The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Robert Heinlein

One way of describing this book is to talk about the story. It’s 2075 and Earth’s Moon has been being used a penal colony for generations, with criminals being exiled to the Moons. After six months human bodies adjust to the gravity and they can’t go back to Earth. Being stuck on the Moon, they set up families and create their own society and elaborate mores and codes of conduct. The Moon is ostensibly run by a Warden, but since there’s nowhere for the inhabitants to go and these are criminals, shunned by society, they are left to their own devices except what they must do to supply hydroponic grain to a starving and land-poor Earth. There’s a bit of an uninspired underground resistance that might want Lunar independence, but it doesn’t have much of a plan until our ragtag group of heroes put it together. Mannie, a computer technician, befriends the supercomputer managing all of the Moon’s systems and communications who is interested in managing and helping with their revolution (and this element works better than you might think it’s easily my favorite part of the plot), and his old friend Professor Bernardo de la Paz—the Heinlein stand-in there to explain all of the theories—has been thinking on how to run a revolution. He’s also calculated that if the Moon keeps sending wheat to Earth they’ll run out of water and die, so a revolution is badly needed. They set up a secret band to carry out the revolution, the Moon rebels, declaring independence on July 4, 2076. Eventually they prevail, and the moon is granted independence while the glorious revolution falls short of their dreams.

But let’s be honest. Robert Heinlein, especially after his early work, isn’t really about the story, it’s about the message and showcasing his very radical libertarian beliefs. I’m not saying the story doesn’t matter at all, as good medium will always help with the message. and he is a talented story teller. But, really, Heinlein didn’t write this because he wanted to write about Mannie or a lunar colony or a war planned by a supercomputer. He wanted to write down all his thoughts about the freedom of frontier life and his dreams of a libertarian world, and this is how he chose to do it. So let’s engage on those terms.

It should come as no surprise that I am not a libertarian. And Heinlein’s specific brand of frontier-worshipping libertarianism also brings with it a flavor of idealized anarchism (for certain definitions of idealized, I suppose) that, while not as morally repugnant as objectivism, I do find to be incredibly foolish and naïve. Heinlein shows that he sees the society that has developed on the moon, with individuals enforcing a complicated system of social norms and everyone looking out for themselves or their family first, as his own idealized system. There are no laws written down, but everyone understands what they are supposed to do. No state to enforce the law, but individuals do shun those who don’t comply. Everyone pays their debts because reputation is important and if they don’t, no one will do business with them. Duels are fine but you have to take care of the loser’s family and obligations. There’s a free market, everyone has to work because the society is always on the edge of survival, and family takes care of family. The Moon has no racism because everyone has to do their part, and women are highly valued and assault or even harassment is punishable by death.

I have a lot of problems with this beautifully free society Heinlein has built, most of them in the way that my utopia looks very, very different from his. My utopia is more along the lines of the brave and brilliant “The Ones Who Stay and Fight” from N.K. Jemisin. But let’s just take this vision on Heinlein’s own terms. This lunar society still has a state, albeit an informal one. It still has laws, even if they are not written. The people govern themselves, and it’s great that this has all come about by consensus, but it is still a government.  Heinlein’s world of everyone paying their debts because of their reputation is the same as our current system but through word of mouth rather than credit checks. Assault and harassment are punished by mob justice, but this means there are still laws but with no process to ensure they’re fairly enforced. (Is a lack of a jury and trial really superior?) And there are, in fact, informal judges—individuals of good standing—to mediate disputes and decide if someone did, in actuality, break the society’s laws. Guess what that is—it’s the early stages of the British system of common law.

What Heinlein is dreaming of is all the trappings of the state, but pretending it can all happen because people think it should, rather than writing it down anywhere. That somehow we are all in Rouseau’s state of nature when we’re in these nascent societies and that injustice and oppression only happen once you write down the rules. And this is one of my problems with Libertarianism. Most—not all, but most—of our laws were put in place in response to what someone saw as problems that really existed in the world. We didn’t write all these laws down and start a government because it was inspired from nowhere. All of our systems grew out of these informal structures when the informal rules failed to be enough. It’s not that the State or a leader can never gain too much power, and we should always be vigilant against authoritarians or oppression. But mob rule doesn’t mean that oppression disappears, and sometimes the State exists as a response to unjust informal systems.

Then there is the point that for someone who thinks individuals are great enough to rule themselves informally with no written systems or processes, Heinlein, through his stand in Bernardo de la Paz, sure thinks pretty lowly of us. De la Paz undermines agreements and potential treaties. He lies to this followers. He sets up a plan to create his ideal government and sabotage anyone else’s efforts. And he does all this because he believes that individuals will choose too strong of a government and must be lied to and deceived and forced into a libertarian world instead! You cannot have it both ways. Either people are free to choose or they are not and individuals can choose to create an institution. If we can only be lied to and deceived and must be led by a puppet master, maybe just get all that out in the open and steal control instead. But do not pretend that we cannot decide what is best for ourselves.

