development of cheap, reliable access directly to space, for every person, which we need to invest in.
2. Space and NASA are vital to deal with the intertwined problems of energy independence and climate change, including both monitoring and finding solutions.
NASA has played an integral role in monitoring our earth. In addition, it has acted as incubator for new technologies. These 2 factors mean NASA must have a major role in these 2 issues. Further, as mentioned above, the resources of space, specifically space solar power, offers us a long term, large scale solution to the problem of energy independence.
3. The President and Congress must have independent advisers concerning the issue of Space, and science, who have direct access to elected officials.
These advisers may come in many forms - a re-invigorated National Space Council, or a space policy adviser to the president, scientific adviser to the President, or similar offices in congress. But all of these advisers need to be independent, and have direct access to the president, or congress.
We are hoping to have another panel at this year’s Netroots Nation, with some repeat performance, as well as some new people.
DFH
The fourth person on the space panel, Chris Bowers, is not necessarily known to space activists, but he is well known to liberals and progressives. Mr. Bowers has described himself at times as a "Dirty F***ing Hippie (DFH)" although no longer wears long hair. He is also a union supporter and former union organizer. He formerly wrote at MyDD.com, and now writes at Openleft.com. Given this, if the traditional story about liberals and space is true, he would be opposed to space exploration, or at least human spaceflight.
In fact, the reality is very different. Quoting from something he wrote based on his panel participation:
Space Is Progressive. One of the main reasons that I prefer the term progressive to the term conservative is that it draws a direct contrast: conservatives look to the past, while progressives look to the future. Conservatives view the ideal of society as existing in a past golden age, while progressives view the ideal society as never having existed, but being a future state toward which we are working. The space program, by its very nature, is a part of the progressive ideological and cultural ethos.
By pushing the limits of human understanding on our place in the galaxy, the pace program is inherently progressive. Answering fundamental questions such as the origin of the universe through the WMAP satellite, or determining whether we are alone in the universe through new exoplant discovery telescopes, the space program helps to answer fundamental questions of humanity in non-dogmatic, reality-based ways.
By pushing the limits of human engineering capability, the space program is also progressive.
By creating an increased sense of connectedness, such as the important ways in which the first pictures of the entire Earth from outer space helped launch the environmental movement, the space program is progressive.
And, if none of these reasons convince you that the space program is fundamentally progressive and connected to the expansion of humanity, keep in mind that if progressives don't care about space policy, then conservatives will destroy outer space in much the same ways they are destroying Earth. Excessive militarization and corporatization is just as possible in outer space as it is on our home planet.
Whether you agree or disagree about his sentiments when it comes to conservatives, he does present a very liberal defense of space exploration.
Concluding thoughts
There are other groups worth mentioning, although I don’t have much interaction with them – the Obamanautsfor example, formed to help push then candidate Obama on space policy, as well as campaign for him in various space states. Another website, put up by Andrew Hoppin, is called Spacedemocrats.org, and it acts as a social networking site for democrats and space. How successful these 2 attempts have been is open for debate, since there hasn’t been much activity related to their websites.
The big problem with everything I presented here is that it is of a circumstantial nature, as evidence. There has not been an exhaustive, in depth study that looks at attitudes as they relate to space policy and space advocacy, as far as I am aware. There is enough evidence and activity that would suggest that it is time to revisit old stereotypes when it comes to space activism. However, throughout my various association and work with both the liberal activist community and the hardcore space activist community, I have formed a number of conclusions which I suspect would end up being proven true if and when a major study takes place.
First, the support for current unmanned operations is fairly strong. Only occasionally do I see someone actively opposing missions like the Mars Rovers, or Hubble. The frequency that I see this is about as often as I see defense of VEHMT. The real divide over support for space is whether human spaceflight has or does produce a positive return on investment, or not, with the primary assumption being that the purpose of spaceflight is about science, and a long-term belief about whether humanities destiny belongs in the stars. As to the size of these two groups, I am uncertain, although I believe that the split is about equal (although as evidence is presented, more people are willing to embrace concepts like space development).
Second, while there is a liberal space community, as demonstrated by a number of regular posters in Vladislaw’s diaries, many do not necessarily make their way into the space activist community – they do not necessarily attend events like ISDC, nor do they comment on space blogs like spacepolitics. There is hope to change this, partly with the fact that we now have a majority of Democrats in Congress and a Democratic president.
Finally, the liberal space community lacks coherency and organization. Yes, it is true that liberals are supporters of organized labor, and one could expect that it would be successful in organizing itself. However, Will Roger’s famous quote of "I don’t belong to an organized political party – I am a Democrat" is the reality.