I was thinking of his casual remark that “of course” the pariahs (Jews? Blacks? It’s never quite made clear. Presumably they are all of the same ethnicity, though, because you can distinguish them by sight) cannot take a role in the Cabal’s leadership, because of their presumed inferiority.
I disagree, but I’m happy to discuss/debate it! 
-
I’ve read just about everything Heinlein’s written, fictional, speeches, techincal articles, interviews, and I would assert that you’re reading what you want to see into his books. Over the course of 10 years, he wrote positively about:
Monarchy, anarchy, libertarianism, American-style democracy and rule by people who’d served their countries. Which is "Heinlein’s view? -
Can you list some books/stories where you see a small group of elites who are unusually smart? (No fair with something like Space Cadet, unless any story about the Air Force Academy would count). The only one I can think of is “Gulf”…and maybe “Lost Legacy”. But in “Lost Legacy” EVERYONE became a superman. Ditto with Beyond This Horizon (to one degree or another), “Waldo” would be another example, but again, it’s one lone superman…and the whole point of the story is how he has to learn to get along with everyone else, not with how
I’d agree with you if you’d said Heinlein doesn’t like writing about stupid characters–he clearly doesn’t except as object lessons or as comic relief. Except for John-Thomas (not too bright but DOES THE RIGHT THING) in Star Beast, most or all of his other characters are “merely” above average intelligence, not polymath supermen.
The other thing to consider is how progressive Heinlein was for the time when he was writing.
Through the '50s, there were pretty much 3 models for female characters in SF (gross overgeneralization but accurate at the core, IMO). There was the hostage-girlfriend, there was the “one of the guys pal/sidekick girlfriend” and there was the frosty, asexual ice-princess scientist type*
Heinlein early on dealt with glass ceilings for women, equal pay for equal work for women, double standards (Whatshername in “Let There Be Light” made some “I have to work twice as hard to get half the credit” type comment)…and, in addition, allowed his women to be sexual. Hell, sometimes they were even the sexual aggressors (at least as much as he could get away with).
*Susan Calvin…and she never (to Asimov’s credit) hit the last part of the cliche:
Brett Waveyhair turned to Susan and removed the pin from her hair. As her golden tresses fell down around her shoulders, he gently took off her glasses. “Why Miss Calvin! You…you’re beautiful!” 
bleh.
Let me see, I’ll list some protagonists, and see if they fit the “superman” label:
John Thomas from “The Star Beast”. Everyman, not smart, had famous ancestor.
Max Jones, from “Starman Jones”. Hillbilly lightning calculator with perfect memory. Physically an everyman.
Castor and Pollux from “The Rolling Stones”. Mechanically gifted, made money as teenagers from a “frost free rebreather valve”. Physically normal.
Kip from “Have Space Suit, Will Travel”. Smart, but normal smart, physically normal.
Thorby from “Citizen of the Galaxy”. Smart, trained by a master, physically normal.
The two kids from “Red Planet”, can’t remember their names. Were exceptionally friendly with Martians, otherwise normal.
What’s-his-name from “Between Planets”. His parents were important physicists, otherwise normal mentally and physically.
Tom from “Time for the Stars”. Telepath, otherwise normal.
Bill from “Farmer in the Sky”. Eagle Scout, gets beaten up by “Noisy”. Everyman.
Matt, Tex and Oscar from “Space Cadet”. Smart, Annapolis (not Air Force!) types. Physically normal.
Group from "Rocket Ship Galileo. Smart but normal.
Juan Rico from “Starship Troopers”. Highly trained soldier, loses fight to “Ace”. Beats up some merchant marines that jump him and his buddies, but that’s due to combat training. Not especially smart.
Rod Walker from “Tunnel in the Sky”. Physically fit and smart, trained for survival and fighting, nevertheless loses both fights he gets into.
