Category Archives: Politics

Thoughts on Heinlein’s Starship Troopers

\

One of the most divisive science-fiction novels published is Robert A. Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. Written as one his juvenile novels it was rejected out of hand by the publisher and immediately upon publication by another house stirred intense political debate that carries on to the present day. My meager thoughts in no way will settle this argument and for those firmly fixed in their camps nothing will dislodge them.

Troopers posits a future where humanity has spread out to the stars following some war with itself that left in its wake a unified government ending unrest and ushering in a period of

G.P. Putnam’s & Sons

prosperity. The political system of this unified government is a democracy, but one where the right to vote and run for office, the civil franchise, is restricted solely to those who have served in the armed forces.

This ‘only veterans’ franchise is often labeled by the novel’s critics as ‘fascist’ and a system of military rule. While I think the system proposed actually would never work in practice and the author hand-waved his way past serious political and practical issues, both critiques miss the mark.

Fascism has no simple, agreed upon definition. It is often hurled as a charge towards a political system, movement, or person that someone intensely disagree with. The left hurls it at the right and right throws it back. Setting aside the definition of childish tantrums, to me Fascism is a species of the political right, obsessed with a distorted and false view of history, former ‘glory,’ centralized authoritarian government, and most importantly of all the philosophy that the individual’s only value is what the state can extract from them.

The novel gives very little to no description of the culture surrounding its political system. What little history that is presented is fed to the reader as exposition to explain the political system and how it arose with nothing that glorifies some idealized historical vision.

Equally unexplored is the actual details political system. We know that military service is required for the franchise and that active-duty personnel do not have the vote but how centralized is thew power is a question that is never addressed. The closest the reader comes to understanding the culture and the government is the barbaric punishment of flogging is a common judicially ordered punishment. This predilection for cruelty as punishment is the most fascistic aspect of the novel’s setting.

Many critics point to required military service as a fascistic aspect, but I think it doesn’t meet that criterion. Fascist regimes such a Fascist Italy or NAZI Germany treat the people as something that had an obligation to the state. An obligation that could not be refused. Their service to the state was something required not chosen. The system in Starship Trooper is an inverse of that philosophy. Service is given, always at the choice of the person, and in fact the novel gives the impression that people are dissuaded from choosing to serve as more than one character attempts to talk to the protagonist out of volunteering. This plays into the novel’s philosophy of graded level of morality and I’ll speak to that and its error later in the piece. The core central issue here is that in a fascist setting the power is with the state, a state that compels service and here the power is with the individual choosing to serve.

One of the novel’s many exposition heavy scenes also display the frantic handwaving to make this political system work. An instructor asks the class why does the system work and after the students offer possible answers based on the limitation on the franchise, better people, chosen people, and so on, the teacher simply answer it works because it does. Utterly circular logic. It works because the author wants it to work.

Elsewhere in the work it is put forward that there are levels of morality with morality defined as the willingness to put oneself in danger for a goal or purpose. The lowest and most base level is self-interest. ‘I look out for number one and no one else.’ The system then progresses through family, friends, and loved one with the ‘highest’ level of morality being expressed when someone serves and risks all for their community.

Heroic self-sacrifice is a common trope in adventure fiction and something that is nearly universally admired. We need to look no further in the genre than Spock’s solution to Kobayashi Maru test in The Wrath of Khan to see this presented as noble. That said it, in my opinion, is a lousy system to base your politics upon.

The logic in Starship Troopers is that those who volunteer to place their lives on the line by serving in the military are exhibiting a ‘higher’ level or morality and thus are ‘worthy’ of the franchise and political power. This is flawed for several of reasons.

First, while the novel goes out of its way to make clear that no one can ever be denied the chance to serve it is also clear that military discipline is in effect and people are ‘mustered out’ of the service and thus forever lose the chance to exercise the franchise. That means on a practical level the military while forced to accept every as a recruit can still eliminate anyone it does not want to have the franchise. It is far too easy for a military to expel members to use service as a qualification for the franchise.

