Political Support for Space

[Johno]

I was wondering if there are any trends with political support for Space. 

Australia: No space program, but conservative government broadly in favour of cooperation with USA program.

USA: Conservative government in favour of space missions, Liberal opposition not in favour.

Can people fill in any other governments?

[Satanic Mechanic]

You are right about the liberals, but usually the liberal whose district or state is supporting a NASA site or a big contractor will never vote against it. 
Shelia Jackson Lee, a representative from Texas claims she does not like the space program. She thinks the money should go into governement dumpster..err..social programs but she will fight anyone who tries to shutdown or reduce Johnson Space Center.  It's all about the $$$$ and the votes.

[SCEtoAUX]

I don't think that you can really draw a clean liberal/conservative line when it comes to support for the space program. Personally , I'm several steps to the left of "liberal", and a huge supporter of space exploration, manned and unmanned.

I think that the main "liberal" objections to the space program have to do with funding for unmet domestic needs (and there are a LOT of them), and a reluctance to funnel more taxpayer money at many of the same contractors who comprise the "Military-Industrial Complex". But many of us on the left also understand and value the many tangible benefits of space exploration, both in the required technologies that can help with problems here on earth, and as a platform for international cooperation. All in all, the NASA budget is a drop in the bucket compared to, (and provides a MUCH higher ROI than) say, the money being spent on the Iraq war.

On the other hand, have you ever noticed how many of the "Moon Hoax" morons are from the right side of the aisle? It is the CONSERVATIVES (particularly the "religious right") who seem to have an outward hostility toward science in general, and anything that might reveal the mysteries of the universe in particular. Between the fundie Xtians (Bart Sibrel, anyone?) who are afraid that manned exploration of space is somehow contradictory of the Bible, or the twits trying to teach religion in HS biology classes, the anti-intellectuals of the right are no friends to NASA or scientific exploration of any type.

[DonPMitchell]

Yes, well said.  I'm a conservative, but more of a "Goldwater Republican" who believes in capitalism not religion.  I get into debates with the evangelicals on redstate.org now and then, and their anti-science stance is extremely disturbing.  It's all about clerics wanting political power of course -- they are frustrated to see the higher social status of science and business.

The problem with liberal anti-science is they want to divert money into hopeless high-entropy endevors, like dispersing it among unsuccessful people, which I think does nothing for society.  See, I told you, I was a conservative. 

[Ottawan]

I agree with both of you to a point. Dispersing money to unsuccessful people however, is popular, in that it gets the ploiticians dispersing said cash re-elected. Which is all a politician really wants. It is sad because this creates a circle effect where people make a career of being on social assistance and help re-elect politicians who inhibit porgress.

Political support for space is entirely dependant on public support for space. If the public couldn't give a rats a$$ about space exploration then you can be entireley sure that politicians won't either.

The public is usually extremely critical of waste, and unfortunately, there has been a lot of waste in the space program over the last two decades. Millions of dollars are wasted on programs proposed, partially developed, then cancelled. This is not the fault of the space agency . . . it is the fault of those who control the budget for the space agency. Politicians.

Mankind will go nowhere new in space until corporate private industry gets involved on a grand scale. Once it can be determined that there is a profit to be made, if it has not been determined already, we will see exploration increase by leaps and bounds.

I have read at NASAWatch and at other boards of a space nature that the Chinese announcement of returning man to the moon before the Americans is just a political ploy.

How fricken' dumb is that!

The Chinese are determined, they are methodical, and they will be tenacious in achieving this goal. They do not have to deal with a change in "the Administration" every four or eight years. They are focused and I believe they will succeed in returning to the moon before the US.

The United States has had "space initiatives" in the past. Both Reagan's and Bush Sr.'s went nowhere once they left office. The same will undoubtedly occur with the current administration's space initiative when they leave office in 2008.

NASA is faced with a very heavy burden if they have to accomplish everything set out for them, or by them, during one President's term in office. You want to go to the moon and Mars. Change the American Constitution to repeal the two term amendment and let the people decide if they want to support a President who is pro-space long enough to achieve the goals set out in his "bold new space initiative".

Sorry.

Rant concluded.

