Every so often, a science fiction author will succumb to the temptation to sermonize on problems that he or she sees facing society or some part of it. Often this is done in the context of someone explaining something to a younger, more naïve person. Heinlein was excellent at “sugar-coating” his ‘sermons’ in this way.
In a 2002 novel, Leaping to the Stars, David Gerrold does much the same thing, and his point is one that I think has a lot of validity and is worth discussion. I am going to conclude this OP with an extended quote from this novel. The context is an outward-bound colony starship a hundred years or so in the future. The U.S. has disintegrated; corporations rather than nations hold the majority of real political/economic power. The speaker is a teacher, Whitlaw, attempting to prepare a class of adolescents for their role in the new colony, which will include being a part of writing the underlying constitutional law that will constitute the social agreement under which the colony will operate.
Are we today doing what Whitlaw said destroyed the United States in the story? Discuss.
Note: Cross-posted on UnaBoard for further discussion.
It’s very convenient to write poli-sci-fi because you prove you were right by having civilization destroyed by your opponents. You can have a character wave a sweeping hand at the rubble and saying, “see? I was right!”
This smells vaguely like Ayn Rand: good fiction, but on closer inspection the ideas are overly simplistic and occaisonally false.
I’ll rebutt a few examples from Whitlaw’s lecture:
If anything, the constitution is stronger now then ever. It withstands frequent challenges (from flag burning ammendments to gay marriage ammendments) but, excepting prohibition, we have a long and established history of strengthening the personal protections in the constitution: since it was written, we’ve eliminated slavery, allowed women and blacks to vote, interpeted in a way that allows women the right to chose an abortion, interpreted it in a way that allows gay men to do what gay men do, strengthened the seperation between Church and State, etc. I don’t see us forgetting that contract.
Our citizenry is actually more informed then ever. We’re a very well educated country, and we’ve tended to become more educated. We may flippantly dismiss most voters as mindless idiots, but we’ve still improved on the past: there was a time in our history when people simply voted straight down the party line, frequently after being enticed to with beer and liquor. I’d say we’ve come a long way. We may have deep divisions over some issues (like abortion and gun control) but the fact that there are disagreements means that people are involved, at some level, with the poltical system.
I don’t agree with his premise that it’s wrong to distinguish between the government and the people. The Bill of Rights has been around for a long time, and it sure makes a big distinction! If anything, perhaps we don’t understand the importance of preventing a tyranny of the majority–but as I said above, our tract record of expanding rights seems to contradict this to a degree.
I think he may have a point about the increasing power of large corporations, but I think don’t think it’s going to doom us. I think a straw will break the camels back and we’ll pass legislation that will take power away from the corporations. Sorta like all the laws that were eventually introduced after corporations started running away with things after the industrial revolution.
Well, it certainly seems that some people want to use the government for everything, essentially trying to get it to run their–and everyone else’s–lives. And then there are some who object to government, but those could only be anarchists (unless Gerrold was using an understatement to imply something broader [i.e., that people who called for extremely limited government would also qualify]). But I hardly think our government is falling apart.
As eli said, for science fiction writers, it is very easy to pose questions and make it seem like an answer is obvious without providing any actual proof. I take it that you only want to use the book as a starting point for a question, not as any sort of proof in itself.
On a political level, I think that there some things that can’t–and shouldn’t–be legislated. Basically, the laws need to treat everyone equally. If there is a social issue that has arisen from or been caused by an error in the legal system (or unjust law or interpretation thereof), legal action should be taken to correct it. Otherwise, it is a bad idea to try to legislate what doesn’t belong in the law books.
On a philosophical level, I might be more inclined to be anti-government…but that’s a whole different debate.
I’ve read some of David Gerrold’s other work, in particular the Chtorr series. In that series he also uses “teachers” as didactic characters to propound Gerrold’s own philosophy.
To be fair Gerrold has stated in interviews that he doesn’t want people to get too carried away with the philosophy in his books or take it too seriously. He actually has sort of echoed eli’s point by trying to emphasize that his books are fiction and that his “sermons” are intended more to be thought provoking and hopefully entertaining than any kind of truly profound social analysis. He also has stated that he realizes the “solutions” to social problems implemented by the characters in his books are probably not a reflection of reality and that the reader should understand that he’s just trying to tell a story.
