Great Moderates

[bartl]

Rush Limbaugh has made the rather ridiculous statement that there weren't any great moderates in American history; he considers moderates to be people afraid to take a stand, rather than people who look at conflicting principles, and attempt to seek a balance. I figured I'd start a list of great moderates (keeping out those whose accomplishments were strictly military). Feel free to add to it...

George Washington
Alexander Hamilton
Abraham Lincoln
Harry Truman
William Howard Taft (remembering his Supreme Court work, as well).
Sam Ervin

[Paul McEnery]

Rush Limbaugh has made the rather ridiculous statement that there weren't any great moderates in American history; he considers moderates to be people afraid to take a stand, rather than people who look at conflicting principles, and attempt to seek a balance. I figured I'd start a list of great moderates (keeping out those whose accomplishments were strictly military). Feel free to add to it...

George Washington
Alexander Hamilton
Abraham Lincoln
Harry Truman
William Howard Taft (remembering his Supreme Court work, as well).
Sam Ervin
Wouldn't Eisenhower fit?

[Dennis]

George W. Bush. he's spent a lot of money, pro illegal immigration, hasn't really taken a stand on abortion or gay marriage (it's just talk).

[badMike]

Rush Limbaugh has made the rather ridiculous statementIsn't Limbaugh ALWAYS ridiculous?

[bartl]

Wouldn't Eisenhower fit?
Actually, Eisenhower was exactly who I was thinking of when I talked about not including those whose accomplishments were strictly military; great general, definition of mediocrity as President.

[WatsonGlenn]

George Washington: How the hell is a guy that turns on his country (England) to lead a rebellion, a moderate?

Alexander Hamilton: This guy was all for big government and a large national debt. Despite this he has to be classified an arch conservative for his championing of big business. He also died in a duel to protect his honor. He hated Jefferson with a passion and basically tricked the country into throwing out the Articles of confederacy. How is he a moderate at anything?

Abraham Lincoln: This guy suspended habeas corpus and fought a war to prevent states from leaving the Union. A very dubious constitutional position to say the least. He hated slavery but used it to win the war. He was very liberal. Thats why the South hated him.

Harry Truman: This guy was a creation of a political machine. I forget the name. He threw Stalin over the side because of his fear of communism. He dropped atomic bombs on civilian targets. What behavior are you accusing him of moderating?

William Howard Taft: I don't know. He was certainly not moderate at the dinner table.

[bartl]

Political moderates, Watson. And one thing that moderates do is examine the context of behavior, as well as the behavior itself. They recognize that we must make choices among the avialable options, and that they can't wave a magic wand and make options that do not exist suddenly appear.

[WatsonGlenn]

Political moderates, Watson. And one thing that moderates do is examine the context of behavior, as well as the behavior itself. They recognize that we must make choices among the avialable options, and that they can't wave a magic wand and make options that do not exist suddenly appear.

By that definition everyone except Hitler and Gandhi were moderates.

[Drew Van T.]

Rush Limbaugh has made the rather ridiculous statement that there weren't any great moderates in American history; he considers moderates to be people afraid to take a stand, rather than people who look at conflicting principles, and attempt to seek a balance.

Just to get more context, what figures does he identify as contemporary political moderates, or did that not come up?

[comic_lover]

Isn't Limbaugh ALWAYS ridiculous? No,and he was right : There were never any great moderates.

[WatsonGlenn]

No,and he was right : There were never any great moderates.

To find out if this is true you have to define 'great' and then 'moderate.'

I think greatness usually involves some extreme behavior. Just being prsident does not make one great. I don't think Taft was great. I don't think the last Pope was great. I don't think Frederick the Great was all that great.

[bartl]

To find out if this is true you have to define 'great' and then 'moderate.'

I think greatness usually involves some extreme behavior. Just being prsident does not make one great. I don't think Taft was great. I don't think the last Pope was great. I don't think Frederick the Great was all that great.
Taft would agree that he was not a great President. However, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, well, that was a different story.

[Paul McEnery]

Actually, Eisenhower was exactly who I was thinking of when I talked about not including those whose accomplishments were strictly military; great general, definition of mediocrity as President.
Well, if you include as military his breaking of segregation in schools, sure.

[Paul McEnery]

Political moderates, Watson. And one thing that moderates do is examine the context of behavior, as well as the behavior itself. They recognize that we must make choices among the avialable options, and that they can't wave a magic wand and make options that do not exist suddenly appear.
Well, except that's exactly what you can do in America. I've done it myself (admittedly, while standing on the shoulders of other great American magicians). Partly because there's enough economic excess that's just begging to be spent, and partly because American enthusiasm can transform pop culture into radical thought.

