“There Ain’t No Such Thing as a Free Lunch”
The Development of Libertarian Ideology in Heinlein’s Speculative Fiction
M. A. de Jong Leiden University MA Literary Studies English Literature and Culture 27 June 2018
Supervisor: Dr. E. J. van Leeuwen Second reader: Dr. J. C. Kardux De Jong 2
Contents
Introduction ...... 3
Chapter 1: Beyond this Horizon (1942/1948) ...... 8
1.1 – A Brief Overview of the Great Depression ...... 9
1.2 –The Structure of Horizon’s Society ...... 10
1.3 –Heinlein’s Vision of a Socialist Economy Based on the Theory of Social Credit ...... 13
1.4 – Libertarian Ideals in a Socialist Economy ...... 18
1.5 – Conclusion ...... 19
Chapter 2: 1949 – 1959: President Eisenhower – Nuclear Weapons – Communism ...... 21
Chapter 3: Starship Troopers (1959) ...... 25
3.1 – Individual Freedom and Responsibility in the Terran Federation ...... 26
3.2 – Morality and Responsibility as Cornerstones of Society in the Terran Federation ..... 31
3.3 – Responsibility and Democracy in the Terran Federation ...... 34
3.4 – The Glorification of War and Militarism in Troopers ...... 39
3.5 – Conclusion ...... 40
Chapter 4: 1960 – 1966: Global Revolution – Domestic Politics – Civil Unrest ...... 42
Chapter 5: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (1966) ...... 46
5.1 – Moon as a Revolutionary SF novel ...... 47
5.2 – A Brief Overview of the American Revolution ...... 52
5.3 – Moon as a Retelling of the American Revolution ...... 53
5.4 – Heinlein’s Libertarian vision in Moon ...... 57
5.5 – Conclusion ...... 63
Conclusion ...... 65
Works Cited ...... 70 De Jong 3
Introduction
Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988) was one of the most influential science fiction writers of the twentieth century. During a prolific career which spanned almost five decades, he wrote thirty-two novels, fifty-nine short stories, numerous screenplays and even non-fiction. His output includes iconic works such as Starship Troopers, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and
Stranger in a Strange Land. During his career he won four Hugo awards and was named the first Grand Master of Science Fiction by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America in 1974. Together with Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke, Heinlein is considered part of the big three of science fiction, defining the genre in its golden age (1938-1946). Heinlein is also credited with coining the term “speculative fiction” in “On the Writing of Speculative
Fiction” (1947), a popular essay containing writing tips for beginning writers (Patterson, V2
88). His influence on those interested in science fiction and technology was considerable and
“countless others have heard his pithy quotes, perhaps unknowing, on topics from sex and religion to government and gun control (McGiveron, “Heinlein” 3).
In 1934, shortly after his retirement from the United States navy, Heinlein became politically engaged during Upton Sinclair’s Democratic gubernatorial campaign entitled “End
Poverty in California” (Patterson, V1 174). At the time, Heinlein was a man of “socialist principles” and identified himself and his wife as Democrats and “radical liberals” (Patterson,
V1 177). Like Upton Sinclair, Heinlein adhered to the form of socialism professed by H. G.
Wells.1 During this campaign Heinlein was introduced to C. H. Douglas’ theories of Social
Credit and became interested in its potential in reforming the economies of California and the
1 H. G. Wells was a proponent of so-called Fabian socialism. Unlike Marxist Socialism which called for a system without government or “private ownership,” Fabian socialism called for “social control of property through an effective and impartially administered state” which would come about not through revolution but through “persuasion and education” and “gaining influence within existing parties” (“Socialism”). De Jong 4
United States (Patterson, V1 219).2 The grassroots campaign Heinlein helped set up proved unsuccessful. Consequently, Heinlein decided to run for a seat in the California State
Assembly in 1938. Despite his best efforts, he was defeated by his Republican adversary and decided to no longer pursue a political career; it had become clear to him that the EPIC movement was considered problematic to the Democratic party. Heinlein had only become involved in “party politics in the first place to make a radical break with business-as-usual – political as well as economic” (Patterson, V1 214-15). Rather than become part of the establishment, Heinlein decided to pursue a career as a writer. In 1939, Heinlein’s first story,
“Life-line,” was published in Astounding Magazine. The following years he continued to write for the pulp magazines, establishing his reputation as a writer.
