GOP DEBATE ON LUNAR BASE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr5t_h2WCRM
I would rather Newt Gingrich not be president.
He doesn’t seem to be particularly nice. He has not been very good to his wives, and his ego is big enough already without that honor. Overall, I guess I just don’t think he’s worthy.
So I’ve been horribly conflicted over his grand promises for space because a lunar colony is something I could really get behind.
Not to say I think that’s a real promise.
Gingrich has been talking about space for many years now, so I’m sure he means what he is saying - on some level. But even thoroughly thought-out primary campaign guarantees fall quickly to the harsh realities of governing, and Gingrich’s space promise seems to be more of a “cool idea” than a policy.
So no, I’m not voting for Gingrich just because on Jan. 25 he promised a crowd at a Florida community college to establish an American lunar colony by the end of his second term.
But I do wish other Republicans weren’t laughing quite so hard.
Mitt Romney and those other guys have seized the opportunity to harp on Gingrich’s idea as irresponsible or even wasteful. They’re not restricting their derision to the concept of a lunar colony. Rather they all seem to object to the idea of spending money up in space.
In the debate Thursday, Romney said he’d rather “be rebuilding housing here in the U.S.” Ron Paul suggested “health care or something” should get space money. Rick Santorum thinks it’s irresponsible to talk about “new programs and big ideas,” in space or elsewhere.
It’s hard to think that these are the best minds in one of our two major parties.
Gingrich referenced John F. Kennedy’s great space promise, to put a man on the moon within the decade. At that time, the idea was barely plausible, and its achievement was without doubt one of mankind’s greatest feats.
Today, our candidates half-heartedly acknowledge that accomplishment, while brushing off its basic premise.
Calling space “the next frontier,” Santorum limited its relevance to “space defense.” Paul agreed that military projects are our only good reasons to be up there, and Romney said he’d make sure all space programs translate to “commercial products.”
Talk about missing the point.
We shouldn’t go to space to fire missiles down at Earth, or to develop better freeze-dried ice cream. We should go to space because it is a grand endeavor, and worthy of our unique human capacities.
When we do something new, and difficult, it leaves us better than we were before.
The byproducts of space adventures like satellite TV and certain weapons were souvenirs from a much greater journey, and tomorrow’s leaders would do better to remember that.
The truth is, we are better than the way we’ve been acting lately. We are smarter, we are bigger and we are bolder. If there is one thing this country really needs, it’s an “impossible” commitment we can rise to.
It matters that America has led the way in space. Gingrich gets that, and I hope our next president does too.
Reach the columnist at john.a.gaylord@asu.edu
Click here to subscribe to the daily State Press newsletter.