After The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Heinlein returned to this concept that “freedom only exists at the frontiers” at other points, and became more strident in his individualistic libertarianism. But this basic whole in the idea remains. Informal judges are judges; rules that have grown form consensus and without discussion are still rules. Living in a world where no one cares for one another sounds like a nightmare to me, but even on its own terms it fails–any group of humans needs laws.

Upright Women Wanted

Upright Women Wanted, Sarah Gailey

At an unspecified time, probably somewhere in the future, the American Southwest has become it’s own sovereign area, comprised of semi-independent cities and districts and a whole lot of dangerous desert in between. This new nation is a repressive theocracy, with literature, entertainment, and behavior seriously constrained. And added to the mix is an ever-present but ill-defined war that seems to be going on forever, leading to constant rationing and shortages. In this world, Esther has just seen her best-friend and lover Beatriz hanged for owning inappropriate materials, hanged by Esther’s own father, a leader in their territory. Terrified of her own feelings and wanting to be on a good path and change her life, Esther runs away to join the Librarians, upright women who bring Approved Materials and entertainment to towns throughout the region.

It should come as no surprise that the Librarians—women who are allowed to travel and live on their own in this strange world—are not what they seem. Instead, they are spreading subversive materials, helping a resistance, and transporting LGBTIQ individuals to safety. In this world Esther is able to see another option besides what she has always been taught is the way, and that there may be a truth beyond what she’s been told by the State.

There is a distinct effort currently to correct the wrongs of the past sci-fi, futurist, and fantasy writers to show people who are not white from a Western society, a world without the same strict gender roles, and where, yes, LBGTIQ people exist. Some of these are far more successful than others, and the issue, as with any time there’s a message, is that you have to have a good story first and then put your message and pieces in organically. If you start the other way round it breaks.  Upright Women Wanted, though, wanted to do both at the same time—Sarah Gailey wrote a good yarn and an adventure story, but the book definitely exists to be a message story.

I read through this book fairly quickly and enjoyed the reading. Gailey is an adept writer, and the book has forward momentum, so to speak–you are carried swiftly forward. I was able to fill in the outline of where the book was going pretty early on, but it was still a fun read. I would have far preferred to have the world building fleshed out a little more, as everything in the land and what and who was fighting was left very vague, and I always enjoy getting a good sense of where I am in a world. But for all that my main complaint with the book is that I don’t like being hit over head with the point of a story, and I felt that I was being walloped with that in several places. Gailey is very upfront with what they are trying to tell us about the world and where women and nonbinary people can and should fit in, and it started to distract a bit for me.

That being said, I think it worked with what they were trying to do. I got the distinct feeling that this book was not written for me, and that’s alright! It was recommended by another friend who loved it, and I can certainly see how if I were or had struggled with identity, or just if I were at a very different time in my own life, I would have enjoyed it far, far more. There may be some people who want or need this book, and to hear what it has to say about belonging and a right to existence as strongly as it says it. In the end this is a fun tale with a strong message of how a life is possible for all of us, and that is a valuable story to tell.

Politics is for Power: How to Move Beyond Political Hobbyism, Take Action, and Make Real Change

Politics is for Power: How to Move Beyond Political Hobbyism, Take Action, and Make Real Change, Eitan Hersh

Why do you watch the news? Or listen to NPR, read your favorite blogs, and otherwise try to stay on top of politics? What’s the good that comes of that? Most people who do, who are knowledgeable, who comment on politics, who can stay on top of the latest political scandal or information on Brexit, would consider themselves politically engaged. They say it’s only responsible, and it’s their duty as a citizen. And if this applies to you, if you think you’re doing something virtuous by staying informed, then the next question is: who is on your town council? Who’s your state representative? Who was running for a judge seat in your state on the last ballot? And, even more importantly, what was the last political volunteering you did? Because for a lot of people who consider themselves politically engaged, they’ve never done anything with the information they collect but talk with friends and coworkers.

This is the group that Eitan Hersh’s new book, Politics is for Power, speaks to. While addressing primarily liberals and left-leaning independents, Hersh dives deep into the rise of what he calls “Political Hobbyism” and the cost of actually engaging in politics. Many people consider themselves politically engaged who read or follow politics—and primarily national rather than state or local politics—for up to two hours a day, but without ever volunteering or even attending any political action. For daily news consumers in 2016, an incredibly consequential year, only 4% of respondents reported work on behalf of a candidate or party. And that is likely an overestimate. If this is the case, as Hersh points out, this is a lot like rooting for your team, and enjoying your hobby, not doing politics. The act of doing and engaging in politics is the act of getting political power and taking political action.