From the late 1950s onwards, Heinlein’s work became increasingly controversial. Not only were his political ideas described as “conservative, radical, militaristic, iconoclastic, populist, anarchist, libertarian, and fascistic,” allegations were also made that his work was racist and misogynistic (Franklin 5). Ever since Science Fiction Studies developed as an academic field in the 1970s, critics who want to make a case for or against a specific claim have cherry-picked Heinlein’s immense body of work and have found sufficient evidence to support diverse and even conflicting arguments. Friday (1982), for example, is considered a misogynistic novel because its female lead “enjoys being raped” (Lord). Heinlein’s portrayal of women became less positive in his “post-1970 novels” when “the sexual revolution took a toll on him” and compromised “his ability to create three-dimensional women” (Lord).
However, in most of Heinlein’s writing women are equal to men, often portrayed as more intelligent and capable, as is the case with Carmencita Ibanez in Starship Troopers, who unlike its male protagonist qualifies for flight training rather than Mobile Infantry. Even though Heinlein was a vocal supporter of civil rights throughout his life, Farnham’s Freehold
2 The theory of Social Credit states that “the issuance of additional money” or “subsidies to producers” provide the solution to the “chronic deficiency of purchasing power in the economy” (“Clifford Douglas”). De Jong 5
(1964) has been dubbed a racist text; its satire emphasizing rather than ridiculing racial stereotypes. Yet Heinlein is also said to have “advocated racial equality” several decades
“before the height of the Civil Rights movement” (McGiveron, “Heinlein” 4-5). Many of his protagonists are of non-white ethnicity. Often this is not revealed until near the end of the book, as in Starship Troopers, whose protagonist Johnny Rico is a Filipino.
Heinlein’s political notions have also been subject to debate. As a writer of speculative fiction Heinlein had the ability to take a political idea or principle and transplant it into a future version of the United States. Even though Heinlein remained consistent in his other ideas, his political notions went through substantial transformations. Heinlein adhered to a wide spectrum of political ideas throughout his career, which explains the “differences in how political themes are presented in … [his] work over multiple decades” (Reid 56). It is
Heinlein’s penchant to continually develop the politics in his fiction in response to political developments in American society that is responsible for much of the “disagreement about the quality and meaning of Heinlein’s work” (Reid 56). Heinlein himself argued that his body of work revolved around a single theme: “Freedom and Self-Responsibility” (Patterson, V2
266). He also argued that “if a person names as his three favorites of my books Stranger,
Harsh Mistress, and Starship Troopers… then I believe that he has grokked what I meant”
(Patterson, V2 266).3
This thesis will explore Heinlein’s shift in political thinking between the conception and production of his major speculative fictions, Beyond this Horizon, Starship Troopers, and
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. As a political thinker Heinlein advocated personal freedom throughout his career. He progressed from a more liberal perspective to a more radicalized libertarian point of view whilst examining the impact of individual responsibility on
3 To grok means “to understand profoundly and intuitively” and “may be the only English word that derives from Martian” (“Grok”). Heinlein coined the term and incorporated it into his novel Stranger in a Strange Land. It became so widely used that it was included in English dictionaries. De Jong 6 constitutional rights, such as gun ownership and voting rights. His economic outlook, however, shifted from a progressive socialistic perspective to a libertarian one. Early in his career he promoted an economic model for America based on socialistic principles, such as the distribution of wealth and government funded healthcare and education, whilst still arguing for privately owned enterprises. As his career progressed, his ideas about the proper economic institution for America became libertarian and he argued in favour of a limited government providing only the necessities, such as border security, yet allowing a maximum of individual liberty and responsibility in organizing one’s life. The political and economic principles of the United States, as expounded by the Founding Fathers of the nation, which influenced Heinlein’s writing throughout his career, became increasingly more important in his writings after the Second World War and eventually resulted in his argument in favour of a return to America’s ideological roots.
Since Roland Barthes’ The Death of the Author (1969) the role of the author in literary criticism has been “relegate[d] … to a mere ‘projection’ lacking substance beyond the convenience the word ‘author’ might offer to critics writing about texts” (Simion 1). In later years “structuralists and then poststructuralists” followed up on this argument by saying “that consideration of an author in critical discourse was moot, transcending intentionality, character, or any other issue centered upon the idea of a being who creates a work” (Simion
1). However, Eugen Simion argues that “despite protests to the contrary, the presence of the author is inescapable” (6). He feels that “the better we think of a work, the more we need to know about its author’s life” (135). As an alternative, Walker suggests the theory of “persona criticism” which is “a form of analysis that focuses on patterns of ideation, voice, and sensibility linked together by a connection to the author” (109). This theory enables critics “to speak of authorship as multiple, involving culture, psyche, and intertextuality, as well as biographical data about the writer” (Walker 109). The benefit of this approach is that it is “an De Jong 7 appealing strategy for” discussing an author without “fall[ing] into the trap of limiting the text to the author’s experience” (Walker 119). Following Simion’s and Walker’s arguments on the role of the author in literature this thesis will examine its premise by close reading three novels and compare them with biographical information and relevant secondary sources.