Yeah, I forgot Oscar from “Glory Road” despite talking about the story earlier. OK, physically superhumanish, mentally average. But, this book is kind of an exploration/deconstruction of the storybook hero, I suppose it was a lot more provocative back in 1963, nowadays we don’t find anything incongruous about the idea that dashing knights on their noble steeds were fucking wenches all day every day. If you’re going to write a book about a guy selected by the Empress of 20 universes as her personal champion, you’ve gotta expect a 99th percentile physical specimen.
And Michael Valentine Smith isn’t exactly physically superhuman, but mentally superhuman.
Lazarus Long, sure, superhuman.
So, I’ll give you that Heinlein’s heroes are mentally above average, and some could be called mentally superhuman, but the physical part just isn’t true. And the super abilities of most of the characters doesn’t make them superhuman, it just gives them a special ability that explains why they’re in the story…they’re a telepath or a lightning calculator.
I do think that Heinlein somewhat conflates moral and mental superiority. Not that being mentally superior automatically makes you morally superior…but rather that morality lies in making the correct decisions, and smart people are more likely to make smart moral decisions.
As an aside, I’m pretty sure pariahs were Jews…there was one comment…
Granted, it’s been years since I read that one, but IIRC, he gets taken to task HARD for that and learns better. And isn’t the “I was a racist but I learned better” a legitimate avenue of growth for a character? Think about Alexander from Job–early in the book, he’s seriously talking about “the Jewish problem” and what to do about gay people (“Sterilize them? Jail them?”)…but the thrust of the book is how he learns better. Ditto with Lyle…he starts out believing Scudders dogma word-for-word, line-by-line and then, through an accident (they don’t WANT to recruit him, IIRC–he’s considered too loyal), he gets recruited kinda by accident and the rest of the book is having EVERY precept that the Prophet taught kicked out from under him. He certainly starts as a racist, theocratic twerp. But, IMO, he learns better.
Kinda dim on other respects though…certainly naive to the extreme.
And morally bankrupt. Inasmuch as the book had a plot (and it pretty much didn’t), it was about Castor and Pollux learning to not be self-absorbed sociopaths. If left unchecked, they’d have turned into Podkayne’s brother.
I’d argue physically above average, but normal above average.
But don’t forget that the magic “Renshaw” technique he was taught could be learned by anyone.
And again, suffering severe emotional/psychological problems.
:: applause :: I agree completely.
Well, I don’t want to get into an endless debate on authorial intent (I’m sure you’d win, since you seem to be much more widely read on Heinlein than me- I’ve read most of his famous novels and the short story collections, but don’t obviously have your level of familiarity with him). However, I would argue that some of his stories are clearly much closer to his heart than others, both because they agree to a greater or lesser extent with his views expressed outside of his books, and because they are written with, well, with a fondness and a fluency that I think betrays an affection for the systems he describes. At a somewhat ridiculous level, it’s easy to see that Heinlein has a greater affection for the society proposed by Valentine or by Lazarus Long (which some have accused of being a virtual Gary Sue for Heinlein) than the religious theocracies of Job or If This Goes On- (were they meant to be the same society, btw?). I think that Heinlein also tends to display (or have his characters display, similar but admittedly distinct things) a disregard verging on contempt for any form of government based on “mob rule”. Look at almost and true libertopias he describes (including the one in the title of this thread ;)), or the state of the citizenry under most of his authoritarian governments (betrayed, for example in Stranger in a Strange Land, by things like the cheap and exploitative advertising).
Also, the majority of his books have a small group of rebels set against the exploitative control, which often enjoys (at least) the aquiesence of the majority of the population. Democratic that is not.
Well, there’s the obvious books with literal supermen as their protagonists (Stranger, Lazarus books), the ones with a didactic alter-ego of Heinlein whose prophecies are nearly always right, and also generally prophetic (Jubal Hershew in Stranger, and most of The Cat Who Walked Through Walls), and then there is, of course, Starship Troopers- I don’t know what you could call a political system under which the political class is considered entitled to vote because of their service in the military except elitist.
