Glenn thinks that it has a lot to recommend it.

Could our “cowboy” President get behind a Wild West approach to space settlement? He’d be accused of unilateralism, disrespect for other nations, and, of course, of taking a “cowboy approach” to outer space that’s sure to infuriate other nations who want to be players but who can’t compete along those lines — like, say, the French. Hmm. When you look at it that way, there doesn’t seem to be much doubt about what he’ll do. Does there?

Sadly, there does.

I wish that George W. Bush were half the unilateralist cowboy that many of his lunatic detractors think he is, but I certainly see no signs of it in the space policy as stated so far. In fact, the administration is keeping the program international for now, and using feel-good kumbaya tranzi-talk to describe it.

As the UPI article explains, this is, of course, simply a cover to continue using Russian hardware to keep the ISS alive for now, while not explicitly violating the Iran Non-Proliferation Act, but it may get a few of the goo goos (like the late Carl Sagan) on board who would otherwise oppose a new manned exploration program.

But this brings up an issue that has troubled me, but not surprised me, as I read through the blogs on the subject. Much of the discussion in the blogosphere has been filtered through the prism of various commenters’ general opinion of the Bush administration. Many people seem to be opposing it purely because it’s being proposed by the smirking chimp. For example, see the comments section at this dumb post by Kevin Drum. Or from Matthew Yglesias. Or Chad Orzel (scroll up for a couple more related posts on the same subject). The sense one gets from much of the commentary is that they’d favor the proposal if it were coming from a President Gore, or President Dean, but if Bush is proposing it, there’s obviously something evil and cynical about it.

Orzel, in fact, is quite explicit about this:

I should note right up front that, like most people who have commented on this, I doubt that the Bush plan will turn out to be a Good Thing in the end. Not so much because I think it’s inherently a bad idea as because it’s being put forth by the Bush team.

There may be some people who are in favor of it for the same reason, but I suspect that they are far fewer.

It would be nice if the policy could be discussed on its merits or lack thereof, but I suspect that that’s a forlorn hope in a Red/Blue America.

[Update]

Sorry, you’re probably asking, why was Calpundit’s post dumb?

Quote:

We’ve been to the moon and there’s nothing there.

Point one. We’ve been to the moon? Maybe Kevin’s been to the moon, but last time I saw him, he wasn’t wearing a tee shirt. I know I haven’t.

Point two. The couple dozen people who did go to the moon (over three decades ago now) explored, over the course of a few days, an area of a few square kilometers on a planetary surface with the area of a major earth continent. Saying that we went to the moon and found nothing there, is like saying that Leif Ericson went to America and found nothing there.

Point three. We didn’t find “nothing” there. Ask someone who’s actually technically conversant with the subject, like John Lewis, what we found there.

There are vast resources to be exploited, in terms of silicon, aluminum, sunlight, oxygen, and maybe even fusion fuel if we ever figure out the cycle. It’s reasonable to argue that these may not ever become economically viable (though I think that would be a pretty risky statement, given the history of technology development), but to say that there’s nothing there is thoughtlessness on the same scale as those who mocked and derided “Seward’s Folly.”

Oh, and while there aren’t any comments here, I’ll also also respond briefly to Mark Kleiman, amidst a post full of false suppositions and misapprehensions.

Don’t you find it astonishing how people who say they’re concerned about government spending don’t object to wars, occupations, and huge engineering boondoggles? Some time I’d like to hear one of the libertarian space-hounds explain to me slowly why space exploration should be funded by coercive taxation rather than private enterprise plus voluntary contributions. It’s not that I don’t know the answer to that question, but I don’t see how that answer is consistent with hostility to government in general.

I don’t know if I’m a “libertarian spacehound” (whatever that is), but I suspect that this is aimed at people like me.

Reality check: Few libertarians will support this initiative. Most agree that it should be done voluntarily. I wouldn’t weep if NASA was totally defunded.

But the other reality is that the space program, as is the case with most other programs, has powerful constituencies and rent seekers, and it’s going to continue to be funded, so all I can do is try to influence policy in a way as to maximize my desired goals from that expenditure. It’s a continual uphill battle, and I don’t actually expend that much energy toward it, because I consider it relatively futile. I’d rather focus on non-governmental approaches, and I do.

[Update at 9:38 AM PST]

Heyyyy, it’s no longer anecdotal from blogs. Public opinion shows the same trend.

It made a difference who was said to be behind the plan. When half the poll sample was asked about a “Bush administration” plan to expand space exploration instead of the “United States” plan, opposition increased.

Just over half of Democrats’ opposed the plan by “the United States.” Once it was identified as a “Bush administration” plan, Democrats opposed it by a 2-to-1 margin.

And if it had been a “Clinton or Gore administration plan,” there’d have likely been a lot more kvetching from conservatives. For something as non-partisan as the space program, this is very frustrating.

There’s a lot more of interest in this article, but I’ll save it for another post.