Second, it presumes the motive for joining the military is a desire to serve. This ignores the possibility of enlisted to learn a trade, experience adventure, escape an unpleasant home, or even to live the thrill of combat and killing.

Another reason this is a terrible idea is that it sees the only meaningful way to serve your community is by way of the military. Teaching, local services, research, and healthcare, the last having its own unique dangers all too well know with the current COVID pandemic, are all ways to place your own needs second to your fellow citizens’.

While I cannot agree with those who hurl ‘fascist’ at the novel’s philosophy, nor can I endorse it. Between handwaving and some very broad and simplistic assumptions it simply ignores the world as the way I have experienced it working.

Share

Political Thoughts

The world is on fire but there is hope. Remember that the essential message of The Lord of the Rings is that despair if a failing because it presumes a determined future, and no one can know the future where unlikely events can produce unlikely and joyful outcomes.

The War in Ukraine

Certainly, over the last weekend things have improved for the Ukrainians. Russian lines have shattered in some sectors and there are reports that Ukrainian forces have reached parts of the Russian border. But the war is not over. We may, looking back with the advantage of history, see this as a turning point or we may see it as another battlefield fluctuation. What we need to do is continue supporting the Ukrainians in their fight with weapons, money, and morale.

American Politics

The political system of the United States is also aflame and here the structure is fully engulfed. The slow steady poisoning of the Republican party with racists and authoritarians has brought that body politic fully into its diseased state. From New Hampshire to Arizona the GOP is infected, controlled, and Led by people who have rejected democracy. The former president did not create this situation, he is a product of the infection not its cause. As someone who was a registered Republican from 1980 thru 2003 it boggles my mind to see the party in its current state. If you are someone born in the 90s this may seem ‘normal’ to you and that the GOP has merely thrown off the mask and revealed its true nature, but it doesn’t look that way to me.

To me it is far stranger and far more extreme than that.

In the 80s conservatives often anti-nuclear power and weapons movements ‘watermelons,’ because they were ‘green on the outside and red on the inside.’ The Soviet Union helped fund and promote those groups and movements to disrupt the West and NATO. These groups and associated travelers were considered foolish and gullible by the right for how they accepted Soviet propaganda as truth with any healthy skepticism and now those roles have been reversed. It is the conservatives embracing and promoting Russian propaganda with qualm or reservation. It is the conservative pulling Russian aggression to their bosom and declaring it just and good. It’s nearly incomprehensible to witness. Literally for decades I have heard conservatives rant and snarl about a supposed ‘deal’ from Edward Kennedy to take Russian assistance in a bid for the presidency. (A tale that has but one unverified source.) And now they openly proclaim that they would rather be Russian than a democrat. They turn a blind eye to mountains of evidence of Russian interference in American Politics. For those of that lived through the final stages of the Cold War this is a topsy-turvy as when Kirk found himself in the Dystopian Terran Empire. I hope that this year’s election defies the historical norms, that young people, so fickle in their off-year elections, arrive in droves and surprise us with Democratic victories, but even if that doesn’t come to be, the fight goes on and I will not despair.

Share

It’s Never Simply Policy

I recently got into a very brief exchange, cordial and pleasant, were as they complained about West Virginia Senator Joe Machin I advised that at this time this was the very best they could hope for out of a state that went for Trump by nearly 40 points. They were unconvinced and spoke of winning WV with ‘Democratic Values.’

Here’s the thing, helping people with their medical bills, lowering the costs of vital medicines, protecting them from predatory corporations, and exploitation by their employers seems to many like winning arguments and intuitively self-obvious reasons to support Democratic candidates. But people only sometime vote by policy. I think much more often and much more powerfully it is ‘vibes’ and culture that move people and provide incentives to action. You cannot win people’s support, no matter how generous the policy, if the price is perceived to be an attack on their culture and thus an attack on the people themselves. How many progressives would accept a deal where the nation gets fully socialized healthcare for every single person in the country, but every school is also required to tech that anything other than heterosexual coupling is ‘abnormal’ and a ‘perversion.’ Very few I suspect, and they would be right to reject such a thing. The hypothetical deal is absurd and fallacy of extremes, but the core concept is sound, people will reject material advantages for ‘cultural’ issues. Culture can and does change and it can be guided, poked, and prodded along so what is true today culturally is not what will be true in a decade or two but to win in places such as West Virginia at the very least you must not offend the people by attacking their culture.