Well, an elite doesn’t have to be at a supernaturally advanced level above his fellow man, just superior. I think, however, if you compare Heinlein to, say, his contemporary Philip K. Dick you see remarkable similarities and contrasts. Both write about protagonists at war with the socities that surround them (almost always), but in Dick’s case the “hero” is the everyman, often faced with conquering or submitting to his own powerlessness, with the system often winning (in cases where the individual wins, it is through manipulation of the system, or a shifting of the goalposts so that the system no longer “wins”), whereas in Heinlein’s case the system often ends the story in flames or otherwise damaged, defeated by the hero’s superiority. Said superiority rarely seems to develop during the course of the story, rather being inherent in the hero from the start.
Lastly, the word “fascist”. I don’t believe Heinlein was anything like a fascist (indeed, some of the authoritarian governmental systems which his characters oppose are very close to fascism), but as you say, you can find support for almost anything in his works, because he writes so widely. However, fascism (Italian fascism, for preference, since it is easier to speak of coherently than the tangled mess that is Nazism) contain militiaristic, elitist, “corporatist” (ie. individuals working for the good of the state) and totalitarian aspects, many of which are present in some of the systems Heinlein describes, sometimes with affection, sometimes without. Certainly Starship Troopers contains them, even adding in a dash of ultranationalism and racialism (ok, the Bugs are the enemy, so the metaphor breaks down, but throw me a bone?). And many have identified the system in ST as being one which Heinlein might have supported. I don’t know enough about the man to tell whether they are right.
Here is where I take exception to this shibboleth. Show me where in the book it says this. Anywhere.
Federal Service is required to vote. 98% of which is outside the military, and none of them can vote until after they have left said Service. Johhny even states that you can refuse to accept a medical discharge, and they will put you to work counting rocks until your time is up. Johnny himself is no genius. His maths suck, and MI was the bottom of the barrel for him. “The poor, dumb, Infantry…”
If that’s elitist, then I’m not really seeing a problem with it.
Where does it state that 98% is outside the military? As I recall, the default is a combat position of some variety, and the whole “counting fur on a catapiller” thing is super unlikely. But I might be wrong.
I sit corrected. It was all Military, but it wasn’t all military, if you catch my drift. I just re-read the first few pages to check. But Federal Service was just that - service, caterpillars and all. Specifically it is mentioned that you could end up digging tunnels on Luna or serving as guinea pigs for medical tests. The Navy in ST seems like Star Fleet, in that it is organised along military lines, but does essentially civilian jobs. In any case, RAH makes a good case for requiring service before awarding of franchise, and I’m not sure I disagree with him.
A better cite, from pages 142-3 of the Berkeley paperback:
“Service men are not brighter than civilians. In many cases civilians are much smarter.”
“You and I are not permitted to vote as long as we remain in the Service, nor is it verifiable that military discipline makes a man self-disciplined when he gets out; the crime rate for veterans is much like that of civilians. And have you forgotten that in peacetime most veterans come from non-combatant auxilliary services…”
Hmm. Not debating the idea that military service (I think that dangerous work, involved in combat or in some military-orientated branch of service does qualify as such) is a desirable prerequisite for enfranchisement right now (another thread, another time), but would you agree that since it is preidcated on the idea that those who take part are improved by their participation, and therefore more fit to govern than those who have not, it is elitist?
Whoop, looks like that suggestion in my last post is completely wrong. Ok, what does the Citizenship teacher say is the justification for military enfranchisement? I’m sorry that I have no access to my copy at the moment.
Page 144-5
Major Reid:
“We have had enough guesses; I’ll state the obvious: Under our system every voter and every office-holder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage.”
“The unlimited democracies were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority…No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority.”
And ultimately…“Because it works.”
Really great discussion here. It isn’t often I feel like a noob when talking Heinlein.
On the earned franchise issue, I’d suggest that a citizen who actually puts the effort into earning a ballot is more likely to cast it thoughtfully. The opportunity to earn the franchise is available to everyone, so it’s not an elitist system. IIRC, there was even qualifying service for conscientous objectors, or others who held deeply rooted beliefs opposed to combat. At the same time, if service was just not your thing, you were not compelled to serve. I can see some merit to the system–but should probably admit some degree of bias, as I am a veteran.