Despite the iconic status of Stranger in a Strange Land, it does not fall within the scope of this thesis. Instead, the choice has been made to examine Heinlein’s first novel, Beyond this
Horizon, his most controversial one, Starship Troopers, and his most explicit political allegory The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, a re-imagining of the American Revolution for the twentieth century.
De Jong 8
Chapter 1
A Socialistic and Libertarian Perspective of Humanity’s Future in Beyond this Horizon
Heinlein’s political activities, and his ideas on individual liberty and socialism, have proven to be important to the development of his science fiction. As a writer he was interested in a broad range of ideas, which is particularly noticeable in Beyond this Horizon (abbreviated to Horizon hereafter). The novel, originally published in serial form in the April – May issues of Astounding Science Fiction in 1942, was Heinlein’s “first independently developed, full scale novel” (Clareson and Sanders 48-52). In Horizon, Heinlein “brings together… [his] chief prewar interests,” exploring ideas concerning a socialistic economy in combination with a strictly regulated society (Clareson and Sanders 48-49). Regardless of these conventions, individuals enjoy extensive individual liberty. Heinlein also incorporated his interest in the sciences – specifically genetics and evolution – and the question of life after death. The
“pages of scientific and pseudo-scientific theory, and … philosophizing … display the contradictory components of Heinlein’s late Depression-era outlook” on the future (Franklin
60). These hopeful ideas “will later determine his response to the earth-shaking events of the period from the end of World War II to the early 1970s” (Franklin 60). In examining the human potential and its future, “Heinlein displays how broad his intellectual reach can take us” (Brin).
This chapter will argue that Horizon is a politically complex novel because Heinlein’s social and economic vision of the future in the early forties did not fit easily into one the mainstream political ideologies available at the time. Whereas his ideas on economy are both socialist and capitalist, his notions on individual freedom are Libertarian. The novel argues in favour of a strictly regulated economy, enabling a maximum of individual freedom. Heinlein De Jong 9 fuses his Libertarian and Socialist ideals and presents them in what is arguably his definite vision of humanity’s future.
1.1 – A Brief Overview of the Great Depression
The Great Depression (1929-1939) had a major impact on the United States. The stock market crash of October 24, 1929, known as “Black Thursday,” was the beginning of an unprecedented economic downturn (Brogan 526). The following years a vicious circle developed; the stock market crash left the middle class destitute and unable to purchase goods, resulting in factories lowering production and letting off staff. Each step further increased the economic downturn, which was amplified by President Hoover’s reluctance to intervene. It was not until the election of President Roosevelt in 1933 that effective measures were taken. After his inauguration, Roosevelt returned hope to the American people and a bill was signed regulating Wall Street and the stock market, increasing stability and reducing the chance of a recurrence of another depression. Within months laws were passed in congress aimed at improving the economy, ranging from the protection of banks to forming a public works organisation. The “Tennessee Valley Act” earned Roosevelt accusations of “rank socialism” but provided residents with affordable electricity from “the first publicly owned electricity organization in the country” (Brogan 541). Roosevelt’s alphabet organisations were instrumental in restoring the American economy, employing hundreds of thousands of young men who were now able to support their families. His New Deal program brought economic reforms that changed the economic outlook of the country. Heinlein came through the Great
Depression relatively unscathed, as he served in the navy until 1934. However, the economic situation of the 1930s strengthened his beliefs that “some kind of socialism was inevitable” in the United States (Patterson, V1 124).