This is an element often ignore or progressives are ignorant of when attacking Trump. He is a vile, racist, authoritarian bully and I desperately want to see him in prison orange, stripped of his make-up and his wig. However, when I see elites attacking him for things such as his love of junk and fast food I am angered. They are too blinded by their desire to attack the piece of shit that they fail to see they are also attacking scores of people for whom KFC or McDonalds are normal and enjoyable fare. Creating that division of ‘us’ and ‘them’ only binds them to the orange man-baby tighter. There is no policy argument that will win over such basic tribal identity as that one.

Sadly, that battle has already been lost. Nearly seven years of snobbish attacks have well welded these people culturally to Trump but that is not enough to assure him electoral victory. I beg progressives do not go for the cheap shot and the stereotype attacks but please try and think about where you can win with culture in addition to policy. Our nation depends upon it.

Share

The Racist Titration of the GOP

On a recent podcast I heard conservative commentator Mona Charen state that she was shocked at how quickly the GOP became Trump’s GOP. The host, Charlie Sykes, repeated his long-presented view that the racist authoritarian streak in the GOP had been a ‘recessive gene’ that has now become dominate but this is a terrible analogy for what has happened, absolving all those ‘good’ conservatives for their action and inaction that created the current condition. A better analogy is found in chemistry class: Titration.

In titration one liquid is slowly, drop by drop, added to another. The base liquid is clear and colorless and at first e3ach drop appears to do nothing. The swirl the mixture but it remains clear, colorless. Then after a number of drop colors appears but fades quickly away in the swirling returning to the clear colorless form. But at some point, a single drop transforms the mixture and now the flask is filled with a colored fluid that had just moments before been colorless. It has changed and seeming from a single drop but of course it was a process that had been carried out over time.

This is what has happened to the GOP. Listen to ‘Never Trumpers’ and after a short time someone will remind you that in the old days, they threw out the crazy Birchers, that the party used to enforce rationality. But that was in the early 60s by the late 60s Nixon played his Southern Strategy, inviting in the racists whom the Democrats had enraged with the Civil Right legislation of the great society. The drops of racism began to be added to the GOP, but it wasn’t much, and it didn’t really change the nature of the party. Then there was Nixon’s War on Drugs and that was quite deliberately not enforced equally across racial lines. More Drops into the mixture. Welfare Queens, Crack babies, and more and more drops added to the mixture, flashes of racist color but with enough swirling you could make them go away. Crime Bills and torture for brown people were more drops added to the liquid, along with ballot initiatives against ‘illegal immigrants’ that really targeted more brown people. Throughout this process the left ceased to be political opponents and were the enemy of the nation.

Trump didn’t ‘change the GOP,’ he was the final drops the completed its titration into a neo-fascist, racist, caricature of the party that had thrown out the Bircher only to crawl back into bed with them.

Share

Is The Dawn Beginning to Break in the East?

Yesterday, in Kansas a state that the former idiot won in 2020, after all the scandal, sadism, and incompetence of his presidency, by 14 points the voters went to the polls with an option of stripping abortion rights from the state’s constitution.

The evil Republicans had done everything in their power to advantage themselves in their quest to strip people of their rights. They had placed the ballot imitative on a primary schedule when turnout among Democrats would be low but high among their own base. They wrote the proposal in twisted, contorted language to obfuscate its meaning and effect. They even ran ads blatantly lying that the proposal would protect rights and choice.

And it availed them not.