**
Well, YEAH. But that would be the FUN of it. 
Which ones? I mentioned the Schulman interview, he was loudly pro-SDI, he gave a couple of pro-America speeches at Worldcons, in the '50s and early '60s he was staunchly anti-Commie (good for him) and in the '30s he worked for Upton Sinclair’s political campaigns and ran on Sinclair’s ticket in California. The guy was very careful to try to keep his political and religous views out of the public eye. That’s one of the reasons he never wrote an autobiography and did his damnedest to stop any biographies of his from being published. Hell, even the letters in Grumbles From The Grave were selected in such a way that it’s hard to determine his politics.
I’d agree that the Lazarus Long of Time Enough For Love and back was probably a Mary Sue, but I would argue that Heinlein grew out of it. In both Number of the Beast and Cat Who Walked Through Walls, Lazarus becomes a complete moron: in Beast, rather than try to talk to the main characters about hitching a ride in their time machine, he tries to steal it…several times. And gets humiliated each time. In Cat, same thing.
Also, there’s no connection that I know of between Job and “If This Goes On–” although Job DOES connect with Friday, “They” and “The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathon Hoag”.
I’d agree that Heinlein’s characters don’t seem to like the tyranny of the majority and tend to prefer “King Log to King Stork”. But the only true libertopias he had lasted no more than 50-100 years or so and then collapsed…usually in ugly ways.
I’d disagree firmly here. I can think of maybe four or five books where there’s a small group of rebels set against exploitiave control and in at least two of em, the control is GOOD.
“Coventry”: The rebels are the bad guys and the libertopians are the good guys…the whole point of the story is how our hero (a bad-guy) learns to become a good guy and embrace libertopian ideals.
Beyond This Horizon…I dunno…it’s a '40s style techocracy, Science Council and ALL and whatshisname…not Hamilton Felix, the other one stops the bad-guy rebels.
Puppet Masters and Double Star are both very positive pictures of democracies and neither involve rebels. And actually, so is “Jerry Was A Man”…despite the show-trial and the circus atmosphere, the good guys still win.
The only rebels in any of his juvies (IIRC) is in Red Planet, and in that case, it’s the majority rebelling against the tyranny of the minority. (Space Cadets speaks about the opposite of rebellion: the Cadets have orbital nukes that they can use to squash rebellion although being Pure Of Heart they never would and Between Planets features a war, but it’s a pretty evenly matched one)
In Time Enough For Love, the characters just up and leave when they decide the earlier society isn’t to their liking. No rebellion.
In Starship Troopers there’s a war and historically there’s a rebellion to set up the system, but that doesn’t figure into the book. In Stranger the seeds of enlightenment are sown, but again, it’s not a “rebellion” as much as a movement. In Moon is A Harsh Mistress, it’s a revolution story, so it kinda has to.
In the entire future history, there’s (IIRC) one rebellion (against Sudder’s theocracy) and one collapse (of the Covenant in Methuselahs’ Children).
In “Gulf” there’s supposed to be a “Rule By Mutant Supermen” that never comes to pass (we learn this in Friday) and in “Lost Legacy” there’s a movement, not a revolution.
Two points: 1) It’s not just ‘military service’, it’s government service. Remember of the three kids at the beginning, one becomes a soldier, one becomes a pilot (transport, IIRC, not fighter) and one becomes a scientist. 2) It’s not elitist if it’s open to EVERYONE and if they guarantee that they WILL find every willing person a job (the “fuzz on the caterpillar” line was there to underscore it).
I’d argue that Dick used everymen…IMO, he went a step below that to the “incompetent man”. And there’s nothing wrong with either. I’d get bored of a steady diet of Heinlein’s “Competent man in a hostile world” just as much as I’d get bored reading only Sheckley’s “minimum man” (from a story by the same name…highly recommended btw) in a world that’s hostile and incomprehensible to him.