De Jong 10
1.2 –The Structure of Horizon’s Society
In Horizon, Heinlein gives his vision of humanity’s future, which in political aspects can be described as progressive and hopeful. This novel, in which “he tries to combine a high level of social organization and cooperation with the maximum possible individual freedom,” is Heinlein’s “only attempt in this early fiction to describe what he conceives to be a good society” (Franklin 57). It is a society which is arguably perfect, having solved all mankind’s issues. Heinlein opens the novel by describing this situation: “Their problems were solved: the poor they no longer had with them; the sick, the lame, the halt, and the blind were historic memories; the ancient causes of war no longer obtained; they had more freedom than man has ever enjoyed” (1). The society Heinlein described in Horizon is “a descendant of the America
Heinlein loved above all things” which “has evolved in two directions at once” (Brin). In this future society “anything having to do with ‘human creativity’, ambition or enterprise is wildly competitive and nearly unregulated,” yet regarding “human needs” it is “wholly socialistic”
(Brin). An example of this is the way food is provided, “good food is included in … [the] basic dividend” (7).4 It has even become fashionable to pay for inferior food in restaurants rather than go to government refectories, as protagonist Hamilton Felix indicates when he asks Monroe-Alpha Clifford to join him for dinner: “I’ve located a new pay-restaurant … that will be a surprise to your gastro tract. Guaranteed to give you indigestion, or you have to fight the chef” (7).5
The character of J. Darlington Smith is introduced as a man from 1926 who was discovered in a stasis field. Through Smith, Heinlein reflects on the economic situation in the
1920s. In a conversation with someone identifying as a Communist, Smith speaks about
President Coolidge and the 1926 midterm elections: “you have the advantage of living in the greater period in the history of the greatest country in history. We’ve got an Administration in
4 Dividend is “the social distribution of surplus capital, through centralized accounting” (Franklin 58) 5 Heinlein creates a sense of otherness to this society by reversing characters’ first and last name. De Jong 11
Washington that understands business” (101). Smith then expands this argument to the economic situation: “We’re back to normalcy and we’re going to stay that way. We don’t need you rocking the boat. We are levelled off on a plateau of permanent prosperity. Take it from me – Don’t Sell America Short!” (101). Smith functions as Heinlein’s mouthpiece in voicing his criticism of America’s capitalistic system in the 1920s and the resulting Great
Depression.6 Heinlein’s notions of improving the economic system are a central theme and will be discussed below.
An important theme is the idea that “an armed society is a polite society” (228).
Heinlein was a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms, contending that “he strongly believe[d]” in this right and he supported his conviction by arguing that the right to bear arms is “imbedded in the history of this country” (Grumbles 62-63). Heinlein referred to the second amendment, which protects the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” to enable “a well- regulated militia” (“Second Amendment”). The colonial militias played an important role during the American Revolution in the battles of Lexington and Concord (1775), and the battle of Saratoga (1777) (Brogan 169-70, 186). Heinlein’s opinion on gun licensing was also outspoken: “I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating in their purpose” (Grumbles 63). Heinlein supported his argument by claiming that French gun licensing laws had expedited the German invasion during the Second World War: they “had only to consult the registration lists at the local gendarmerie in order to round up all the weapons in a district” (Grumbles 63). He continued his argument by saying that such laws “place the individual at the mercy of the state, unable to resist” regardless “whether the authorities be invaders or merely local tyrants” (Grumbles
63). He added that “the licensing of weapons is subversive of liberty and self-defeating in its
6 Capitalism is an economic system in which companies are “privately owned” and income is “distributed largely through the operation of markets,” primarily seen in the “Western world,” also known as a “free market system” (“Capitalism”) De Jong 12 pious purpose … I am aware of the dangers of guns, but I do not agree that those dangers can be eliminated nor even ameliorated by coercive legislation” (Grumbles 64). Nowadays, this is still a much-heard argument by supporters of gun rights, despite the string of school shootings
America has endured. Heinlein also voiced his support of the “American Rifle Association,” the modern day National Rifle Association, arguing that they had shared the same beliefs “for many years” (Grumbles 63). Considering Heinlein’s position on gun ownership, it is not surprising that the NRA has incorporated Heinlein’s phrase, “an armed society is a polite society,” into their publications.
Even though Heinlein was a strong supporter of gun rights, the position he takes in
Horizon is more complicated than it first appears. His male characters are armed and willing to engage in a duel when necessitated by social conventions. Heinlein supports his argument that a society becomes politer through the carrying of weapons by saying that “manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life” (228). Even though Heinlein strongly supports the right to bear arms, he sees the complexities in the idea of an armed society and argues that this would result in “a society that was overviolent, instead of overcivilized” (Patterson, V1 290). In the second half of the novel, Heinlein further complicates the notion of an armed society. Hamilton intends to start wearing a brassard, a sign that you are not armed and therefore cannot be challenged to a duel; however, it also means that you must defer to those who are armed since it is “an admission of defeat” and “an acknowledgment of inferiority” (27). Hamilton has his reasons to contemplate this change: “I am beginning to have my doubts about this whole custom. Maybe I’m getting old, but, while it’s fun for a bachelor to go swaggering about town, it looks a little different to me now”
(227). Hamilton’s change of heart complicates the idea of wearing guns and using them to uphold social conventions. Responding to his considerations, Mordan Claude warns him of the consequences of going against cultural constructs: “to believe that you can live free of De Jong 13 your cultural matrix is one of the easiest fallacies and has some of the worst consequences.
You are part of your group … and … bound by its customs” (227). Hamilton then raises an important philosophical question: “how can there be any progress if we don’t break customs?”
