This Is What Happens When People Try To Work Together in DC
At a time when no one here in Washington seems to want to reach out and talk to people with different opinions so as to seek common ground and enable collaboration Jim Bridenstine and Bill Nye are. And the net result? The #stopbridenstine crowd complains. pic.twitter.com/p4M0hY5eZi
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) January 30, 2018
Keith’s note: Yesterday @BillNye tweeted this statement: “Tomorrow night I will attend the State of the Union as a guest of Congressman Jim Bridenstine – nominee for NASA Administrator – who extended me an invitation in my role as CEO of The Planetary Society. The Society is the world’s largest and most influential non-governmental nonpartisan space organization, co-founded by Carl Sagan. While the Congressman and I disagree on a great many issues – we share a deep respect for NASA and its achievements and a strong interest in the future of space exploration. My attendance tomorrow should not be interpreted as an endorsement of this administration, or of Congressman Bridenstine’s nomination, or seen as an acceptance of the recent attacks on science and the scientific community. The U.S. Space Program has long been a source of American technical achievement, a symbol of our innovative spirit, and a source of national pride. There are extraordinary opportunities for our country, and for all humanity, in the continued exploration of space. Historically, the Space Program has brought Americans together, and during his address, I hope to hear the President’s plans to continue exploring the space frontier.”
Bill Nye and the State of a Polarized Union, Planetary Society
“Space exploration is one of the few areas of politics that still offers significant opportunities for bipartisan rapprochement. A shared passion for space can lay the groundwork for a relationship between individuals of very different political beliefs. This can help build trust and mutual respect between them, and potentially allow them to engage on more contentious issues that would otherwise be immediately dismissed or ignored. The current lack of mutual trust between the parties has been identified as one of the threats to a functioning democracy, and space provides a rare opportunity to try and reverse that trend.”
Keith’s update: This online article has this tweet embedded in it.
Bill Nye was a Trump nominee’s guest at the State of the Union. Scientists were not amused, Washington Post
“When a congressman and current nominee for NASA Administrator asks you to be his guest at the State of the Union address in Washington, D.C., how do you respond?” the society said in making the announcement. “For us, the answer was easy. Yes, Bill would be there.”
This is not worth the effort. Congress determines NASA policy. If we want NASA to be progressive, we need progressives in Congress.
So James Webb was just lucky?
Partly, yes, the luck of being born at a time when civility and bi-partenship were considered the hallmark of statecraft and the true calling of civil servents.
Oh. and the whole beat-the commies-to-the-moon thing, too 🙂
OTOH, it’s worth remembering that the reason NASA facilities are scattered over half the US, and particularly the southern states, was to win support in Congress.
Why, if you have launch in Florida and engine design in California, do you put training and ops in Texas, and design and testing in Alabama? Pork for Senate votes. Pure political bribery. Same as it always was. Same as it always was.
I’m confounded by this attitude, as if ‘spreading the wealth’ and the concomitant wider support for NASA is a bad thing.
Nothing happens in Congress without some sort of trade, and again, how is this a bad thing?
It’s a big part of the reason for the mismanagement and costs at NASA. It’s one thing to run 10 centres when you’re getting 4% of the national budget. It’s quite another when you’re getting less than half of 1%.
Throw in the internal rivalries between centres over projects, the siloing, the need to spread around parts of major projects so everyone gets a taste (with the concomitant duplication of management costs, and the difficulty in communication and oversight for staff), etc etc.
Lyndon Johnson was not even subtle about this. He made it clear that to win political support you had to make any program seem personally vital to the person you were trying to influence. He sold Medicare by telling legislators that their own grandmothers would depend on it. He even offerred NASA facilities to legislators as bargaining chips for other programs.
Trading is bad because ostracism is a tactic of progressive parties. You aren’t allowed to speak with the opposition or to be seen with them in any way that might appear as an endorsement. If you do you get shut out. For lukewarm support from the right you lose all support from the left.
It’s a mistake for space of course. The gop has been a backer of projects in the past, when bipartisanship was possible, and if you don’t engage with the ruling party you can’t really fault them for not doing the things you want.
Unfortunately the left has whipped itself into a frenzy of hate for all things right. That leaves us with no voice in a gop led Congress.
That’s worth remembering, but I don’t think that was Mr. Spencer’s point. In the 1960s, there was quite a bit of politics and pork involved. But there was also, in Congress, a general tendency to make compromises and agreements. Today, that seems to be missing. Instead of making deals and creating a consensus, it’s much more about doing everything possible to keep the outer party from doing anything. More “us versus them” and less “lets work out something we can all live with.”
I think people remember that era of politics with rose colored glasses. I found several Time and Newsweek issues in my parents house from the 60s and 70s. The language used wasn’t quite as crass and vulgar as today, but the meaning and intent sure was. There were plenty of articles that if you replaced the names from that era with names from today, you wouldn’t think anything was out of place. With battles over issues like civil rights, and the Vietnam War, the division and rancor rivaled today.
I guess I’d say those divisions (and I agree they were bitter) weren’t exactly partisan. For example, before approximately 1980, the south was both solidly Democratic (e.g. North Carolina’s first Republican governor since Reconstruction was elected in 1980) and socially very… conservative. Some of the strongest opponents of the civil rights movement, such as George Wallace, were Democrats. Which side the of a bitter dispute a congressman was on depended (at least to some extent) on the issue and their constituents interests. Today, you don’t see someone “crossing the aisle” nearly as often, and the debate is down to “what’s your favorite color (red, blue or maybe green)?”
Webb was a superb administrator, but he carried out the policy Kennedy and Johnson sold to Congress. When the NASA budget started to decline there was little he could do about it.
It would be nice if some of the most self righteous “sciency” people would learn a little science and achieve an appropriate level of humility. Science without skepticism is not science at all. Just sayin’.
A non sequitur
We’ll, I’m going on record here as saying that I think this is a good thing. I like Bill Nye and I like Brindinstine and with other attendees bringing guests that strengthen the divide, this is refreshing.
Did I blink and miss something about NASA last night in the SOTU?
I like Bill, however, is the bow tie necessary?
It really says something about how political science has become since government funded “big science” emerged after WWII.
https://www.seattlepi.com/l…
Scientific American op-ed blasts Bill Nye over State of the Union: ‘He does not speak for science’
Now that he being a role model for how scientists should be responsible in political debates he is being attacked. This really is so sad, especially given the following he has built among kids in promoting STEM over the years.I guess the lesson scientists want kids to learn is it is OK to hate those you oppose so much you avoid working with them to change their opinions.
Nye: “Historically, the Space Program has brought Americans together…”
50 years ago America was vastly different country willing to engage in a major war, put men on the moon, eliminate poverty, eliminate pollution, establish civil rights, set safety standards (OSHA), etc. Now all we do is argue over what programs to cut.
Could it be that now only a few states benefit (local spending) from the space program? Back in the days it seemed more spread out like military bases all over the country. Nowadays with much fewer bases (less airplanes, troops, tanks, ships) some benefit very well from military spending where many others foot the bill but get no direct local spending.