By about 17 points, a spread greater than the Orange Man-baby’s victory in 2020, the citizens of Kansas rejected the lies, the deceit, and the cruelty of the Modern Republican Party defeating the proposal.

We are still in the clutches of the dreadful night of the insanity of the GOP. And that night is long and full of terrors but perhaps the very first, faint, glimmers of dawn’s light are breaking in the East with this victory. Perhaps the first stirrings of a great giant are rumbling from Kansas. Perhaps to paraphrase Gandalf ‘The Democrats are to going to wake up and realize that they are strong.’

Share

Abusing the Word Private

One of the recent controversial and in my opinion dishonest ruling from the Supreme Court of The United States is Kennedy v Bremerton School District which ruled that the school district violated Coach Kennedy’s right when it fired him for conducting prayers on the football field directly following games. I will not relitigate the case, there are numerous good sources to understand the legal issues in contention, but I want to point you towards a podcast, Advisory Opinion, where the lawyer representing Kennedy appeared and argued the case for the hosts and the public. Hiram Sasser abused the English language so thoroughly that words ceased to having meaning, particularly the word ‘private.’

Sasser argued that his client had engaged in private prayer which is Kennedy’s right to exercise and the school district trampled on his religiously liberty by firing him.

This ‘private’ prayer took place on the football field, immediately following the game. A field which just moments ago had been the focus of attention for a stadium full of people. It is difficult to conceive of a setting less private. Had Coach Kennedy strode out to the 50-yard line and begun masturbating I doubt a single conservative in the nation would have considered this a ‘private’ act. The abuse of the word continues. Members of the football team followed Kennedy to the field as asked if they could join him to which he reported replied ‘It’s a free Country.’ Call me a stickler for language but when you participate with other in an activity, others who members of the general population and not there by invitation, that is public and not ‘private.’ The continued abuse of the language in describing any of this as ‘private’ is nothing short of dishonest doublethink. In my personal opinion, clearly not private as I am stating it in the open and in full view Sasser, the Supreme Court engaged in deceptive contorted logic with selective facts to arrive at the conclusion that the conservatives had already decided was the one that they wanted.

Share

Monsters from the Id

In the classic SF film Forbidden Planet Professor Morbius enhanced by alien technology unleashes his Id as an indestructible monster to protect his paradise. In a very similar manner, the GOP crafted and unleashed their own Id when they struck the bargain in the Southern Strategy welcoming racists to win elections and now that monster is the party instead of the party’s beast. None of the those ‘wiser’ heads foresaw or intended for today’s Republican party. They had the very best of intentions, but forces unchained are quite difficult to contain.

Today I am seeing many on the left looking to their own monster to wield and that monster is violence. In their minds the recent and terrible court decisions are not a call to political action and work but rather a ‘justification’ to unleash the mob. hat rioting and violence are the bargains they would strike today.

I would ask them whose deaths are justified by their anger?

Thomas?

Roberts?

McConnel?

The Capitol Police person who just happens to be ‘in the way.’

Violence by its nature is uncontrolled and unruly. It will spread further then you ever intent and its final results are unforeseeable.

Violence is always justified in the first person and a crime in the third.

Share

The Seal is Broken

Friday’s SCOTUS decision to reverse Roe is utterly unprecedented. Yes, the court has reversed and overturned decisions, major monumental decisions, but never before has the court rescinded a legally recognized individual right. A week ago the people had X number of rights, today it is X-1. The long, arduous path that this nation had struggled on of slowly, inexorable, expanding individual rights has ended. The line has been crossed and it can never be uncrossed. For the rest of the nation’s existence the member of court will know that with enough cajoling and pressure they can remove any right that they find unpleasant. We know already that a member of the court is looking are more recently won rights as targets for elimination. “Cooler heads” tell us to not panic, that this lone voice on the bench has not the votes to imperil those rights. Well, for 50 years there was not the votes to imperil any individual rights and then there were. Precedent and legal traditions no longer stay the court’s hand from the political ends they wish to obtain and for those conservatives cheering you are far too short sighted. That abandoned respect of precedent and tradition can just as easily apply to Heller and MacDonald. Why should liberal justices have any more respect for you recently won rights as you had for theirs? You have initiated a no rules cage match where only victory matters and it will not end any time soon. The aged old guard of the liberal party has continued to play by rules that right has long abandoned but the next generation of liberal pols have watched and learned the lesson to whipped them with and the tables always turn.

