Apollo 11 and America the Exceptional

My wife and I went to the movies to see Apollo 11 (2019) last weekend, a masterpiece that those of all ages should go see.  For those of us who watched this chapter in American history unfold, however, it will hold special significance.  Watching this stirring documentary reminded me that at that moment there was no reason to wonder why America was exceptional.  

Buzz Aldrin walking on the Moon during the Apollo 11 mission, 1969

The astonishingly high quality of recently discovered and previously unreleased 65mm footage of the event has been lovingly edited (winning the Sundance Festival 2019 U.S. Documentary Special Jury Award for Editing) to sync up with actual audio and combined with achingly suitable music to produce 93 minutes of cinematic perfection.  I would hope that the release of this impeccable visual account of arguably the brightest moment in American History would remind Americans of our greatness and inspire fresh invigoration to invest in our future.  Unfortunately, I believe people may remain more interested in concocted fun like Captain Marvel, as there were only 3 other people in the theater last Saturday night at 9:50PM, including my wife!  

On September 12, 1962, President John F. Kennedy gave his now famous “Moon Speech” at Rice University in Houston, TX.  Kennedy acknowledged America’s shortcomings, subtly foreshadowing ominous times to come: “We have had our failures, but so have others, even if they do not admit them. And they may be less public.” The context of the times of the Apollo 11 mission existed as a painful and turbulent one for the United States: the assassination of Kennedy himself, racial unrest, the push for the Equal Rights Amendment, Vietnam War issues, and the woes of the Nixon Era to name a few were plaguing America.   Although the American people went through extreme pain during this period, in 1969 we simultaneously became the America that the entire world watched as we put men on the moon! Apollo 11 brings that victory lap to a new generation of viewers, as well as to us fogies who remember Apollo 11 the mission in a stunning feast for the senses.  

The greatest achievement of humankind played out in real time on our TV screens in 1969.  As Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins carried out their roles as larger than life heroes, the event was beyond spectacular.  It became almost too much to take in (just ask the moon-hoaxers). But as we Americans witnessed the spectacle, it united us– albeit for far too short a time, as history would soon bear out.  The Apollo 11 mission fulfilled the seemingly improbable proclamation by President John F. Kennedy in his “Moon Speech”:

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade…not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.” 

KN-C23643 12SEP1962 President John F. Kennedy Address at Rice University in Houston on the Nation’s Space Effort. Please credit “Robert Knudsen, White House/John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Boston”

For most Americans in 1969, we understood that despite all of our foibles, missteps and differences, America truly was worth defending and admiring.  I was 4 years old when the Apollo 11 mission was carried out, yet I vividly remember like it was yesterday.  Together we watched science fiction became science reality before our very eyes.  I confess that I was the biggest fanboy of the NASA Apollo program in the entire world.  Nothing was more important to me or captured more of my adoration and attention, except for my grandparents (maybe).  Thus, my context remains dominant and unavoidable in my bias regarding the Apollo space program.

From my point of view, as well as in the collective conscious amongst Americans, an unavoidable and precipitous letdown developed after Apollo 11, a sort of withdrawal process that sadly lasts until this very day.  Humanity still hasn’t topped this monumental achievement and may not in our lifetimes. Even if we do somehow top going to the moon and coming back, nothing can top the bravado or the drama of reaching the moon in 1969.

It bears mention that, in 1969, we all understood very well what we were watching, as well as the context, circumstances and equipment NASA used throughout.  Any study and review of the process afterwards only confirmed the daring, danger and dramatism of the process. Laying on top of a missile being slung out of earth’s orbit, then rendezvous with and land on the moon, and come home using the technology of the 1960’s was beyond rational and we all knew it.  And yet, the NASA scientists and astronauts shared with us their belief in themselves and in America, so we sat on the edges of our seats and followed along.

In that context, we who experienced this grew up so jaded!  Nothing could ever top Apollo 11. Soon enough, America began to resign itself to that reality.  NASA pulled back on itself, and the lawmakers and leaders of our country sat back on their haunches.  America’s lustre has slowly waned ever since as a consequence.  If I’ve learned one thing, it’s that when a leader has momentum on one’s side, he or she must continue and build on the progress they have already made, before people start giving up and going home.  The collective “We The People” began to linger around on the field of American opportunity, kicking figurative rocks around for awhile to see if anything else was going to happen before just walking away. That has happened to our great country post-1969.