I'd argue that that's exactly what Lee/Kirby/Ditko -- or Miles Davis/Ornette Coleman/Cecil Taylor, or Frank Zappa/Captain Beefheart/Iggy Pop/Velvet Underground, or Jackson Pollock through Andy Warhol -- did.

I also think you've got to have a very strange world view if you don't think of Kennedy as a great moderate.

[Gingold]

It's an idiotic premise, but you've got to consider who it's coming from. I'd imagine that Rush would argue, Bart, that those that you mentioned were either : a.) not great or b.) actually conservative ( but those damned revisionist historians keep trying to make us think otherwise).

[bartl]

Well, if you include as military his breaking of segregation in schools, sure.
Point taken. However, seeing that the Supreme Court had done all the hard work, and all he was doing was enforcing the law of the land, I still don't think he was a great President.

[jonahhex]

Harry Truman: This guy was a creation of a political machine. I forget the name. He threw Stalin over the side because of his fear of communism. He dropped atomic bombs on civilian targets. What behavior are you accusing him of moderating?

Pres. truman was a product of the Thomas J. Pendergast Machine of Kansas City, Missouri. Pendergast had been convicted in 1938 of corruption, including vote fraud. Pendergast spent from 1938- 1940 in prison, and died in 1945. If Pendergast had lived to see his Senator political creation Truman succeed into the presidency, Pendergast would have been pardoned. Truman said as much publicly.

Remember this was the 1930s: machine politics were the norm in the urban areas. The Urban machines were far more participatory, open, and transparent than their Southern dixiecrat rural counterparts, which contemporary political scientist C. Vann Woodward described accurately as Herrenvolk [master-race] democracies. African Americans social scientists, like W. E. B. Dubois, more honestly called it, a system of white dictatorship.

The urban machines were a way in some cases to incorporate and assimilate new ethnic groups, like in Chicago under Cermak and later Kelley. Where the machines did not face reformers, the machines ossified into corrupt and authoritarian institutions, like under Daly in Chicago or earlier in the 1930s, the Hague machine that ran New Jersey. Remember Universal suffrage in the U.S. is not acheived until 1965 with the Voting Civil Rights Act. Democracy has been an evolving process in the U.S. and has not appeared to be a sudden gift. It has been made over generations.

Truman most definitely was a moderate in his day and for the democrats in the 1940s. He faced rebellions from both the left of his party, Henry Wallace, and from his right, from Strom Thurmond.

Although reading Truman's personal writings about how God gave us the Bomb, make me very, very nervous, Truman was still a moderate for his day. I doubt if Dewey would have done much differently, than Truman in the foreign policy arena, and Dewey may have been more hampered by the isolationist right in the republican party.

Truman did not have to integrate the Army! The way the President did so was a brave act by an otherwise cautious moderate.

I mostly agree with Bart's list. Washington and Lincoln were moderates in different ways in very extreme and revolutionary times (or at least the Civil War). I maybe wrong but how can Hamilton be considered a moderate, rather than a conservative? I tend to not feel strongly about Pres. Taft, and could make an argument that both Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson were similarly moderate to conservative leaders as their was much overlap in their policies up to the first world war.

I would include Eisenhower. I LIKE IKE. The building of the interstate road system and the bringing an end to the Korea War are acts of a heroic and rational moderate.

AnOther heroic moderate I would include the late great Massachusetts Senator Edward Brooks. A moderate African American Republican who was closed out of the Boston Irish White Urban democrat machine. He was able to speak to both liberals and cdonservatives here in Boston in a way that has been lost in recent years.

Here are some of my favorite New Yorkers! the above mentioned Thomas Dewey from the 1940s and Mayor John Lindsey from the 1960s. I love NYC. :D

[WatsonGlenn]

Pres. truman was a product of the Thomas J. Pendergast Machine

Pendegrast! Thats right. I just could not think of it. The Internet is a wonderfull thing but I try not to rely on it too much.

Truman most definitely was a moderate in his day and for the democrats in the 1940s.

Truman was a hard line anti-communist so much so that he was willing to drop atomic bombs on Japan just to make sure the USSR did not get it. I don't know if that makes him a conservative Democrate or a conservative Republican but it darn sure disqualifies him from being a moderate. Wallace was interested in power not ideology so that was not an ideological struggle involving left right issues. Its the same with Thurmond. Also I would hesitate to place Truman in the "Great" catagory. What did he do that was so great.