I do not celebrate this, but I do welcome it. A return to politics with rules and norms can only be achieved if the right suffers, and suffers terribly, for the unrestricted warfare that they have unleased.

I dream, I hope, but sadly without a lot of faith that it will come to pass, that Friday represents the Right’s Pearl Harbor moment. A devastating attack that was meant to cripple an enemy but instead woke a slumbering giant and that brought about the attacker’s utter ruin.

Share

A Response to Jordan S Carroll’s Article Misunderstanding a Classic 60s SF Novel

 

On May 29th Jacobin.com published the ironically titled article To Understand Elon Musk, You Have to Understand This ’60s Sci-Fi Novel by Jordan S. Carroll in which the good professor misread or misrepresented the novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (1966) by Robert A. Heinlein as a guide to understanding Elon Musk.

I come here not to defend Heinlein’s novel, its philosophies, or its meaning but rather in protest the professor’s inaccuracies and omissions that create a strawman for his argument.

Here from the article is Carroll’s description of the novel core conflict.

It’s about a lunar colony that frees itself, via advanced and cleverly applied technology, from the resource-sucking parasitism of Earth and its welfare dependents.

 

The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress depicts a moon colony forced by the centralized Lunar Authority to ship food to Earth where it goes to feed starving people in places like India. The lunar citizens, or Loonies, revolt against the state monopoly and establish a society characterized by free markets and minimal government.

 

Absent from this recounting and the entire article is the quite essential element that in the novel the moon is a penal colony. It is a prison removed from courts, laws, and governance. Exile to the moon is a one-way life sentence and even the guards and the despotic warden are, due to physiological changes wrought by prolonged life in 1/6 gravity, unable to return to Earth. People born on the moon are not technically prisoners but have no rights save whatever is granted by the warden’s generosity and can never live upon the Earth. It is a despotic, authoritarian dictatorship without any form of oversight. By omitting this element of the narrative Carroll is free to portray the people, for they are not citizens anywhere, of the moon as greedy libertarians indifferent to their fellow man.

The novel takes solutionism to the extreme when Mannie enlists the help of a sentient supercomputer named Mike to lead the overthrow of Earth’s colonial government on Luna

 

Here Professor Carroll has reversed the cause and effect of the novel’s progression. Mannie is not a revolutionary who enlisted the secret sentient computer into the revolution but rather it was the curious computer, Mike, that sent the apolitical Mannie into the revolutionary meeting because he had no way to listen in on the meeting. It is only after Mannie is won over by the revolutionaries and reveals to the pair that recruited him that the lunar colony’s central computer is aware that they decide to utilize this unique resource. Mike leads nothing, he is a tool and in many ways a child treating the revolt as a game.

When it comes to the revolution itself Carroll is no more careful in his representation that he was in depicting the conditions on the moon.

Mannie the computer technician, designs their clandestine cell system like a “computer diagram” or “neural network,” mapping out how information will flow between revolutionists. They determine the best way of organizing a cadre not through democratic deliberation or practical experience but through cybernetic principles.

 

Either Professor Carrol is ignorant or has chosen to ignore the history of Clandestine Cell Structure that has been used in resistance and revolutionary movements decades before the novel’s publications. In his haste to prove that everything from the novel that has apparently influenced Musk is tied to modern tech bro culture is has ignored or misrepresented actual history.

And here is another distortion of the novel’s events.