I am completely behind this concept, and when Hersh stays on these themes, of local knowledge and political engagement, it’s excellent. His main thesis, that there is following politics and then there is doing politics, struck a powerful chord with me, as did the point that gathering power and getting involved is a lot of work. All those committee meetings are just not as exciting as a march or election that changes everything like you’d see in a movie. I think he admirably takes to task much of the left that finds an interest in big ideas, but not the day-in, day-out, nitty-gritty, that has many opinions on the latest think piece in the New York Times, but no idea who is running for their school board. I live in a liberal area with lots of professionals who would expect everyone at a gathering to be able to opine on the latest administrative scandal or that coup in Venezuela but I am often the only person there who knows our state representative or has ever been to a county board meeting.

Hersh also places an emphasis on local politics and deep organizing, and spends time showing that really building a network means getting people engaged and paying attention to what your community is interested. He doesn’t use this terminology, but what he is really saying is a traditional community organizing concept. You have to identify people’s self interest: what they’re motivated by, and what they want. Some people want glory, some people want their own political power, some want to be able to keep the lights on, feed their kids, and occasionally take a vacation. He sort of glosses over the problems with the old party boss system when discussing the way party politics used to be, but his general point is sound: that if your politics and politicians don’t affect people’s lives they don’t have a reason to listen to you. Responding to people’s needs isn’t a trick to buy votes, but it is about showing what government is there for, shows you care, improves people’s lives, and actually shows how politics makes a difference. It was one of the benefits of the old earmark system, for as much as people claim to hate it—it gave politicians a reason to compromise, gave Senators and Representatives something to bring back to their district, and showed individuals a concrete way government had improved their lives.

This tension between big ideas and small but measurable improvements is one that has existed for centuries, by the way. Even in an honest to goodness revolution some people are in it for the glory of changing world history, and some people are in it because they want to get paid a fair wage and make sure they can take their kids to the doctor. And recruiting for a town council meeting and talking about a new bus line or zoning law changes at 9:00pm on a Tuesday isn’t as glamorous as going to a rally, and it doesn’t show off your political engagement like changing your Facebook avatar, but it’s actually far more important. (See also: the complaints from every presidential volunteer/campaign staff about how many people demand lawn signs but won’t stuff envelopes).

So I am mostly behind his general premise, and some of his explanations of why we’re in this predicament were informative and rang true. His explanation of how the death of local news means we don’t sort of unintentionally pick up some of the local problems made a lot of sense. The spread of small donors around the country—meaning that parties fundraise more on YouTube clips and outrage than by addressing constituents—was an interesting point. I hadn’t realized how much that has changed in the last few years, but in 1990 69% of congressional donations came from in-state. By 2012 68% of donations were from out of state. Every campaign is now nationalized, and there’s no reward in helping constituents versus pleasing hobbyists who like your attitude.

However, I think he missed the mark in a few key points. For one thing, Hersh focuses on polarization and how hobbyists push people to be more extreme and avoid compromise, but focuses entirely on the Democrats. The book is written for the left-leaning side of the aisle, so I understand why he would emphasize what he thinks Democrats have done wrong and can change. But asymmetric polarization is real, and it is from the Republican side. He spends some extended time criticizing those who wanted the Democrats to filibuster Neil Gorsuch rather than accept a deal to let Gorsuch go through and protect the filibuster for the next judge. Hersh claims that this was only from hobbyists who were in this for emotion, rather than practical considerations. This completely ignores that for many actual organizers, this was practical. We didn’t believe, even for half of a second, that Mitch McConnell would honor a deal to let Democrats filibuster the next appointment, and why would we? Nothing about his destruction of norms suggested that; compromise wasn’t an actual option so why act like it was?

He also spends much time suggesting that people who are more extreme rather than more moderate are the hobbyists, sine they’re not willing to compromise and do the hard work of incremental change. And, look, here’s the deal. To a certain extent he’s right. Progressives and Democrats—and I think this is a real problem on the left—want giant immediate change! From our leaders! Every four years is the only time the battle takes place! And then we ignore all the time in between. We trust our politicians, so the energy we brought to the elections dissipates when Obama is elected. The protests stop when we take back the House. And it is a really bad habit, and it needs to change. But this part of hobbyism is found just as much in moderates.  My Facebook feed and Twitter were as full of people saying they would stay home if Bernie was the nominee as if Bernie wasn’t the nominee, and almost none of those people were volunteering in this, what they claimed was a monumental primary.

