Lunar Newts

Meet the Press, 2/5/12, Newt Gingrich talking space policy. He's correct in his touting of how space fits into China's security and commercial interests and its impact on American interests.  More on that in a bit. Another aspect of his ideas is his assertion that his plans would not require additional federal funds, going on to promote a highly privatized space policy and a "fundamentally reformed" NASA geared toward privatization.  This notion should be fairly easy to rebut with evidence from the private sector that the capital risk is too substantial to engage a policy as expansive as what Gingrich has in mind.  Since the failed Solyndra case is a campaign issue, it makes a good case in point. Not its failure, that is, but the public-private partnership the case represents. Would the Walton family of Walmart fame risk $7 million, as they did with Solyndra, without the federal loan guarantee? Given the conservative spokepersons' usual affinity for Walmart and its owning family, why leave this angle of the Solyndra story out of nearly all reporting and commentary, or any of the $78 million in private investments attracted to Solyndra?  If this were put at the center of the conversation for once, then we could better discuss Gingrich's ideas on pursuing an expanded commercial (and, apparently, political) presence in space.

The other space-related comment was similar to what I've heard elsewhere, not only in reference to this particular topic, but to many issues because it represents one of my pet peeves (especially when coming from Dr. Gingrich): the misuse of history.  Granted, Gingrich was quoting Greta van Susteren of FoxNews, but doing so in explicit agreement.  Gingrich applauded Susteren's statement that she "could not imagine" criticism of John F. Kennedy over his space policy.  This ignores Kennedy's long history of ignoring or even belittling space exploration as a priority matter, and that it was Vice President Johnson who made Kennedy a convert.  In his political career, LBJ was long an advocate of the opportunities afforded by space.  Kennedy saw the space program in purely political terms, as a demonstration to the Soviets of the superiority of the American political and economic systems.  Still, there's no doubt the eloquent JFK deserves great credit for his serious support of the Apollo program once he converted.

More to the point is the statement about criticism. Let's review.  Former President Eisenhower (R) called JFK's ideas "madness" and asked, "Why the great hurry to get to the Moon and planets?" He said JFK's calls in June 1963 for $40 billion in federal expenditures on the Apollo project were "just nuts."

Conservative icon William F. Buckley, Jr., was very critical of the high priority afforded the space program: "Very well, you have reached the Moon, but meanwhile here in America, we have been trying, however clumsily, to spread freedom and justice."  Democrats Fulbright and Proxmire were also very critical, with Proxmire calling Kennedy's space program, "corporate socialism."

Kennedy softened his tone about space policy being a matter of national greatness in a speech to the United Nations:

...Why, therefore, should Man's first flight to the Moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union...become involved in immense duplications of research, construction and expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries — indeed of all the world — cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending someday in this decade to the Moon not the representatives of a single nation, but the representatives of all our countries.” (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1963, 695).

This drew criticism in both houses of Congress, who used the budget process to resist such plans.The quotes in this post are taken from a paper published on the University of North Dakota webpage for an academic conference. The paper is linked here, as is a paper by my good friend and colleague Dr. Charles Pellegrin of Northwestern State University. While I'm recommending good works on related topics, I'm happy to mention the work of my former undergraduate Mr. Peter Pindjak, who went on to earn his Master's degree from the University of Pittsburgh.  Peter's thesis on space militarization in the Eisenhower administration can be found here.  I was very proud to be a committee member for Peter's undergraduate honors thesis on contemporary missile defense policy.  He is now employed in a national security policy position for the government of his home state, Slovakia.

I am always amazed at the idealism of Americans. So many times we hear respected people make historical statements without further discussion or question, largely because it is time to move on to another topic. It especially bemuses me when people exaggerate the political unity of past eras. No doubt we are in an especially polarized condition as we progress into the 21st century.  But I've heard radio talk show hosts speak as though there was no press or political criticism of FDR during World War II, for example, when what we should do is not only acknowledge but also study, learn from and even celebrate such criticism.  But that takes time, for which broadcast politics do not allow, whether on major news programs or formal candidate debates.