Emblem of the disastrous and doomed Space Shuttle program

What came next for NASA’s space program was the disastrous and doomed Space Shuttle program.  With what amounted to a cosmic delivery service similar to FedEx in action on a grand scale as shuttles dropped off satellites and space station pieces in space, this program paled in comparison to the moonshots in addition to being mired in delays and deaths.    I am convinced that if we had kept our foot on the throttle and pushed past the Moon, we would have already landed astronauts on Mars by the end of the 1990’s, of that I’m positive.  We lost the temerity to keep pushing forward and settled for the Space Shuttle.  In 2019, we’re still shuffling our feet around in the yard as we have been since after 1969, trying to figure out if we have the guts, mettle, patience and financial resolve to go for it.  We’ve gone soft I say!

There remain voices that question the importance and benefit of investing the requisite large sums of money into space exploration.  In my opinion, these doubts have won out in the 50 years since Apollo 11, resulting in a sharply diminished NASA and the frittering away of the ripe opportunity our confidence afforded us due to the overwhelming success of Apollo 11.

I believe President Kennedy said it best regarding the importance of space exploration in his “Moon Speech”:  

“Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, ‘Because it is there.’  Well, space is there, and we’re going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God’s blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.”  

Humanity’s striving for achievement and exploration drives us.  Without this hunger and the possibility of satisfying it, we cannot achieve our potential.  America can once again become the leader of these efforts, but this will take immense collective will and bold leadership.

I am by no means a “big government” Liberal.  By the same token, I’m also not a hardline fiscal Conservative.  I believe a patient can require unique and seemingly contradictory prescriptions as circumstances and times dictate.  In the case of space exploration, I don’t believe we’ll be able to rely exclusively on private enterprise to drive us to the next steps of space exploration, such as reaching Mars and beyond.  The advent of SpaceX and other private entities that are contributing to our space travel capabilities remain necessary and beneficial partners in the shared goal of space exploration and proliferation. I believe these private entities can be employed just as aeronautical companies were called on and contracted with by NASA as the Apollo and Space Shuttle programs were carried out.  Yet, SpaceX and similar entities will never replace the collective will of the American people as represented by our federally mandated NASA.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine talks to employees about the agency’s progress toward sending astronauts to the Moon and on to Mars during a televised event, Monday, March 11, 2019, at the Neil Armstrong Operations and Checkout Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Representatives from the Kennedy workforce, news media, and social media were in attendance. NASA’s Orion spacecraft, which is scheduled to be flown on Exploration Mission-2, was on display. For information on NASA’s Moon to Mars plans, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/moontomars Photo credit: (NASA/Aubrey Gemignani)

Just last Monday March 11 2019, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine presented the “Moon to Mars Event at Kennedy Space Center” as he detailed the agency’s progress toward sending astronauts to the Moon and on to Mars during the televised event.  President, Donald J. Trump recently submitted a budget for the fiscal year 2020 to Congress calling for objectives and funds to speed up the timeline for lunar surface exploration, as well as funding for a mission to return samples gathered on Mars back to Earth.  In the linked “Space News” article, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine remains confident that, “we’re going to be able to accomplish more than we’ve ever been able to accomplish before because of the administration’s support.”  Knowing that the Trump Administration understands the high importance of space exploration is great news for all supporters of continued space exploration and human achievement.

Neon Production’s Apollo 11 closes out with this poignant footage of Kennedy’s prophetic “Moon Speech”, cementing my reinvigorated belief in the utmost importance of space exploration for America and the world.  President John F. Kennedy’s legacy remains in his ability to capture our hearts and in his willingness to make bold decisions.  He clearly understood the importance of human striving for the health of our Collective Psyche, and his daring proclamation regarding reaching the Moon and beyond in 1962 was thankfully met with the requisite drive and mettle to come to fruition.  It is in this context that the slogan “Make America Great Again” rings true. It’s high time to remember what made America great and use that enthusiasm to recommit to our push into the heavens. That will remind all Americans and the rest of the world that America is exceptional.

What Is Liberal?