[Steven Grant]

While the theory has been passed around, I don't think it's an established fact that Truman dropped the A-bomb on Japan (twice) primarily to frighten the Soviets or to keep them from invading Japan. In fact, Truman wasn't naturally particularly anti-Communist for most of his political career -- he really had no foreign policy interest or experience at all prior to becoming president. His "rabid anti-communism" (and by the standards of the rabid post-war anti-communists like Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon, Truman was an appeaser, barely better than a communist agent himself) was the result of taking on Winston Churchill as his foreign policy guru on becoming president; Churchill, like many Brits of his era, was a rabid anti-communist and one of the true architects of the Cold War (not to mention the man who coined the term "Iron Curtain"), and Truman commonly asked and took his advice on such matters. (I've never heard anything connecting Churchill to the decision to drop the A-bombs, though.) British foreign policy from 1917 on was often driven by anti-communism more than any other consideration; we now think of Chamberlain's signing off on a German takeover of Czechoslovakia as an "appeasement," but at the time it was considered a huge victory because it sent Nazi Germany, one perceived enemy of Britain, in the direction of conflict with the Soviet Union by encroaching on its territory. They wanted Germany to keep pushing further east (just not through Poland) in order for Germany and Russia to arrive at a state of semi-permanent war that would weaken both nations and keep them weak, thereby serving Britain's interests. Chamberlain returned to England knowing he had gotten exactly what he wanted from Hitler, and it only went awry because those untrustworthy rat bastards Hitler and Stalin went and spoiled everything by signing a non-aggression pact.

It occurs to me that it's hard to think of great moderates because, while moderation is usually an invaluable asset in politics, it's also rarely flamboyant enough to stick in people's memories, and rarely results in cataclysmic change. And if you're on the far right or far left, moderate centrism isn't seen as a virtue but a sin, appeasement of the enemy. So any name one can come up with for a "great moderate" will be undermined by accusations from more strident political viewpoints.

[Wig of Doom]

I'm reminded of a bit I read in a sci-fi novel recently where one character who is headed for kingship is told it's not so complimentary to be remembered as, say, "Joseph the Great." "Good King Joseph" is something much more positive (and, concomitantly, much rarer).

[blast_front]

Churchill, like many Brits of his era, was a rabid anti-communist and one of the true architects of the Cold War (not to mention the man who coined the term "Iron Curtain"

Actually, Churchill only popularized the term. Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels used it in an anti-Soviet article a year before Churchill's 1946 speech.

[WatsonGlenn]

While the theory has been passed around, I don't think it's an established fact that Truman dropped the A-bomb on Japan (twice) primarily to frighten the Soviets>>>

Nothing like that is ever “an established fact.” It makes sense to me in light or what I know and what I read. Of course nothing happens for only one reason.

Truman wasn't naturally particularly anti-Communist for most of his political career>>>

For most of his career he was a small time shoe salesman. But when it came down to it he did more to turn the Soviets against the USA than anyone else. He cut off the money pipeline without warning then tried to contain Soviet growth. Like he said “The buck stops here.” Truman would not want you to blame Churchill or anyone else for what he did.

Chamberlain returned to England knowing he had gotten exactly what he wanted from Hitler, and it only went awry because those untrustworthy rat bastards Hitler and Stalin went and spoiled everything by signing a non-aggression pact.

I like your point about Chamberlain setting Germany against the USSR. It is of course true and a good point. But he should have seen it coming.

[bartl]

I like your point about Chamberlain setting Germany against the USSR. It is of course true and a good point. But he should have seen it coming.
There was also a little factor that Great Britain was not ready to go to war with Germany; had Chamberlain declared war at the time, Britain would have lost rather quickly. He bought Great Britain time to build up their military forces.

[Paul McEnery]

There was also a little factor that Great Britain was not ready to go to war with Germany; had Chamberlain declared war at the time, Britain would have lost rather quickly. He bought Great Britain time to build up their military forces.
Arguable. My understanding is that the Sudetenland was perfectly defendable. Handing it over to Hitler was what gave the game away.

[bartl]

Arguable. My understanding is that the Sudetenland was perfectly defendable. Handing it over to Hitler was what gave the game away.
As you said, arguable. A better argument, then, would be that Chamberlain BELIEVED it to be true.

[Steven Grant]

For most of his career he was a small time shoe salesman. But when it came down to it he did more to turn the Soviets against the USA than anyone else. He cut off the money pipeline without warning then tried to contain Soviet growth. Like he said “The buck stops here.” Truman would not want you to blame Churchill or anyone else for what he did.