(227). Mordan reminds the readers that customs do not have to be broken to make progress:
“take them into your considerations, examine how they work, and make them serve you. You don’t need to disarm yourself to stay out of fights” (227). Hamilton’ concerns about wearing guns provide Heinlein with the opportunity to reiterate his notions on private gun ownership:
“don’t assume the custom of going armed is useless. Customs always have a reason behind them…. this is a good one” (228). Even though Heinlein does not consider the notion that “an armed society is a polite society” as viable in real life, he still supports the right to bear arms and feels that gun licensing is a restriction of personal freedom.
1.3 –Heinlein’s Vision of a Socialist Economy Based on the Theory of Social Credit
The “prevailing economic theorist” in Heinlein’s youth was John Maynard Keynes, who argued that “government intervention can stabilize the economy” (Forrest 199). Keynes had a strong influence on Heinlein due to his “view on aggregate demand and short-term solutions to recessions (Forrest 199). In The General Theory of Employment, Interest and
Money (1936), Keynes argued that “employment can only increase… with an increase in investment” by the government (98). To achieve this the government must be willing to accept a “budgetary deficit” to enable this investment or provide “unemployment relief”
(Keynes 98). If a government does not take these measures “a fall in employment and income
… might proceed to extreme lengths” (Keynes 98). Having witnessed the large-scale unemployment and its consequences during the Great Depression, these ideas had a strong impact on Heinlein’s political thinking (Forrest 199). As a progressive and socialist thinker,
Heinlein pursued those ideals in his political work and as a writer of science fiction he De Jong 14 expanded upon these ideas. Heinlein’s vision of the future’s economy in Horizon is consequently more complex than any rigidly socialist or capitalist ideological perspective. In fact, Heinlein’s economy combines socialist and capitalist characteristics into one system.
Even though the economy is strictly regulated, business is unregulated, and companies are privately owned. The government provides necessities such as food, a basic income, universal healthcare, and free education. Heinlein felt that the “economic troubles” of the United States
“lay principally in our fiscal system and that they could be remedied without doing away with private ownership” (Patterson, V1 290). He continued this argument by expressing his belief
“that civil liberty and human dignity is most easily achieved in a system based on private capitalism and private ownership” (Patterson, V1 290). Even though Heinlein supported
“public libraries” and “public roads” he feared “all-out socialism even when it isn’t the
Marxian variety” (Patterson, V1 290).
Panshin argues that the novel is foremost about “day-to-day living in a truly strange society” (Ch2.4). However, Panshin’s notion does not concur with Heinlein’s own ideas about the novel. He argued that it is about the future of humanity, set in a future society where “the basic problems of economics and politics had been solved” (Grumbles 21). Considering how extensively Heinlein details the economical workings in Horizon, Panshin’s supposition is incorrect. Even though social interaction is an important theme, the fundamental economic principles on which this society is founded and their influence on how people interact socially, are most important to Heinlein. The exploration of the utopian society in Horizon resembles H. G. Wells’ “desire to use writing to make the world better” (James). Wells’ modus operandi in accomplishing this was “by projecting either a utopian vision of a perfected future, or dystopias revealing how the lessons of his work went unheeded” (James).
Heinlein’s work in Horizon reflects the utopian approach by Wells, who Heinlein considered De Jong 15 to be a “mentor” even though they only met once at one of Wells’ book signings in 1940
(Patterson, V1 12, 267).
The novel’s economy is a system that works under the assumption of “free enterprise without capitalism,” based on the theory of Social Credit (Mullen). Even though Heinlein “did not stay sold on … Douglas’ economic theories,” he used them as a basis for the economy in this novel (Patterson, V1 290). The fundamental principles of Social Credit “provide the foundation for the utopia of Horizon” (Mullen). In this society, “anyone who doesn't like to work… can live quite comfortably on the ‘citizen’s allowance’” (Mullen).
Heinlein explains in considerable detail how this utopia’s economy functions. To ensure that his readers understand these concepts he uses various approaches. Through dialogues the workings of the economy are discussed, at times in a manner consistent of that between established members of the community, but also in layman terms as in the conversation between Hamilton and Smith, who is an outsider to this society. The economy of
Heinlein’s constructed world follows the principles of what Heinlein refers to as the “Law of
Stable Money” which argues that “in a stable economy, the debt-free new currency must be equated to the net re-investment” (6). Monroe-Alpha is responsible for computing “the amount of new credit necessary to make the production-consumption cycle come out even;” he argues that if this is not done correctly the outcome would be “a series of panics and booms of the post-nineteenth century type” which, “carried to extreme … could even result in warfare” (6). Heinlein makes this reference to the Great Depression early in the novel to ensure that his reader understands that he presents a solution to those financial problems.
Monroe-Alpha then explains that this outcome would be very unlikely because “the structural nature of finance is too deeply imbedded in our culture for pseudo-capitalism to return” (6).