[Ottawan]

Oh, and pardon my manners

Welcome to the forum SCEtoAUX

[snake river rufus]

Let's make a distinction between conservatives and the religious right. I'm a conservative ( big shock right ) but am an atheist. I agree that my wing of the party does align with the religios right far too often, but that is really no different than the liberals funding new programs for the poor. Wait, it costs less in dollars. But things may be offset by the creep of the religious right into science and medicine.
Ottawan, you are right. we need to let big corporations know just how valuable it would be to mine asteroids, for example, and let capitalism do its work.

[jdbenner]

Let's make a distinction between conservatives and the religious right. I'm a conservative ( big shock right ) but am an atheist. I agree that my wing of the party does align with the religios right far too often, but that is really no different than the liberals funding new programs for the poor. Wait, it costs less in dollars. But things may be offset by the creep of the religious right into science and medicine.
Ottawan, you are right. we need to let big corporations know just how valuable it would be to mine asteroids, for example, and let capitalism do its work.

I truly don’t know what you are talking about.  I am a Christian who is socially conservative economically libertarian, I believe in “intelligent design”  and I love science and the space program.  Knowledge or proof straighten rather than weaken faith.  And if you want proof read my other posts.

[DonPMitchell]

There many gradations of beliefs in this area:

1. Young-Earth Creationism - this is totally in conflict with science.

2. Continuing supernatural guidance of evolution - this is also at odds with science, because it violates causality.  It's a radical proposal, in the absence of experimental evidence.

3. God as the First Cause - this is sophisticated theological viewpoint, I see no scientific problem with it.  Basically, god created a mechanism and set it in motion.

4. Creation as a scientific mystery - my personal belief, since I think positing the existance of god is a very complex explanation, even though science offers no alternative.

[SCEtoAUX]

Political support for space is entirely dependant on public support for space. If the public couldn't give a rats a$$ about space exploration then you can be entireley sure that politicians won't either.

And with the current levels of scientific/technical illiteracy in the USA (and the generally unflattering cultural images of scientists/engineers), don't look for "Joe Sixpack" to get fired up for a new lunar landing mission anytime soon. 

Ironically, as our society becomes more and more dependent on advanced technology, the percentage of the population who  understand how the various technologies that impact their daily life actually work is probably at an all-time low. The public schools and mass media have done a great job of "dumbing down" the populace and crushing the curiosity right out of kids. And it is only a short step from a lack of personal curiosity to a lack of support for scientific exploration in general.

[Satanic Mechanic]

The public schools and mass media have done a great job of "dumbing down" the populace and crushing the curiosity right out of kids. And it is only a short step from a lack of personal curiosity to a lack of support for scientific exploration in general.

You sir are correct.  I know I mentioned this before in another topic, the local school district has a comprehensive K-12 sex education program but no comprehensive math or science programs.  Schools are no longer about education, they are about indoctrination.

SM

[DonPMitchell]

I've seen several articles recently about the dangers of slipping education and innovation in Europe and America.  Will China and India take the lead?  Who knows.  I still believe the US has the lead, and it has probably always been driven by a minority of especially talented people.  That's an increasinly unpopular idea in itself, with the popular notions that intellectual work (like software and music) should be collectivized.

[Ottawan]

Define "collectivized" Don. That ssounds suspiciously like the dreaded 50's word "communism"

[DonPMitchell]

As in collectivized agriculture.  There is no individual property, everything is shared, developed by consensus or committee.  Yes, communism and collectivism are essentially the same thing.

[spacecat27]

Schools are no longer about education, they are about indoctrination.SM

So sadly true, SM- that's going in my little book of quotes.

SCE- what you said reminds me of some passages from Willard Bascom's autobio, THE CREST OF THE WAVE- it's out of print (1988) but check libraries- a great read!  In the late '50's he was a consultant to CBS on the production of a (imagine!) prime-time TV series designed to encourage interest in science & technology.....
"I was dismayed to learn that over one third of the US population believes in such things as supernatural beings, ghosts, angels, devils, space aliens, numerology, ESP, miracles and spells.  It would be hard to explain natural laws and the need for scientific proof to that crowd."

What I find in my area- science & tech people are held in the same regard as janitors... often janitors have more prestige since they often have unions looking out for them.  Lawyers and MBA's are the kings- and I'm sure I've said before here- over 90% of our politicians are lawyers who chose that profession as a fast track to wealth, and because they were not good at science or math to begin with.