Sure he would. And it was Churchill who pressured, cajoled, wheedled and advised him to put as much pressure as humanly possible on Stalin, which, as you say, did more to turn the Soviets against the USA than anything else. As you say, he should have seen it coming. Whether the point of the atombombing of Japan was to end the war before the Soviets could invade the islands, a result was an aggressive determination by the Soviets to get their own atomic bomb program up and running ASAP, which was the real start of the Cold War, since both sides had to think long and hard about pushing the other into a direct confrontation. Of course, we may never have bothered to go into space if that hadn't happen, and Truman's course did eventually effect regime change in the Soviet Union, since it now seems Stalin was murdered to prevent him from launching an atomic attack on the USA, which he had steadily become more and more determined to do... We managed to dodge that bullet only because it seemed stupid and suicidal enough to those in Stalin's inner circle to overcome their longstanding worship/fear of the man...

I like your point about Chamberlain setting Germany against the USSR. It is of course true and a good point. But he should have seen it coming.

Of course he should have. But they never do. That's what happens when you make wish-fulfillment presumptions about your enemies...

[jonahhex]

Truman was a hard line anti-communist so much so that he was willing to drop atomic bombs on Japan just to make sure the USSR did not get it. I don't know if that makes him a conservative Democrate or a conservative Republican but it darn sure disqualifies him from being a moderate. Wallace was interested in power not ideology so that was not an ideological struggle involving left right issues. Its the same with Thurmond. Also I would hesitate to place Truman in the "Great" catagory. What did he do that was so great.

Ok. I will grant you that maybe I overstated on calling Truman "Great".

But I still hold Truman was a moderate for the Democrats in 1944. His loyal connection to Missouri democratic machine politics and the sickness of FDR in 1944 was the reason former republican and leftist progressive Henry Wallace was bumped as the vice president, and replaced by Truman.

In foreign affairs, FDR is the most leftist president the U.S. has ever seen. FDR recognized the Soviet Union in 1934. FDR befriended President Cardenas of Mexico even after Cardenas nationalized oil. The u.s. pulled out of Haiti and other Carribbean & Central American nations under FDR. Compared to these actions, every other U.S. president, including Kennedy and Carter, are conservatives. Roosevelt was nearly an anti-imperialist in the scheme of things. Wallace most certainly would have continued this practice in foreign affairs. FDR's foreign policy is certainly to be commended, but since WW2 it would have been far left in the U.S. scheme of things.

The attacks by both Wallace and Thurmond were MOST certainly ideological as well as about power.

The left viewpoint in foriegn affairs I describe above would have continued under Wallace. 1948 was a year of defeat for the left of the Democrats. One they have never recovered from!!! Claude Pepper in Florida and a leftist in North Carolina went down for defeat in 1948, I believe. Scumbags Nixon was red-baiting his liberal opponent in California. (I can't think of her name but she was married to Melvyn Douglas.) Ditto for McCarthy. The defeat of the union movement in the south in the botched organizing campaign of Operation Dixie, and the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act. For African Americans, there were no riots and/or major demonstations in the South from 1947-53. Th NAACP actually saw a decline in their membership in this period. BUT the greatest defeat of the Left in this period was in Puerto Rico. The poor Puerto Ricans suffered horribly under "operation Bootstrap" with nearly 1500 honest indendence activists incarcerated in prison often far from their home island. [pro-libertad!] I believe under Wallace and/or a longer life term for FDR, the outcome in Puerto Rico would have been more humane and less violent on both sides.

I do not believe the Independence movement in Puerto Rico would have tried to assassinate FDR or Wallace, the way they tried to kill Truman twice.

Also, Thurmond's attack on Truman is the beginning of the racists right's shift to the Republican Party that has continued to this day to the point that in some southern states the democratic party is becoming a party of people of color.

I still believe Truman was a moderate. Although I would have voted for Henry Wallace in 1948. :o

[WatsonGlenn]

There was also a little factor that Great Britain was not ready to go to war with Germany



Great Britain was unwilling to go to war but not unable. If Britain had stood up to Hitler at the beginning, when he started breaking the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler would have had to back down. Hitler bluffed and Chamberlain balked. Thats appeasement at its heart.

Its a lesson those who criticize Bush for stopping Saddam early would do well to think about.

[WatsonGlenn]

a result was an aggressive determination by the Soviets to get their own atomic bomb program up and running ASAP, which was the real start of the Cold War,

Whether we bombed Japan or not the USSR would have wanted their own bomb.

Of course, we may never have bothered to go into space if that hadn't happen,

Extremey doubtfull in my mind. Its been a dream of man since he first looked up.

it now seems Stalin was murdered to prevent him from launching an atomic attack on the USA,

This is the first I have heard this.

[WatsonGlenn]

I do not believe the Independence movement in Puerto Rico would have tried to assassinate FDR or Wallace, the way they tried to kill Truman twice.