The calculations made by Monroe-Alpha are then forwarded to the Board of Policy, whose task it is “to find suitable means to distribute new currency” which is “made necessary by the De Jong 16 ever-increasing productive capital investment” of society (72). There are two ways in which this can be achieved: “the simplest way was by the direct issue of debt-free credit – flat money – to the citizens directly, or indirectly in the form of a subsidized discount on retail sales” (72). Whereas “the indirect method permitted a non-coercive control against inflation of price symbols” to keep the prices low, “the direct method raised wages by decreasing the incentive to work” and therefore create a scarcity in labour (72). Heinlein argues that neither method is more effective “to insure that goods produced would be bought and consumed and thereby help to balance the books of every businessman in the hemisphere” (72).
In a conversation with Smith, Hamilton attempts to explain the workings of this economic system in a less abstract manner. He argues that “it’s basically a matter of costs and prices” and then gives an example of a company producing a product, which “costs … money
– materials, wages, housing, and so forth” (104). The owner of the company “has to get his costs back in prices” if he wants to be able to remain operating; in order to achieve this “he has to put into circulation an amount of money exactly equal to his costs… his profits are part of his cost … costs – what you call ‘costs’ – plus profit must equal price” (104). Hamilton then explains the role of the government in this system, which “puts into circulation the amount of money – ‘exactly’ – needed to buy the product” (105). However, to create new products “some of that money put into circulation is saved and invested in new production” in which “it is a cost charge against the new production, leaving a net shortage in necessary purchasing power” which “the government makes up… by issuing new money” (105).
Acknowledging the Communist interpretation of Socialism, Heinlein prevents any discussion of that subject by having his characters debate the issue. When Hamilton asks whether it “wouldn’t … be simpler to set up a collective system” like the Communist system in the Soviet Union, Monroe-Alpha answers by saying that “a complete socialism would have as much need for structural appropriateness in its cost accounting as do free entrepreneurs. De Jong 17
The degree of public ownership as compared with the degree of free enterprise is a cultural matter” (7). Franklin supports Heinlein’s notion and agrees that “the economic structure” in
Horizon is “a perfected, fully rational capitalism that has evolved from the ‘pseudo- capitalism’ of previous centuries” (58). Mullen also agrees with this idea, arguing that
Heinlein’s early work up to 1958 is progressive and that his description of “the economic system is one of free enterprise with a certain degree of governmental regulation and control.”
The name of Heinlein’s protagonist is of interest as well. Considering his ideas on financial structure, a connection can be made to Alexander Hamilton, who was the first
Secretary of the Treasury of the United States from 1789 to 1795. Hamilton was among other things responsible for the creation of the economic union and setting up the National Bank.
His idea that “a strong unitary American commonwealth could encourage trade and industry far more effectively than the old loose federation of small states” was crucial in his work in the treasury department (Brogan 264). Hamilton also took measures incorporating the states’ individual debs from the Revolutionary War into the federal debt, thereby increasing the federal government’s authority over the states. Whereas Hamilton “was a prophet of capitalism,” Jefferson believed “in the virtue of the common man” arguing that America “had no more use for merchant princes or financial titans” (Brogan 264). Even though these respective views are incompatible, “much of American social and economic history has been taken up with the attempt to blend them” because what “the two creeds have in common, [is] that they both encouraged the economic individualism and the national ambitions of the new republic” (Brogan 265). Heinlein’s economy in Horizon reflects this nature with its emphasis on individualism and governmental overseeing of the economy. It is interesting to note that
Jefferson, who would become Heinlein’s source of inspiration in later years, was a strong opposer of Hamilton’s views on the “future destiny of the United States” by arguing against a strong federal government (Brogan 263). De Jong 18
1.4 – Libertarian Ideals in a Socialist Economy
Horizon also includes ideas that can be attributed to a more libertarian mindset.
Panshin argues that the society in Horizon is libertarian rather than socialist (Ch2.4). It does contain aspects of libertarianism; foremost are the right of the individual and the role of government in maintaining order. One of the key ideas in this novel is that of personal freedom; Heinlein argues that individual liberty outweighs the needs of government.
Libertarians argue that a government cannot force an individual to do something against their wishes if allowances are made that an individual’s freedom “is consistent with a like freedom for everyone else” and does not infringe upon another’s freedom (“Libertarianism”). This mindset stems from the classical liberal ideal that it is the government’s duty to protect the individual rights of its citizens. Libertarians are “classical liberals” who emphasize the
“individual right to liberty” (“Libertarianism”). When Hamilton is asked by Mordan, the
“District Moderator for Genetics,” whether he intends to have children Hamilton refuses (28-
31). Mordan acknowledges this is his prerogative and that he cannot force him, arguing that
“the private life and free action of every individual must be scrupulously respected” (31). This discussion of the importance of personal freedom shows that despite Heinlein’s progressive ideas he already nurtured Libertarian ideas.
