Education Policy on the Moon
Revisiting Barack Obama’s education speech, this bit near the beginning touched on some interesting themes:
I know there are some who believe we can only handle one challenge at a time. They forget that Lincoln helped lay down the transcontinental railroad, passed the Homestead Act, and created the National Academy of Sciences in the midst of Civil War. Likewise, President Roosevelt didn’t have the luxury of choosing between ending a depression and fighting a war. President Kennedy didn’t have the luxury of choosing between civil rights and sending us to the moon. And we don’t have the luxury of choosing between getting our economy moving now and rebuilding it over the long term.
I agree with Obama’s conclusion, but this Moon analogy seems terrible. It’s true that there was no zero-sum tradeoff between civil rights and the moon, but at the same time we obviously did have the luxury of just not going to the moon. The point I would make about education is that the quality of the education the current generation of children receive is critical to the economic well-being of the country 20, 30, and 40 years from now and if screw it up, you can’t get the kids back in school. We really don’t have the luxury of choosing, but Kennedy did.
The Lincoln business, meanwhile, is one of congress’ great untold stories. People generally don’t think about this very much, but one important consequence of secession was to radically shift the balance of power in Congress since almost every southern member was gone. Suddenly, the super-empowered northern-based Republican majority could pass all sorts of legislation on all sorts of topics. And legislate they did—Homestead Act, all kinds of trade protections, railroad schemes, etc. Just imagine would happen in congress today if the South seceded? It would change everything! And, obviously, it’s not as if there was less regional polarization back then. Conversely, what if Southern Democrats hadn’t seceded back in 1860-61 and had just instead decided to mount a ton of filibusters of all Lincoln’s key legislative priorities? Of course back then we didn’t have the present-day understanding that routine filibusters are okay. But just for fun, project today’s alleged supermajority requirement back to the election of 1860 and a Southern decision that obstructionism was a better path to the preservation of slavery than secession.
31 Responses to “Education Policy on the Moon”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 10th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
don’t forget the entire land-grant university system, from the morrill act of 1863.
that one act is the basis of our nation’s continued global preeminence in higher education.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Kennedy didn’t need to put civil rights on hold then, even thought it was a very turbulent time. Why does it need to be on hold today?
Matt, can I make a blog request for some of your awesome brand of insight on the topic of marriage equality and other gay equality initiatives?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
You left out the cold war context: if we hadn’t gone to the moon, then the Soviet Union might have embarrassed and humiliated us by going there first.
You just can’t have the Ruskies coming out on top of anything back in the day. Unacceptable.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Just imagine would happen in congress today if the South seceded?
Be still, my heart…
March 10th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
you counterfactual makes my head hurt. It’s so stripped out of the historical context it’s like a crappy star trek episode.
More constructively it’s important to remember there have always been three regions in American poltics: the North, the South and the *West*. The civil war force the West to split along the North South faultline, but most sided with the North. This was reversed from a generation before, when it was more likely to find an ally in the South (e.g. Mexican War).
So even if the South were to disappear tomorrow, you would still see divisions between ‘East’ and ‘West’, (which literal geography would more translate into Coastal and Central, but even that’s an oversimplification). And these divisions would in fact grow larger without the basis of comparison they currently have.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
That really is an astonishing counterfactual; armed resistance was apparently seen as easier than maintaining a filibuster. Ari should get on this.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
There you go again Matt!
Secession had nothing to do with preserving slavery it was all about States Rights and the questions raised by Federalism.
So take it back!
March 10th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
They forget that Lincoln helped lay down the transcontinental railroad,
Obama said this during his quasi state of the union speech as well. While having an element of literal truth, and thus not being as far off as America invented the automobile, the bulk of it was built post-war.
Although this is actually closer to the Kennedy analogy, as Kennedy did none of heaving lifting for civil rights or the moon shot. (and I supose also applies to the Morril Act, as most of the colleges were built in the 1870’s & 80’s)
“Likewise, President Roosevelt didn’t have the luxury of choosing between ending a depression and fighting a war”
I thought the party line was that the Great Depression was over by Dec 7, 1941? Or are we back to the story that WW2 ended the Great Depression?
March 10th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
FWIW, part of what we did to get us to the moon (and fund the Cold War effort in general) was to increase funding for math and science education, as well as research.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
But just for fun, project today’s alleged supermajority requirement back to the election of 1860 and a Southern decision that obstructionism was a better path to the preservation of slavery than secession.
Um, that was the whole point of the first two years of the war. Lincoln employed a strategy that was aimed at making it possible for the south to reconsider its decision and rejoin the normal political process in the way they had in the 1850s, ie by blocking what have you in the Senate, getting friendly judgments from reactionary chief justices, etc. It was only after that didn’t work that Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation, armed the slaves, and generally made clear that politics and society after the war would be much different than before. Basically, the civil war happened when the south decided that the normal run of affairs was no longer acceptable.
As for those who think contemporary secession would be good ought consider EFCA: it had plenty of support when there was no chance of passing it. Suddenly things look shakier when pro-worker grandstanding doesn’t come so cheap in the way of foregone campaign contributions.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
You have me salivating.