I believe the first time was when he was still the VP. Its a crazy story.

[Steven Grant]

Whether we bombed Japan or not the USSR would have wanted their own bomb.
Sure, of course they would have, but they may not have felt such an urgency for one if the need for parity wasn't made blatantly clear to them, not many miles off their own coast. Russia suffered a lot during WWII, it's likely that without that incentive they'd've put many of those resources into rebuilding quicker.

Extremey doubtfull in my mind. Its been a dream of man since he first looked up.
Yes, but... the main thrust for the American space program was the Soviet's putting a man in space. I remember it very clearly, I was just old enough then to be conscious of it. It was an incredible sea change in American policy, politicians who had previously screamed about spending a drop of money on any sort of scientific development were suddenly screaming about how we couldn't let the Russians have the moon, "space travel" suddenly became a national defense issue, and suddenly all us good little boys were expected to (and wanted to) grow up to be scientists and astronauts, something that was absolutely unheard of prior to around 1960; wanting to be a scientist before that was, at least among kids, considered a really effeminate thing. Suddenly it was the macho thing to do. Honestly, I suspect without Gregarin there would have been absolutely zero public support for putting a man on the moon, and there would have been no congressional support for it. We might have ended up there sooner or later, but it wouldn't have been considered a matter of any urgency.

This is the first I have heard this.
It was in KGB files that came out in the mid-90s, after the Soviet Union fell. (Which Condaleeza Rice said at the time, and apparently still believes, was a devious Soviet ploy to get us to drop our guard.)

[jonahhex]

I believe the first time was when he was still the VP. Its a crazy story.
Yes. you are right. I am mistaken. What do you mean it is a crazy story? My assertion that a more lively FDR or Wallace would have handed Puerto Rico differently? Or the assassination attempt?

[jonahhex]

It occurs to me that it's hard to think of great moderates because, while moderation is usually an invaluable asset in politics, it's also rarely flamboyant enough to stick in people's memories, and rarely results in cataclysmic change. And if you're on the far right or far left, moderate centrism isn't seen as a virtue but a sin, appeasement of the enemy. So any name one can come up with for a "great moderate" will be undermined by accusations from more strident political viewpoints.

Really good point. I totally agree (and I tend to the very far left). Or the great moderates are just uninspiring. Like Bart's example of Sam Erwin is to me, or some of us being pro-Eisenhower is to Bart.

[Steven Grant]

On the other hand, Sam Erwin probably qualifies as a great moderate, a man whose political spectrum was defined mostly by a simple grasp of right and wrong. It's largely forgotten now that, past a certain point, it was Republicans in Congress who pushed (and prosecuted) the Watergate matter far more than Democrats, to the fleeting detriment of their own party, because many of them felt it was the right thing to do to not let various acts by the Nixon White House stand, partly because they felt the acts were flat out wrong and unfit for a democratic society, and partly because they understood that if they looked the other way for "their" president, they'd be setting a terrible precedent that would "authorize" future presidents of whatever party to operate in similar or worse ways.

Which doesn't mean I'm sure Erwin's political life was spotless and he never did anything that might seem like a shortcut or compromise, because that's what politicians do. That's part of the nature of politics because, as emotionally unsatisfying as the concept is, politics without at least some compromise would get mighty, mighty bloody mighty, mighty quickly.

[WatsonGlenn]

Sure, of course they would have, but they may not have felt such an urgency for one if the need for parity wasn't made blatantly clear to them, not many miles off their own coast. Russia suffered a lot during WWII, it's likely that without that incentive they'd've put many of those resources into rebuilding quicker.

Why? Because their leadership was so reasonable and caring concerning their citizen's needs before the war? Come on Mr Grant!


Honestly, I suspect without Gregarin there would have been absolutely zero public support for putting a man on the moon.

I don't think I have ever disagreed with you more. Eveything I have read points towards a concerted effort in space long before that.

[WatsonGlenn]

Yes. you are right. I am mistaken. What do you mean it is a crazy story? My assertion that a more lively FDR or Wallace would have handed Puerto Rico differently? Or the assassination attempt?

I mean the assasination attempt itself was a crazy story in that it was such a screwed up attempt to kill a man. I don't remember the particulars but I remember thinking when I read about it the first time: "man what a one armed fire drill that was."

[Drew Van T.]

Yes, but... the main thrust for the American space program was the Soviet's putting a man in space.

Nothing's changed, either, as there is a similar thrust behind the space programs of China and Japan. China wants to prove by way of its space program that it's an up & coming superpower and show up the Japanese at the same time, while the Japanese want to show up China with their program. They don't care that it's all ground well-travelled by Russians and Americans as well as science and human endeavor in a more general sense.