The positioning of Libertarianism on the political spectrum is complicated, even though the ideology is often placed “on the extreme right” with conservatism (Lester 231).7
D’Amato argues that “conservatism … is anathema to … libertarianism properly understood” because of Libertarianism’s origins in liberalism. He argues that Libertarianism as “the philosophy of liberty” resides on the left-wing of the political spectrum “squarely opposing
7 In the United States, conservatism gained prominence after President Roosevelt’s New Deal program, primarily because of increased involvement in the economy by the government and the raising of federal taxes on companies. The political shift to the left (discussed extensively in chapter 4) resulted in Republicans holding on to classic liberalist ideals. However, unlike classical liberalism, conservatism calls for “the value of self- discipline,” arguing that “those who fail to learn this… must have discipline imposed upon them by government and law” (“Conservatism”). De Jong 19 the forces of … conservatism” (D’Amato). That Libertarianism is placed on the right-side of the political spectrum nowadays is a misconception, according to D’Amato. The key elements of traditional liberalism, of which Libertarianism is a radicalization, are associated “with conservative, not liberal thought” because liberalism has “abandoned its earlier meaning, as a philosophy centered on the freedom of the individual from state oppression” in favour of “the growth of government” (D’Amato).8 Lester argues that there are two distinct movements within Libertarianism, dealing with personal liberty and economic liberty (233). Whereas economic liberty focuses on a free market and advocates unrestricted trade, personal liberty advocates unrestricted individual freedom (Lester 233-36). In Horizon, Heinlein campaigns for personal liberty, focusing on individual freedom and equality for all rather than economic freedom.
1.5 – Conclusion
Heinlein’s Horizon was to some extent a response to the economic situation of the
Great Depression era. His cynical reference to President Coolidge’s policies and the status of the economy in 1926 reflects Heinlein’s opinion on the unregulated financial system. In
Horizon, the strictly regulated economy is locked in a production circle like the American economy during the Great Depression. However, the novel’s government provides extra currency to continue investments in new products and thus enables a prosperous economy.
Like Roosevelt’s, it invests in the economy to keep it functioning. However, in contrast to
Roosevelt’s administration, Heinlein advocates a complete social security system through the division of the economic surplus. In other words, profits are divided, and everyone is guaranteed a basic income. Even though the system still retained private ownership of
8 D’Amato defines the key elements as “free trade, individual rights, private property, and a government limited in both role and size.” De Jong 20 enterprises, Heinlein advocated a socialist economy in which everyone has sufficient income to live a prosperous life. The economic downturn of the Great Depression and its disastrous impact on the population of the United States inspired Heinlein to explore a future economy for humanity that would enable everyone to live freely without financial concerns. Heinlein argues that a government which invests in its economy, like the Roosevelt administration in the 1930s, can influence a nation’s economy for the better by improving employment. In the novel’s future society, employment is not required but is a matter of free choice. If an individual prefers to work, he or she has the liberty to do so.
Horizon also includes an extensive discussion of personal freedom. Heinlein incorporates Libertarian ideology in the novel, which explores how a society would function when its members have unrestricted personal freedom. Despite his notions on personal freedom, the social conventions are elaborate. Unrestricted freedom does not warrant unpolite behaviour, Heinlein argues. This is enforced through the society’s acceptance of gun ownership and the freedom of duelling. If social conventions are not met those involved are at liberty to use their guns. Heinlein’s support of gun ownership even resulted in the novel’s motto that “an armed society is a polite society” being adopted by the NRA and incorporated into its publications and merchandise. However, Heinlein also complicated this notion. Even though he supported the right to carry a weapon, he did not believe that the idea of “an armed society” would function. Even though Heinlein still regarded himself a classical liberal, his notions tend toward personal Libertarianism, an ideology that favours unrestricted personal freedom unless it interferes with another’s freedom. Heinlein’s views on economy are socialist rather than economic Libertarian though, favouring free education, healthcare, and a large well-organized government. In the early years of his career, Heinlein was a complex political thinker who explored possible future alternatives while discussing his personal ideals. De Jong 21
Chapter 2
1949 – 1959
President Eisenhower – Nuclear Weapons – Communism
In 1954 Heinlein visited the USS Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor to pay his respects to former friends and shipmates who lost their lives during the surprise attack by the
Japanese. The trip had a profound impact on Heinlein and changed his thinking on a fundamental level. He recognised that “the great socialist ideals of his youth were wonderful dreams,” but that realizing them was impossible since “the materials did not exist in the world to make them into reality” (Patterson, V2 112-13). Heinlein no longer believed that his ideals of a benevolent world government as the “instrument for liberation” were attainable, “the voice he had raised for such things he would still” (Patterson, V2 113). He also observed change in American politics and believed that “the country was drifting to the left;” Heinlein found himself on “the far side” of the “gulf [which was] opening up” (Patterson, V2 113).