What does it mean to be Liberal? Is it important to define the term? I believe it is extremely important to define this term as it applies in our times and then compare it to how it was defined in the past. I learned in college as a Communication Studies major that words have no inherent meaning. It’s up to us, individually and collectively, to define and redefine the words we use. This is an important undertaking. In the case of political discourse, it can serve as a foundation for an informed and productive discussion and then as a key driver in deciding where one stands.

I am fortunate enough to have my Grandpa Bill’s (the late William Magginetti) copy of Webster’s Universal Unabridged Dictionary, published in 1937. While I’ve come to learn that it is not particularly rare or valuable in terms of dollar worth, it is nonetheless priceless in its usefulness to me. It gives me a window into how words were defined and used by previous generations, and also from a time after which American English had fully come into its own, by the early 20th century, as distinct from British English.

According to my Grandpa Bill’s 1937 Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, a Liberal, in its noun form, is:

One who advocates greater freedom of thought or action; one who has liberal principles.

That’s all. No more or less.

Merriam Webster today defines the noun liberal as:
1. one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways.
2. capitalized proper noun: a member or supporter of a liberal political party.
3. an advocate or adherent of liberalism, especially in individual rights: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change: relating to or supporting political liberalism.

As I wrote in the companion piece to this article, “What is Conservative?“, the definitions from the days of my Grandpa Bill when compared to today reveal subtle yet significant differences that show how our perceptions and the meanings of these words have evolved.  The “greater freedom of thought or action” language from the 1937 definition encourages intelligent discourse that is useful and should be welcomed rather than discouraged or frowned upon regardless of one’s political leanings or affiliations, correct?

The newer definition adds behavioral connotations into the mix. It takes the thrust of the “greater freedom of thought or action” of the older one, condenses it down to “open-minded” and tacks what I’ll term a “leniency clause” onto it. The older definition is simple, purely idealistic and makes no assumptions about actions or habits. It’s also interesting to consider that the latter definition puts an “or” in between a sort of dual definition. Either a Liberal is “open-minded” or “not strict”. My purpose is not to argue the definition with Merriam-Webster, and some might find it convenient to dismiss me as someone stuck on a modern dictionary’s semantics. That would be an error. My point is to make the argument that bringing behavioral aspects into what it means to be liberal brings to light the stigma that has attached itself to the terminology and hints at why we’re stuck where we are, at this moment in time, in our collective political realities as individuals and as a nation.

Merriam-Webster adds two definitions to its first definition of the noun “liberal”, each more narrow than the first. It specifically defines political liberalism, and appropriately so. It describes current liberal ideology very well. “…the government should be active in supporting social and political change”… Let’s reflect on how simple the 1937 definition is, and how any political connotations are notably missing. When some kind of political agenda has been removed from liberal, we can see that in principle it can be a wonderful trait to possess and apply at times.

…“greater freedom of thought or action”…” is a beautiful encapsulation of open-mindedness, a tendency that most would agree is a highly desirable trait under many circumstances. In their occupational roles, chefs need such freedom of thought to regularly synthesize new scintillating tastes, for instance. There are situations, however, when even a chef must be more conservative and that tendency toward greater freedom of thought or action is ill-advised, as in a chef who is charged with preserving long-standing recipes for entrees at a long-established eatery.

Liberals of today seem to have forgotten what they’re supposed to be about. In fact, I move that most of today’s Liberals are guilty of the same contortion of what it means to be Conservative as modern Conservatives have. You scoff? Well, think about it.  Let’s go back to the current Merriam-Webster’s definition of “Conservative”, namely, this one: “”Not liking or accepting changes or new ideas”. Most Liberals I meet are stubbornly set in time-honed positions that Liberals believe they’re supposed to hold dear. Gone are most of whom I would truly call Liberal, folks who are “…open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways.” The rank and file self-identifying Liberal is no more open-minded than his/her Conservative counterparts. Most Liberals busy themselves justifying their unshakable positions on their own hot-button issues, just as their Conservative counterparts do.

So therein you have the inherent hypocrisy of today’s “Liberal”. Open-mindedness has been replaced by a close-mindedness that runs counter to the very core of liberal principles. What’s the use of calling oneself a “Liberal” if he or she is anything but? Unfortunately, being a Liberal today is no more about being truly liberal than calling oneself a “Conservative” is today about truly being conservative, as I elaborated on in the companion piece “What is Conservative?”. And, I believe we’re all the worse for it. Real Liberals, open-minded folk who readily explore new ideas, allowing their minds to see new concepts and readily acquire them are highly useful in many cases. It’s sad that such folk have become so rare in the “Liberal” realm.