[Steven Grant]

Why? Because their leadership was so reasonable and caring concerning their citizen's needs before the war? Come on Mr Grant!
Stalin was interested in having Russia achieve the standard of living of western nations, whatever you may think of his approach. (And there's not much reason to think well of it.) It's not so much a matter that their leadership would have been so reasonable and caring as just not quite so... paranoid's the wrong word, since it wasn't exactly paranoia, but you know what I mean... in the absence of the Japanese blasts. Stalin would certainly not have felt there was nothing to fear from America, but he might (obviously there's no way to know for certain) have felt a threat wasn't quite so imminent.

I don't think I have ever disagreed with you more. Eveything I have read points towards a concerted effort in space long before that.

Oh, the military was certainly interested in the prospects of space travel, but until it was actually achieved, by the scary Russians, there was nothing even vaguely resembling popular support for it. Space travel was science fiction and science fiction was goofy twaddle for halfwits, and there were plenty of pork barrel projects for politicians to spend money on here on Earth. I'm not saying there was no support for a space program, but widespread support for spending public money on it? Uh-uh. You can believe what you want, but that's how it was. I'd be curious what you read.

[WatsonGlenn]

Stalin had no concern for Russian consumer needs. He commanded three Five Year Plans that devastated the consumer economy in the USSR with no regard to the Russian people or their desires, all in pursuit of 'catching up' to the West industrially.

Stalin proved his paranoia before WWII during the Great Purge. The USA had nothing to do with that. He was pathological about his paranoia. He killed anyone, including family members, who might provide the slightest challenge to his reign. He is the very definition of paranoid. And yes you can be paranoid even when people are out to get you.

I don't know what to say about your surprising conclusion that Americans never cared about space until the Russian did. It makes no sense. Americans are practically born with a desire to expand. We led the way in manned flight and then in space. We broke the sound barrior. Its in our nature to fly. We filled up a continent in less than 100 years. We invented Superman, Star Trek and Buck Rogers. Of course we want to go into space.

[Steven Grant]

So your contention that Americans were rarin' to go into space is based on your presumption that, "Hey, we're Americans! Of course we want to!"?

Even today, I doubt most Americans give a rat's ass if we ever go into space again, unless somebody else tries to go there. And in the '50s, it just wasn't thought to be something anybody would do, it was just something you read about in comic books, or in science fiction pulps/cheap paperbacks. All the space movies of the 1950s are paranoia festivals about the infectious evil that hovers Out There, just waiting to destroy us, and none of those were A-movies. There just was no popular groundswell for space travel, and certainly no desire on the part of Mr. & Mrs. Average American Taxpayer (or Mr. Average Congressman) to pay for such a thing. Until the Russians did it and made it an absolute necessity. I don't see why that's particularly hard to understand, or what's so surprising about it. Go back and watch '50s TV reruns if you can find them; see if you can find one single instance, pre-Sputnik, of anybody seriously suggesting America should send a man into space and not get ridiculed for it. Outside of some science fiction show (bearing in mind that science fiction was never very popular with the American public pre-STAR WARS)...

[WatsonGlenn]

So your contention that Americans were rarin' to go into space is based on your presumption that, "Hey, we're Americans! Of course we want to!"?

I pointed out several instances in which Americans lead the way in exploration and innovation, specifically in flight. I pointed out that our national characher is closely tied in with exploration. This position was first commented on by the famous historian Frederick Jackson Turner in his frontier thesis.

I doubt most Americans give a rat's ass if we ever go into space again,

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree, a phrase I hate. Not only do I disagree I admit I do not understand how you could even reasonably hold to your opinion after having read an American history book or even having lived in America.

We are explorers and colonists and the sons of explorers and colonists. Its what we do. To say we stopped being that at the turn of the century when we ran out of frontier is surprising.

Boys look up. They dream of the stars. Men do too. We were not meant for this earth alone. Yes some peope get bogged down in everyday mundane needs like feeding their family and war but the dream of flight never goes far away. Its always just under the surface waiting to burst free. Space flight is the logical extention of that dream.

[blast_front]

Except the exploration of the frontier was largely a financial concern. Individuals and families in search of cheap farmland and natural resources (i.e. gold) and others looking to cash in by providing goods and services to these fortuneseekers settled the frontier. The impulse to explore for wonder's sake didn't lead people to stake claims in central Minnesota or the Great Plains.

And that impulse is alive and well in modern America, but we're not looking upward, we're looking to industrial parks and housing developments on the suburban fringe. Historically, American exploration was an individual pursuit, and space travel is nothing if not a massive collective effort.