This is why I think we should let Alaska secede. True, we’ll make an enemy of someplace with large oil reserves, but that’s never stopped us before. Once it’s no longer in the union it’ll be OK to invade it and topple its government, too.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Long way from Gil Scott-Heron to Barack Obama.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
just for fun, project today’s alleged supermajority requirement back to the election of 1860 and a Southern decision that obstructionism was a better path to the preservation of slavery than secession.
You don’t have to project, the entire US Senate was designed as the protector body for slavery. The fact that modern Senators embrace the most vile bugs as features is a shame on every member in the body. The Three-Fifths Compromise coupled with early state populations were overwhelmingly tilted to preserve the institution of slavery.
Look at the 1790 census data and the breakdown of free and slave populations within the states. The US Civil War fixed the problem of slavery but we never went back and fixed the structure of the US Senate to remove the legacy effect of it’s horrible origins.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
My second link above is wrong. It should link to Data Sets : Slave population of U.S, states and territories, 1790, 1820, 1860, a cool online graphing tool from IBM. You can upload a data set and make all kinds of graphs with it very simply.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
“There you go again Matt!
Secession had nothing to do with preserving slavery it was all about States Rights and the questions raised by Federalism.”
Which is, of course, why it is the GOP’s whores in the Supreme Court that have insisted that the following, at least, are federal issues:
- medical marijuana
- euthanasia
- how to count ballots in a federal election (Bush v Gore)
And, of course, it is the GOP who want a federal definition of marriage, and a statement of English as the US’ official language.
This BS about “states’ rights” would be a lot more convincing if the GOP didn’t display such hypocrisy regarding the issue.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
I’ve heard anon’s pov before, and it sounds plausible. Kennedy was faced with a resurgent SU, and and US universities that were doing a great job minting degrees in the liberal arts. Aiming for the Moon seemed the sort of goal that would get people fired up for scientific and technical courses of study.
Unlike – say – solving poverty, “successes” and “failures” were obvious even to the casual observer. As an adolescent in the early ’70’s, I recall a commercial (from the Campaign For Human Development/United States Catholic Conference?) that asked “why?” against backdrops of war, hunger, pollution, and the moon.
I recall thinking that the moon portion was a non sequitur, hell I was just some brain-washed nerd, eh?
March 10th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Sooooo, the upshot was that no, Kennedy didn’t really think he had a choice between civil rights and the moon… he choose the moon. Getting the Civil Rights Act passed required help from a couple more years of televised beatings and LHO.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Unsurprisingly, the people who thought slavery was a civic institution worth preserving also thought secession and war was a better idea than getting 90% of what they wanted.
This region has been opposed to, basically, every civic improvement over the last 300 years. Cutting off their nose to spite their face is considered a good move, politically. This is the real reason we need to get rid of the filibuster–it’ll make it easier to drag this region into the future.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
“-{{They forget that Lincoln helped lay down the transcontinental railroad}}
Obama said this during his quasi state of the union speech as well. While having an element of literal truth, and thus not being as far off as America invented the automobile, the bulk of it was built post-war.”
But you’ve completely overlooked the biggest lie of all – that being how Obama claimed “Lincoln helped lay down the transcontinental railroad,” when IN REALITY that soft-handed trial lawyer didn’t hammer in a single spike! Good God! Will our Kenyan-born Islamocommufascist Messiah stop at nothing in his attempt to destroy traditional America values of self-reliance and small government and remake it in the twisted image of Socialism?!!
{Trails off into muttered remarks about WWJGD . . ..}
March 10th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Remember when Bush took us to Mars? That was real presidential leadership. I remember Bush announced it in one of his state of the unions that going to Mars was a leading priority of his administration. A few years later, we landed a few heroic patriots on Mars, they knocked a few golf balls around, planted the flag, and came back home. Mission Accomplished.
And now Obama can’t even do the Moon?
March 10th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
The Apollo Program was not a luxury. It also wasn’t about the science, or even getting to the moon first. It was about demonstrating enough precision in skill in rocketry to let the Soviets know that every ICBM would properly annihilate its target. If we hadn’t done it or if we’d failed, MAD might not have worked as a deterrent.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:21 am
личшие блоги рунета…
They forget that Lincoln helped lay down the transcontinental railroad, passed the Homestead Act, and created the National Academy of[...]…
March 11th, 2009 at 1:29 am
“what if Southern Democrats hadn’t seceded back in 1860-61″
We’d be better off if we had just let The South secede. We wouldn’t have to subsidize them now. We should have just blockaded the South’s cotton trade for all of eternity and allowed our companies to make some good profits on plantations in Egypt. But then again, we’d have a country that’s even more dysfunctional than Mexico south of us, and it would be a lot less south. And The South would have nobody to hire for their labor because they’d be looking for jobs in Mexico. And the Mexicans wouldn’t hire them because they’re too lazy and uneducated. But hey, if Germany can put up with the East Germans, I guess we can put up with the South. But let’s face it, it’s time for the subsidies to end. We’ve been bailing them out since Reconstruction, and they still can’t get their truck started. But there’s a solution here. Allow The South to devolve into a Third World region, and then we can get our cheap labor without needing illegal immigration.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:31 am
Without the Southern states, George W. Bush would not have been president. No Republican has won the non-South since 1988. On the other hand, the non-South loved Nixon and Reagan and would have picked Ford over Carter. Basically, non-secessionist America was Republican since the days of Lincoln until Clinton, except for FDR and (more weakly) JFK/LBJ.