Perhaps the quintessential Liberal was John F. Kennedy. In him were all the traits that are encompassed in the 1937 Webster’s definition of Liberal, with none of the close-mindedness of today’s (Liberals). Did you know that JFK wrote a book called Profiles In Courage, published in 1957? I highly recommend it. The Pulitzer prize-winning collection of vignettes written about Senators throughout America’s history to that point in time from both sides of the aisle is chock full of words of praise and respect for Republicans and Democrats alike. This praise was for Senators who “at  crucial times in our history, risked their personal and public lives to do the one thing that seemed in itself right” (words taken from the cover of my personal copy). In Kennedy’s own words, “…if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions…if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” (Acceptance speech of the New York Liberal Party nomination September 14, 1960). So there, from over 55 years ago, we have JFK himself stating in slightly different words the 1937 definition of Liberal. “…someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions…” sure is close to “one who advocates greater freedom of thought or action”. In fact, I might like JFK’s definition even better than Webster’s! It’s no wonder that JFK is esteemed all the way up to this very day by Conservatives and Liberals alike. The mirror of respect was always reflected both ways from JFK.

It is my opinion that those who rigidly cleave to either one of these “sides”, Liberal and Conservative, are preventing themselves from growing as people in a certain regard. A person who tells themselves that they are staunchly one or the other must by definition make sure that they stay as much that way as possible, preventing themselves from seeing things in a more balanced way. I also believe that this is nothing more than an ideological expression of why so many people over the last several decades have left both prominent political parties and are now registered as Independents. Millions of us are coming to the conclusion that there’s another way, a more balanced approach, one that incorporates the positive traits that both the Liberal and Conservative movements should have going for them, but have largely forgotten. Look forward to a future article detailing my vision of how a more balanced approach can look.

What is Conservative?

What does it mean to be Conservative?  Is it important to define the term?  I believe it is extremely important to define this term as it applies in our times and then compare it to how it was defined in the past.  I learned in college as a Communication Studies major that words have no inherent meaning.  It’s up to us, individually and collectively, to define and redefine the words we use.  This is an important undertaking.  In the case of political discourse, it can serve as a foundation for an informed and productive discussion and then as a key driver in deciding where one stands.

I am fortunate enough to have my “Grandpa Bill’s” (the late William Magginetti) copy of Webster’s Universal Unabridged Dictionary, published in 1937.  While I’ve come to learn that it is not particularly rare or valuable in terms of dollar worth, it is nonetheless priceless in its usefulness to me.  It gives me a window into how words were defined and used by previous generations, and also from a time after which American English had fully come into its own, by the early 20th century, as distinct from British English.

I looked up the definition of “conservative” in Grandpa Bill’s dictionary and then in Merriam-Webster’s current (2015) Online dictionary.  The definitions offer subtle, and in my opinion, key differences.  Here is Webster’s 1937 definition of the adjective “conservative”:

“In a political sense, having a tendency to uphold and preserve entire existing institutions, both civil and ecclesiastical;  opposed to radical changes or innovations in church or state”.

Here is Merriam Webster’s current definition of the adjective “conservative”:

“Believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society : relating to or supporting political conservatism”.

“Not liking or accepting changes or new ideas”.

As I wrote in the companion piece to this article, “What Is Liberal?“, the definitions from the days of my Grandpa Bill when compared to today reveal subtle yet significant differences that show how our perceptions and the meanings of these words have evolved.  On first blush, one might be tempted to dismiss differences in the two definitions as minor.  That would be a missed opportunity to learn valuable lessons.  What I find is support for my theory that political Conservatism has mutated significantly over the last half century, and not for the better.

“…to uphold and preserve entire existing institutions…” is a beautiful encapsulation of a custodial tendency, a tendency that most would agree is a highly desirable trait under many circumstances.  One would be very happy to find certain museum curators to be “conservative”, using the custodial statement in the 1937 definition.  I’m reminded of the Zen rock gardens of Kyoto, which have been tended to appear now precisely as they have since the 1500’s.  In the case of the Zen rock gardens of Kyoto, conserving, “upholding and preserving an entire existing institution”, means doing an invaluable service to mankind, most would agree.  There are times, however, when this custodial trait is far from desired, but that’s fodder for an upcoming discussion.  Stay tuned!