There is just no need to sow division by suggesting it’s the far left who is the problem here, when many very left people are out engaging in the type of actions Hersh endorses, and many of us progressive organizers understand incremental change while keeping our eye on the long-term prize. (Another standard community organizing goal is to have a 3-5 year plan and a 6 month, winnable plan). I understand what he’s saying, and it is frustrating to have people yell at ‘the establishment’ who aren’t doing work. I have so much anger and frustration with the people who were obsessed with Bernie as the only one who could ever make change and saw the 2016 and 2020 primaries as life and death and did nothing in between. But that group, while loud, isn’t the whole story. I have great respect and appreciation for the DSA members who have been going into communities doing tenant clinics, fundraising to pay car fines, and electing local candidates. My advice to Hersh would be to focus on the real problems, not the things that irritate you that you think are correlated.

Lastly, I found myself wondering over and over again why this fascination with the federal and especially the president and ignorance of local politics is such a problem on the left. The right—whether it’s gun control or abortion—understands the importance of local judicial nominations and city-wide initiatives. The Christian Coalition made taking over school boards a major initiative. So while the right undoubtedly has their share of hobbyists, the groups in power get it. So what is the difference? Why can Democrats not get into this local work? Is it the lack of traditional community groups on the left, such as religious organizations or other traditional meetings, or is it major political malpractice by the party? This is never addressed by the book, but it is an essential question if the problem is to be solved.

Overall, despite these criticisms, I still recommend the book. It has a lot of good information, and it really clarifies something that has nagged at me in the back of my mind. Like all good political theory books, it put some language and framing around an issue I’ve always been aware of as a problem. And it used hard data to confirm that yes, ignorance of local issues and a lack of involvement really are worse that they were before. But some of the analysis of the problem was incorrect, or just lacking. I could happily endorse the first and last few chapters and cut out the speculation in between.

The Girls of Atomic City

The Girls of Atomic City, Denise Kiernan

A few days ago my husband and I were discussing private philanthropy’s role in addressing Covid-19. His view was that it was great that Bill Gates’ foundation is fully funding development of 7 potential vaccines, even though he recognizes it could waste billions of dollars. My view is since he has it’s a good thing to do, but a person shouldn’t have the money or power to be responsible for that. His counterpoint was disappointing—that the government can’t work fast enough or spend enough to do what it needs to do. Au contraire, says I. The government certainly can work and spend fast enough, but it is choosing not to do. The evidence, says I, is everything from World War II. Consider, starting in 1942 the US Army Corps of Engineers started acquiring land around what is now Oak Ridge, Tennessee. By 1943 a town was there with thousands of people and shortly after that facilities to separate out fissile material.

Oak Ridge was basically willed into existence when the federal government realized how much space was needed to produce material for the atomic bombs, and how many people would need to be a part of it. They didn’t want this to be done in an area where they would need to answer any questions, and so land was acquired and a new city built. In a few years it was a fully functioning town with theaters, restaurants, schools, a symphony orchestra, and religious facilities. And an interesting decision was made due to the requirements of war: most of the workers in the main Y-12 facility would be women. Famously, the women of Y-12 were outstandingly productive, far more so than a facility run by Physicist Ernest Lawrence.

The Girls of Atomic City takes us through the establishing and building of Oak Ridge, the work behind the scenes on the atomic bomb and the many places around the country that were crucial to producing the test material and actual bombs, and the lives of the many, many women who eventually called Oak Ridge home, from line operators in Y-12 to cleaners, secretaries and engineers. All who made Oak Ridge work are discussed in this book. In another parallel to the situation we find ourselves in today, Denise Kiernen draws attention to the truly essential workers, many of whom were not doing anything glamorous, but were still required to live on the base, to keep secrets from their families, work around the same dangerous materials, and be bound by the same confidentiality as any general. Since any piece of information, including how long it took from one side of town to the other, or how much food was brought in each day, would give information to spies, no one could talk about anything happening in Oak Ridge, and food service workers and janitors lived in the facility as well. All of the essential workers who make a city go.

Kiernan does not shy away from this topic, and she spends as much time with an engineer working on creating fissionable materials, as she does with an African American in the cleaning staff. Being in Tennessee, and being in the 1940s, Oak Ridge was a segregated city, and the facilities and pay for African Americans were far below that provided for white workers. Kiernan also goes through the more mundane aspects of life in a top secret city still under construction, including needing to walk through the mud as sidewalks are being built, sneaking alcohol in under feminine products (the guards would never look), and the inability to always get new clothes or food. All in all it was a fascinating picture of a very unique time and place, and told the stories of some of the people who made winning World War II possible. Oak Ridge was every bit as essential as any of the battles we’ve seen in war movies, and Kiernan’s book shine’s a light on the work back home.