A traditionalist conservative explanation of why there is so little interest in a flight to Mars

Matthew H. writes:

Caspar Weinberger, Jr. has a piece at Human Events decrying the candidates’ and the media’s lack of interest in the recent landing of the Phoenix spacecraft on Mars. They did not see fit to post my comment. For what it’s worth, here it is:

Our spectacular technological achievements are an embarassment to those who, like Hillary and Obama and, sadly, McCain as well, appeal to that seemingly vast portion of the electorate whose civic philosophy consists of resentment and the sullen “hope” that the federal government will pay for ever greater portions of their household expenses.

Compared to our quixotic trillion-dollar-plus efforts to turn Muslims into Jeffersonian democrats and to turn our “inner-cities” into temperate hives of industry, the return on investment of this relatively cheap program is quite satisfactory. The astonishing success of the American nation, from frontier outpost to interplanetary travel in 200 years (not to mention all the freedoms and material wealth we now enjoy), seems destined to forever be hobbled by the clamorings of those who, not being able to tie their own shoes (to put it politely), will elect demagogues to steal the wealth of the prudent and productive in the name of “fairness.”

One might argue whether we really get our money’s worth out of NASA and whether public money really ought to be spent in this way at all, but at least we get a sense of pride and accomplishment and whatever technological and defense spin-offs there might be. Compared to the obscene profligacy of our domestic “entitlement” (whatever that means) programs, it’s a bargain.

But, again, any kind of success, public or private, is an intolerable affront to the sensibilities of the imprudent and their “compassionate” enablers.

LA replies:

I think 20 years ago Human Events, once thought of as a traditional conservative magazine, would have published this thought-provoking letter. But for today’s “conservatives” at Human Events, Matthew’s radical analysis of the fallacies and dynamics of egalitarianism is “too far right.” All mainstream conservatism today is essentially neoconservatism.

It is interesting that Weinberger himself attributes the lack of interest in the landing to the idea that America cannot take pride in its own accomplishments, that any achievement must be the achievement of all mankind. So Weinberg is already touching on the same truth about liberalism and egalitarianism that Matthew is discussing.

Carol Iannone writes (May 29):

Why should Americans take pride in the landing of a spacecraft on Mars? We have been told for years now by Bush and Rice that America is nothing special, and that it is bad form to feel especially proud of ourselves. After all, freedom and self-government are natural to all peoples, and we were so imperfect at the outset and for so many decades into our history, and even now are far from fulfilling our ideals, that we really are in no position to brag about ourselves or to judge any other country, even one where the adults encourage the children to blow themselves up in order to kill others. And who are we to judge the Iraqi democracy when we had slavery and women couldn’t vote?

Rush Limbaugh keeps asking where is the presidential candidate speaking for American exceptionalism, that America is a special country where freedom and equality have been realized to an exceptional degree, and that we have been blessed by Providence and are a force for good in the world. Evidently he hasn’t noticed that President Bush doesn’t speak this way either and I guess that’s why Rush never brought it up in his face time at the White House.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 28, 2008 01:56 PM | Send