Having said all that, I think that Gerrold’s point about the populace losing sight of the government as “self” and viewing it rather as a disconnected “other,” while somewhat true is also somewhat justified, at least in the US. The US government is really not that representative any more. It’s plutocratic, elitist, corporate and lately more autocratic and authoritarian. The “choices” that we have in the legislative and judicial branches (especially at a federal level) are rather limited and illusory. We have a two party system without really all that much difference between parties. I think that’s why so many people leap at the chance to vote for a Jesse Ventura or an Arnold Schwarzeneggar. It’s a chance to vote for something different, something to break the stagnant status quo which does not really care about serving the real needs of those who elected them but are largely a body of self-serving careerists.
Jesse Ventura didn’t go to a fancy college. He admitted to smoking pot and was unapologetic about it. He said “ain’t.” He was uncouth, uncultured and spoke plain English. He finally seemed like a real person, like a guy we really knew, instead of the prefabricated robots who usually run for office.
I think that people feel disconnected from their government because the government has disconnected from them. The path to elected office is not really that accessible to them and they don’t feel like they know the ones who do get elected. Most people do not really vote for anybody, they just vote against the guy they think is more evil.
Well, I think he has a point. To a point. We are having quite a bit of conflict over how much government should interfere / help / provide us with. Unfortunately, I don’t think the battle is even enough to result in anything like a collapse. Anyone who believes in smaller government, free markets, or *individual * rights is considered a kook.
Ha. Practically every person you meet believes in smaller government, free markets, and individual rights. It’s just that kooks believe they are the only ones with those values.
Agreed; but it has pretty much ever been thus. The original vision of the national government functioning like just an oversized town council was dead even before the founding fathers were. Within a couple of decades it was government by lawyers and political parties, with only the occasional Jackson or Ventura. The two party-system is 200 years old, and it has its benefits as well as its drawbacks.
Not to say things are “OK” and that there aren’t many troubling trends; but I’m not sure there ever was any “good old days” where all things were inarguably better. It seems to me that the jury is still very much out on the experiment… which it’s so tempting to imagine oneself in the future.
It’s an odd thing about the American personality: we are so idealistic and concerned with The Way Things Ought To Be, and with forming a More Perfect Union … and yet the thing we’ve always been best at is improvising, trial and error, make it up as we go along.
Yes. Well, I’m used to being laughed at as a kook. But in the context of the OP (government as cure vs. government as enemy) you can at least draw a line between those who want the government to be larger vs. those who want the government to be smaller. While both sides may lay claim to the values of free markets and individual rights, those who want the government to do more to “provide for” (vs mearely protecting) these rights IMHO don’t understand the meaning of the words.
And yes. I am a true Scottsman.
Diogenes the Cynic already provided insight into authors’ creative methods. Still, if I may, let’s review the list of transgressions.
“The people forgot they were Americans.” No.
“You’re doing the same thing. All of you." No.
“You’re arguing among yourselves like a pack of excited chimpanzees.” Instead of listening to some old baboon? This is the oldest trap, “quitely” comparing people you want to influence with monkeys, to put them off-balance. In fact, chimpanzees are well organized and well balanced within their environment; they may get noisy on occasion, but they pose no threat to the world. Actually, their squabbles serve a very useful purpose to validate the current hierarchy and strengthen social bonds within the group.
“And you’re forgetting your common purpose.” Which is?
“That’s what the Americans did – they forgot their partnership with one another.” C’mon, which is?
“They forgot who they were.” You already said that.
“They forgot what they were committed to.” Quit stalling…
“They failed to uphold their own social contract. It was called the Constitution.” Oh, this? No (see Metacom).
“They forgot their own agreements.” Again?
“Some of the people decided that the government was the cure to everything and some of the people decided that the government was the enemy of everything – and both sides were wrong, because they were thinking of the government as something else……” And next thing you know, boom, no planet Earth! Just figures…
Let me step out of the main argument here to ask a question:
Isn’t the ideal of the “social contract” false?
For the first generation, it is, of course, a true social contract, entered into with full agreement, and (in the case of America at its birth) one that could be rejected.
Today, the social contract cannot really be rejected. (Unless, like in the novel, we “go out the airlock”; sure, you have a choice–like it or lump it.) The world is too small today. Where are you going to go?
I’m not sure I want to create a new thread for this since its really just my opinion. But I can expand on it a little.
I was watching an interview with a manager of a Moscow factory some years ago (only a couple years after the fall of the Soviet Union as I recall). He talked about how under the soviet system he was a true believer in the communist ideal. The workers were the primary moral owners of the factory etc. He claimed that he had spent many years trying to get such a system to work. His conclusion was that the whole idea was crap. He was more of a convert to capitalism than he ever had been to communism.
My only point in suggesting that “America lost the cold war” is that we lost the fight for the philosophy of capitalism. So that while we are becoming statist, many formerly communist countries are becoming capitalistic.