If they could bring the price of an interplanetary conestoga down to that of a midsize SUV, it would be a different story.

[Wig of Doom]

If they could bring the price of an interplanetary conestoga down to that of a midsize SUV, it would be a different story.

Giddy-up! There's iridium in them thar asteroids! Yee-haw!

[blast_front]

Giddy-up! There's iridium in them thar asteroids! Yee-haw!

That really makes me wish I could find the theme song to Moon Zero Two somewhere.

[Dennis]

yeah, men want to explore. there's something in camille paglia's sexual personae about paganism (female) being an earth cult, and christianity (male) a sky cult. women are tied to the earth (nether regions/female/hell?) and men are afraid/hate women, so they want to explore and get the hell out of here (sky/space/heaven/male). she says "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts."

[bartl]

(bearing in mind that science fiction was never very popular with the American public pre-STAR WARS)...
One thing I remember in particular was that, up until Star Wars, TV Guide movie review Judith Crist had such hatred of science fiction movies that she invariably revealed the ending of any science fiction movie she reviewed, and so little was thought of science fiction movies that TV Guide allowed it.

[bartl]

I pointed out several instances in which Americans lead the way in exploration and innovation, specifically in flight. I pointed out that our national characher is closely tied in with exploration. This position was first commented on by the famous historian Frederick Jackson Turner in his frontier thesis.
Robert Goddard was ignored in the United States; when the U.S. grabbed a bunch of Nazi rocket scientists, they were amazed to find out that all the German rocket expertise was mainly building on Goddard's work.

[bartl]

That really makes me wish I could find the theme song to Moon Zero Two somewhere.
A local New York station used to always show that as a double with THE GREEN SLIME, also with a truly great theme song. Let's see what I can find.

Here's a clip:
http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,1089755,00.html

[blast_front]

Bart, that made my day! Thanks, man.

[jhauge]

A better question would be what is a moderate stance on issues?

What makes one a moderate? Is it having liberal thought on one issue and conservative on another? Whenever a politician is described as moderate, the usuall qualifier is he/she voted with dems on one issue, and pubs the next. Is there a moderate position, or one who can go both ways depending on the issue. Gullioni is described as conservative moderate because he is pro-choice, which is a liberal stance. However, he is hawkish on the war. You could have an opposite politician who is against the war, but is also pro-life. Each position is "extreme" to one side, but the politician will be described as moderate.

Is there moderate thought like liberal/conservative? or someone who picks a liberal/conservative stance based on the topic?

[fumetti]

I don't know what to say about your surprising conclusion that Americans never cared about space until the Russian did. It makes no sense. Americans are practically born with a desire to expand. We led the way in manned flight and then in space. We broke the sound barrior. Its in our nature to fly. We filled up a continent in less than 100 years. We invented Superman, Star Trek and Buck Rogers. Of course we want to go into space.

Your history is very suspect...

(1) Steven is right. Space travel prior to Gregarin sounded like silliness to most people. Only scientists and the military gave it much more thought than "yeah, we hope to get there someday."

You're confusing wishful thinking with actual budget planning. Any attempt to fund a true space program prior to Gregarin would have been laughed out of Congress as completely frivolous.

People dream of time travel and teleportation today. "Look it up." That doesn't mean you'd get a multi-billion dollar appropriation out of Congress for either of them.

(2) We did NOT "fill up" a continent in 100 years! Whether you count just the English, or all Europeans, it took a heck of a lot longer than that!

Nor did we "fill up" the continent just because we were being explorative. There was clear practical need (even if that need is greed) in the motivations to move West. Same with moving from Europe to America. It took the English almost 100 years to decide it was worth the effort to settle on this continent after its discovery in 1492.

Same with space exploration. Until America saw a legitimate need/value in a space program, there wasn't one. Even though Americans had been dreaming about space travel since at least the 1920s.

[fumetti]

Abraham Lincoln: This guy suspended habeas corpus and fought a war to prevent states from leaving the Union. A very dubious constitutional position to say the least. He hated slavery but used it to win the war. He was very liberal. Thats why the South hated him.

Oh my, the spin! Lincoln did not attack the south. The South started a war against their government by attacking a federal fort. It was Lincoln's sworn constitutional OBLIGATION to defend the nation against attacks from without AND within. It was his duty to put down North Carolina's insurrection.

At what time did the South try any legal means to cede from the Union? Was there a vote in Congress? Was there an amendment proposed listing the method by which states leave the union? Did the state of North Carolina sue the federal gov't over who owned Fort Sumner? Or whether a state had the right to deny federal forts on their property? No, the South just started firing. From a moderate perspective, the South looked like it had lost its freaking mind.