Regarding the “system ends in flames” again, I can only think of a couple of cases where that happens. In at least an equal number of cases, there’s a peaceful movement that’ll transform things, or people just leave the system behind or in a huge number of cases, the hero tries to fix things (think of Citizen Of The Galaxy where the hero ends up staying in a situation he doesn’t like to try to reform the system from within.)
First. one thing we know is that Heinlein was very “pro-soldier”. Yeah, today that’s a cliche, but in the late '60s, early '70s when Vietnam vets were “baby killers” to a certain (mostly fringe) crowd, it stood out. He was also personally very vocal against the draft. Not only did (IIRC) he say it in a speech once, but also, every time the draft is mentioned in one of his stories, the characters speak with contempt of the idea. The only other theme that Heinlein pounds so thoroughly and with no characters speaking an opposing view is slavery (every character who encounters it has a loathing for it)
Second, I think you’ve provided a great working defintion of facism, but I don’t feel that it fits the society in Troopers
[ul]
[li]militiaristic—IMO, no. Most people on earth didn’t even know there was a war going on until Buenos Ares was bombed 2/3ds of the way through the book. [/li][li]elitist–Again, IMO no. When quite literally ANY person past the age of majority (18 years old + one minute to 99 years old and in a wheelchair) is allowed to join–not only allowed to join, they are, by law required to be accepted into government service, it’s not elitist. [/li][li]“corporatist” (ie. individuals working for the good of the state)–I’ll grant you that one (I’ve never heard the term used that way before, but using your definition, Troopers clearly promotes the idea of individuals working for the good of the state. But so did JFK. “Ahsk nat what youah country cahn do fah you, but raahtha what you can do for youah country”.–I love writing Bahastn accents. )[/li][li]totalitarian–Disagree: pure democracy and EVERYONE can earn the right to vote. It’s certainly authoritarian: any system that proposes public whippings for drunk driving would have to be called that, but I disagree with totalitarian.[/li]
[li]ultranationalism–Firmly disagree on this point: again, no one on earth even knows (other than in a vague disconnected way) that there’s a war on. There’s certainly no anti-bug propaganda (which, IMO, is a failing of the book)[/li]
[li]racialism–they’re evil bug-eyed Commie spiders from beyond the stars! C’mon! If you can’t get racialist with them, who CAN you get racist with?[/ul][/li]
As an aside, I’m really enjoying the conversation!
One of my favorite books hasn’t been mentioned yet…Farnham’s Freehold. The protagonist is something of a superman…who finds his superwoman. IIRC, all of the other main characters have serious flaws. Plus, it has kittens and Bridge
It’s also the second-most racist book RAH ever wrote. I know what he was trying to do with it, and it was a noble effort, but it just grates on me. The characters are too…predictable. Once you discovered that the dominant society in this time was black, you just knew that Joseph would embrace it whole-heartedly, that Duke would be a pussy, and that the noble Hugh and Barbara would triumph. He tried to turn White Society on its head, but couldn’t resist making the black society a bunch of cannibals. Not his most subtle work, IMO.
Cats - good.
Bridge - blech.
I agree that it grates. I personally can’t stand it, but IMO Farnham’s Freehold isn’t racist. The “See? How do YOU like it if the shoe’s on the other foot” thing isn’t racist. The fact that it’s (IMO) totally unsuccessful doesn’t change the intent. For me, it’s in exactly the same category as Blazing Saddles (albiet a billion time less effective)
Is the “first racist” one Fifth Column ? If so, IMHO that isn’t racist, despite what people say; in fact, it was the foreign invaders who were racist. One of the first things they did was kill all Americans of Asian descent for being impure. The race-targeted weapon the good guys used worked to kill only the bad guys did so because the bad guys had already killed most or all of it’s potentially innocent targets. Personally, I think it would have been more interesting if the invaders hadn’t done that; the moral dilemma would have been nicely dramatic.