Even when it comes time to establish a constitution for the Luna Free State, the conspirators use clever procedural tricks to do an end run around everyone in the congress who is not a member of their clique. Smart individuals always win out over mass democracy in Heinlein’s fiction — and that’s a good thing.

 

First off, they did not ‘do an end run around’ the congress they established the congress with their command cell member occupying all the key positions. They attempted to create the impression of a representative government while retaining full control and that’s what happened — for a while.

The Lunar Congress, unaware that they were supposed to be rubber stamps and nothing more, formed a new government and with a stroke undid all of the revolutionaries careful plotting. Because this was not a revolution that shot the most capable revolutionaries after the victory, as so many in history has done, an actual representative government replaced the despotic tyranny of the penal colony. Not quite what Professor Carroll told people in his article.

And that brings me to the final and most critical blindness in the article and in people who hail the novel as a tale of a successful libertarian revolution.

In the novel the revolution failed.

Yes, the penal colony was freed, and a representative government replaced a dictatorship, but that government very quickly transitioned away from anything approaching pure libertarianism into a more conventional form. The novel opens with the Mannie bemoaning the coming of new taxes, and then once the flashback to the revolution is over, it ends with him contemplating immigration to some less populated area. The Libertarians lost the government. The moon did not become an outpost of pure unfettered capitalism and unregulated markets. It became Earth. If Musk thinks the novel points to an unregulated future, he has misread it as badly as Carroll.

Share

Quick Thoughts on the Leaker SCOTUS Draft

First off let me be plain, I am pro Choice on the issue of abortion. There are lots of arguments why but one I see too little of that to me is hugely determinative is that giving birth is life-threatening, particularly in the American health care system, especially so for people of color and poor economic resources. The decision to rick one’s life should only rest with the person whose life is being risked.

Alito’s leaked draft opinion is some 98 pages long and my summation of his argument will be both reductive and from a non-lawyer’s perspective. From what I can determine listening to sources both left and right his basic argument flows like this.

Abortion is not specifically named as a right in the constitution.

The constitution does protect right which are not specifically named. (The 9th Amendment.)

To determine if something is an unnamed right one looks to history and tradition as it was understood at the time of the 9th amendment and the 14th. (part of the legal dismantling of slavery following the civil war.)

In Alito’s view abortion was not part of the history and tradition of accepted rights in either the 18th or 19th centuries, therefor it could not be counted among the unnamed rights of the 9th amendment nor among the privileges and immunities of the 14th.

Given that Alito concludes that there is no right to abortion and at the time of the leak has persuaded four other conservative justices to agree to this reasoning, terminating, for the first time ever in American history, and individual right.

To me there are several philosophical troubles with this reasoning.

First it presumes that the unnamed rights of the constitution are a close set, limited in number, and restricted to only what could have been conceived of at the time by while male slavers. Rather than interpreting the galaxy of unnamed right to be an evolving set matching culture as it changed it is a static set but one without any definition to guide future person in that determination.

It relies upon reading minds, from a distance of more than two hundred years, of men who recognized no rights for women in self-determination to adjudicate the rights of people in the 21st century.

It presumes that the men who wrote and adopted the constitution were so limited in their minds and imagination that they were incapable of conceiving of rights not yet considered by history and tradition.

There is a school of thought, generally conservative, that rights are not granted by governments but rather recognized by them and that their true source is a divine power. But if you accept this theory on the source of rights then Alito’s opinion is even more insane. Alito is then saying though God, all knowing throughout all time, imbues people with rights he was incapable of granting rights fallen humans were unable to think of in 1789 or 1868.

In my opinion Alito conclusions, and the agreement of his fellow justices, is nothing more than highly motivated reasoning. This is something I have seen in my past time, tabletop gaming. A player has a predetermined conclusion that would benefit their game and suddenly the interpreting of rules becomes quite fluid and twisted logic is employed to arrive at the desired outcome. The conservatives want to overturn Roe and the method of getting there matters very little. As it has been said on one legal podcast the vibe is very much ‘Stare decisis is for suckers.’

Share