Maybe Lincoln wasn't a moderate. But the South hated him because he was an abolitionist, not for any general liberalisms.

[fumetti]

I shoulda posted this first, but I'll post it now...

Does anybody really care what Limbaugh says?

It's plain to everybody by now that everything he says boils down to: GOP/con is good; Dem/lib is bad.

He's only badmouthing moderates because Bush is an extremist. If he can get you to agree extremism is a trait of a great president, then he can get you to accept Bush as a great president.

(These tricks work. Osama Osama Osama Saddam Osama Saddam Osama Saddam Saddam Saddam Saddam...)

[blast_front]

It was his duty to put down North Carolina's insurrection.

I hate to nitpick, but you're thinking of South Carolina. Ft. Sumter is in Charleston Harbor.

[jhauge]

He's only badmouthing moderates because Bush is an extremist. If he can get you to agree extremism is a trait of a great president, then he can get you to accept Bush as a great president.


What is a moderate position? There is not a moderate belief like liberal/conservative. You can name great liberal leaders and great conservative leaders, but moderates are hard to come by. Being moderate, you are defined by the left and right. There is very rarely any middle ground. When someone is defined as moderate, it's not because they have a moderate philosophy, but they believe the liberal point of view on one issue and the conservative on the next.

[jhauge]

At what time did the South try any legal means to cede from the Union? Was there a vote in Congress? Was there an amendment proposed listing the method by which states leave the union? Did the state of North Carolina sue the federal gov't over who owned Fort Sumner? Or whether a state had the right to deny federal forts on their property? No, the South just started firing. From a moderate perspective, the South looked like it had lost its freaking mind.


If a country has a president, it's own currency, and negotiates with other nations, that is a pretty good indication the confederacy was seperate from the union. You don't need a vote in Congress. The United States did not become a country because it was legal to do so. The South wanted to be a seperate country and they were.

[WatsonGlenn]

(1) Steven is right. Space travel prior to Gregarin sounded like silliness to most people. Only scientists and the military gave it much more thought than "yeah, we hope to get there someday."

No, Mr Grant is not right. Americans and humans in general have always dreamed of flight. Space flight is the natural extension of that.

You're confusing wishful thinking with actual budget planning.

No you are. The fact that we did not spend as much money before Gagarin as we did after does not mean Americans did not want to fly in space.

Any attempt to fund a true space program prior to Gregarin would have been laughed out of Congress as completely frivolous.

Only by the small minded among us. NACA exsited before Gagarin or NASA. American Pilots like Chuck Yeager were flying, arguably in space, before Gagarin. We were on our way to the moon before Gagarin or Sputnik.

[WatsonGlenn]

Oh my, the spin! Lincoln did not attack the south.

Maybe you could show me where I said he did.

Maybe Lincoln wasn't a moderate.

Which was my original point.

[fumetti]

The fact that we did not spend as much money before Gagarin as we did after does not mean Americans did not want to fly in space.

Neither Grant nor I said nobody wanted to fly in space. (That's YOUR strawman.) But it was at best idle dreaming amongst the American public and speculation in the government. By no means was it a national priority.

NACA exsited before Gagarin or NASA. American Pilots like Chuck Yeager were flying, arguably in space, before Gagarin. We were on our way to the moon before Gagarin or Sputnik.

America was NOWHERE NEAR THE MOON before Gagarin. NACA was aeronautics and then missiles, with some conceptualizing--technical daydreaming, if you will--of manned missile flights in space (our orbit, not to Mars or anything). But nothing about going to the moon.

The fact that Congress dumped NACA for an all-new program (NASA) tells you there was a major shift in attitude. America was different after Gagarin.

Gagarin in space? Boom: NASA. We need to one-up the Commies? Boom: American on the moon a major priority.

[fumetti]

If a country has a president, it's own currency, and negotiates with other nations, that is a pretty good indication the confederacy was seperate from the union. You don't need a vote in Congress. The United States did not become a country because it was legal to do so. The South wanted to be a seperate country and they were.

No, they were just being run by a bunch of slavery-loving lunatics who were holding those states hostage. The North had to liberate those southern American citizens from the tyranny of renegades and traitors acting outside the Constitution (which each of the southern states had sworn to uphold).

We're all very lucky the North saved America. Had the traitors been successful, fascists would be running most of Europe and Asia, and chunks of Africa and the Pacific right now.

[Steven Grant]

Yeah, now instead they're just running most of America.

(That was a joke, Watson.)

(Probably.)