The realignment of the non-Southern states in 1992 is one of the great untold stories of American politics.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:21 am
Um, that was the whole point of the first two years of the war. Lincoln employed a strategy that was aimed at making it possible for the south to reconsider its decision and rejoin the normal political process in the way they had in the 1850s
Not particularly. Lincoln didn’t initially free the slaves not because he thought doing so would lead the Confederates to come back in peace, but in order to preserve united support for the war in the north and maintain the loyalty of the border states.
Beyond that, Matt should note that Southerners wouldn’t have needed to filibuster in the Senate – the Democrats would have had a substantial majority in the Senate if not for secession. There’d have been 29 Republicans, 29 Southern Democrats, 7 Northern Democrats, and 1 Southern Oppositionist – and most of the northern Democrats were basically craven supporters of the South – Douglas may have been alone in the Senate as a Democratic anti-Lecomptonite by 1861. Basically – Southerners owned the Senate
March 11th, 2009 at 2:34 am
Why do we keep pointing to Lincoln as an example for Obama?
Is there a civil war going on I missed? Or is it just because both were from the same state?
The real model should be FDR. An almost perfectly exact set of problems confronted FDR. His speeches are marvelous guides, especially his campaign speech before the Commonwealth Club of California in October of 1932 – an amazing template for Obama.
Put aside the great Lincoln and look to FDR to help us out now.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:29 am
The creation of the National Academy of Sciences was related to the war. The introduction of ironclad ships created a problem: compasses didn’t work. So Congress established the Academy to convene the nation’s top sciences to come up with a solution to the problem.
March 11th, 2009 at 10:34 am
I think we have to be careful talking about “The South” as some sort of reactionary entity outside of history. Carville’s characterization of Pennsylvania as ‘Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Alabama in between’ turned out to be inaccurate in the last election but it was also something of an insult to Alabama.
The modern civil rights movement began in the South, and as a result black voters have been re-enfranchised and generally serve as a progressive force. And demographic trends — including the migration of high tech workers to places like North Carolina, Texas, and Georgia, and the growth of minority populations including Hispanics — point the way for a new Southern politics. Today, ‘the South’ gives us Saxby Chambliss but also John Lewis.
March 11th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Kennedy proposed an ambitious civil rights program, but did little to push it through. If he had tried, he risked losing the support of southern Democrats for other things, like the moon program. Kennedy squeaked through in the election of 1960. Johnson had a landslide in 1964 and a +60 majority in the Senate. With these things and his own personal influence in Congress he did put through the civil rights program – but of course this lost the South to the Republicans.
The situation is different now; those same southerners are now Republicans and will not support Obama under any conditions, as just recently demonstrated. As far as Washington power politics is concerned, there is no reason to concede anything to southern conservatives, except insofar as the “moderates” hold the balance of power on some votes (some of these people get elected only by partially supporting traditional southern social conservatism).
March 11th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
But in the old Illinois political way, Lincoln’s actions in routing the transcontinental railroad were a payback to a former law client. Transparency, you know
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Railroad
Thomas Durant who was building the cross-Iowa railroad (the M&M) was literally banking that the Omaha route would be chosen and began buying up land in Nebraska.
In 1857, Durant hired private citizen Abraham Lincoln to represent the M&M in litigation brought by steamboat operators to dismantle Government Bridge, the first bridge across the Mississippi River. The bridge prevented steamboats from passing above the bridge and was an obstruction of a public waterway. In August 1859 Lincoln at the behest of M&M attorney Norman Judd traveled to Council Bluffs to inspect M&M facilities that were to be used to secure a $3,000 loan Lincoln was to hold. On the visit Lincoln rode the SJ&H railroad and visited railroad locations in Missouri and Kansas before going to Council Bluffs. During the visit Lincoln was to spend 2 hours with M&M engineer Grenville M. Dodge at the Pacific House Hotel discussing the merits of starting the railroad in Council Bluffs and was to visit Cemetery Hill there to look over the proposed route.[7]
Lincoln’s ties to Council Bluffs were furthered strengthened by the fact that he had won the 1860 Republican nomination on the third ballot when the Iowa delegation switched its vote to him.[8] In contrast, Lincoln was to get only 10 percent of the Missouri vote in the 1860 Presidential Election.
While the Pacific Railroad Act was to award the eastern contract to the newly formed Union Pacific, it was left up to then President Lincoln to formally choose the location for the railroad to start and Lincoln in 1862 was to follow the advice of his former client.