Merriam-Webster’s modern definition refers to traits commonly found in modern Conservatives, regrettably.  Again, the differences in language are subtle, but make a not so subtle difference.

Here is 1937 Webster’s definition of the noun “conservative”:

1. A person or thing tending to preserve from ruin or injury;  a conserver. 
2. One who aims to preserve from innovation or radical change;  one who wishes to maintain an institution, or form of government, in its present state.

Here is Merriam-Webster’s current definition of the noun “conservative”:

“A person who believes in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society : a person who is politically conservative.”

I want to hone in on one glaring difference between the two sets of definitions.  This difference amounts to an omission from the current definition, and it makes all the difference in my eyes.  A “person or thing tending to preserve from ruin or injury”, to me is the most simple, rational and accurate progression from what it means “to conserve” to the noun describing a person, or group of people, as “Conservative”.  In that sense, we should all want to have “conservative” leanings regarding many issues.  When I consider the environment, and our treatment, or mistreatment of it should I say, from this standpoint I could legitimately call out most all of today’s “Conservatives” for shirking what amounts to a basic tenet of their core values:  “to tend to preserve from ruin or injury”.  It is clearly the opposite, regarding modern “Conservatism”.  There exists instead an open disdain rather than concern for humanity’s impact upon the environment amongst modern Conservatives in general, and at the very least, it’s certainly very far from most politically conservative platforms.
Let’s go back in time a bit to one of my favorite politicians for a point of reference.  I acknowledge that Theodore Roosevelt was not the most conservative Conservative.  I mention that up front to hedge off any who might want to make that caveat a reason to scoff at my example.  With that stated, in Teddy, we had a conservationist Conservative, someone in a position of power, a Republican, without whom we would have no National Park Service as well as a host of environmentally-inspired policies and organizations.  Teddy Roosevelt was someone who correctly and most ideally held the admirable core tenet of what it means to be Conservative, a man who was deeply concerned with “tending to preserve from ruin or injury”.

What could be more sensical?  This is perhaps the incongruence in American politics that confounds me more than any other, that an entire political philosophy and movement called “Conservatism” has come to scoff at the concept of Conservation.  I would so love to be able to query the great Theodore Roosevelt himself on this most grand of ironies.  Perhaps some of my “Conservative” friends might care to chime in in the comments section in Teddy’s absence.

Based on the yardstick that a Conservative is someone who seeks to “preserve from ruin or injury”, that modern “Conservatives”, in general, are anything but Conservative.  It seems as though the “preserve from ruin or injury” of the 1937 definitions list has been forgotten and conveniently stricken from the nomenclature, by Merriam-Webster’s current definition, but more importantly by today’s Conservatives themselves.  These days, “Conservatives” seem to feel free to confine themselves to their own narrow set of reality that they are attempting to preserve of the “established and traditional practices” of bygone days, to quote the current set of Merriam-Webster’s definitions.  Of what real use is that to The United States of America?  The modern Conservative movement, then, shouts and screams about what they feel is important, all the while completely ignoring the rest of the often pressing issues of the day until they are forced to take a position by necessity or by popular or special interest demand.  Gone are Conservatives who sought to “preserve from ruin”, replaced by Conservatives who seek to preserve the status quo of the “established and traditional practices” of their own ideology, for better or worse.  Now clearly this unfortunate trait isn’t confined to conservative politics.  I cover the “other side’s” (i.e. Liberals’) obsession with their own bastardized form of “Conservatism” in the companion piece “What Is Liberal?“.

It is my opinion that those who rigidly cleave to either one of these “sides”, Liberal and Conservative, are preventing themselves from growing as people in a certain regard. As one tells themselves that they are staunchly one or the other one must by definition make sure that they stay as much that way as possible, preventing themselves from seeing things in a more balanced way.  I also believe that this is nothing more than an ideological expression of why so many people over the last several decades have left both prominent political parties and are now registered as Independents.  Millions of us are coming to the conclusion that there’s another way, a more balanced approach, one that incorporates the positive traits that both the Liberal and Conservative movements should have going for them, and have largely forgotten.  Look forward to a future article detailing my vision of how a more balanced approach can look.