Heinlein did not recognize himself in the “leftism” advocated by those identifying as liberals and said that he “was and would remain a liberal” in the classical sense (Patterson, V2 113).
In the middle of the twentieth century, the definition of the term liberal changed in the United
States where it came “to refer to a body of ideas known in the rest of the world as social democracy” (Hamowy 34). The political shift taking place away from classical liberalism was reason for Heinlein to resign from the Democratic Party and register as an independent
(Patterson, V2 116)
In 1956 President Dwight D. Eisenhower was re-elected. Shortly after pressure began to arise within parts of American society about the nuclear arms race when pacifist groups argued for placing them under United Nations supervision and reduce the number of nuclear weapons. Only a few years earlier American society had still been under the influence of De Jong 22
McCarthyism and fear of Communist infiltration and influence was strife within the nation.9
Heinlein was strongly opposed to placing American nuclear weapons under U.N. control and felt that the Soviet leadership was not to be trusted. On April fifth, 1958, a manifesto calling for the end of nuclear weapon testing was published by SANE, the National Committee for a
Sane Nuclear Policy, a group of influential progressive thinkers opposing nuclear weapons.
Heinlein, who identified himself in those days as a “solidly, centrist American liberal, in the progressive tradition,” was determined to voice the counterargument (Patterson, V2 153). He believed this article was “the rankest sort of Communist propaganda” (“Patrick” 472). On
April twelfth, a week after the publication of the SANE manifesto, Heinlein published an article in several newspapers called “Who are the Heirs of Patrick Henry.” Its purpose was to rally those who supported nuclear weapon testing to join him in “The Patrick Henry League,” named after the first governor of Virginia who became famous for his declaration of “give me liberty or give me death” (“Patrick” 479). His aim was to “prove to our government that the
Spirit of ’76 is still alive” (“Patrick” 479). The Spirit of ’76 refers to the presidential election of 1800, when Thomas Jefferson ran for president during a time of political unrest. Both the
Federalist and Republican parties accused each other of “subvert[ing] the government and overthrow[ing] the constitution” regarding the implementation and jurisdiction of the Federal government (“Election”). Jefferson’s victory vindicated “his belief that ‘the sovereign people’ would repel attacks on their liberties and the enduring republican principles of 1776”
(“Election”). In his article Heinlein appealed to this sentiment as well, hoping that the people would come together in defiance of President Eisenhower’s policies.
Heinlein was convinced that the Soviet Union influenced American politics through its own population. He argued that it was “no accident that this manifesto follows the Communist
9 McCarthyism (1950-1955) refers to the period when senator McCarthy and others embarked on a witch hunt against suspected Communist sympathizers in American society, and in the US government. The effects of this period on American society were profound, for four years the lives of American citizens “were devastated,” followed by “a long aftermath of uncertainty, anxiety and occasional oppression” (Brogan 619). De Jong 23 line, no coincidence that it ‘happens’ to appear … the very week that Khrushchev has announced smugly that the U.S.S.R. has ended their tests – and demand that we give up our coming, long-scheduled, and publicly announced tests of a weapon with minimum fall-out”
(“Patrick” 475). Much of Heinlein’s article argued that the Communist influence in the United
States was increasing again. He appeared to have held on to the anxieties experienced by many during McCarthyism, even though the national sentiments of the time were improving again. Heinlein expanded on his argument saying that both “Freedom and Red Tyranny” were in possession of weapons of mass destruction (“Patrick” 475). He believed that “the
Communists are again using our own people to try to shame or scare us into throwing our weapons away” (“Patrick” 475). To strengthen his argument and remind his readers of the importance of his cause he argues that “if we fall for them… Old Glory will be hauled down for the last time” (Patrick” 475-6). Heinlein appeals to the patriotic sentiments of his readers by referring to the flag of the United States as a symbol for the nation. He argues that its defeat is inevitable unless political changes are made.
In a clear indication of his attitude toward those who signed the SANE manifesto he argued that they “made their choice; consciously or unconsciously they prefer enslavement to death. Such is their right and we do not argue with them – we speak to you who are still free in their souls” (“Patrick” 476). This last argument defines the patriotic sentiments that characterised Heinlein throughout his life. As a patriot, Heinlein was prepared to do whatever was necessary to ensure that “the evil pragmatists of Communism cannot afford to murder us”
(“Patrick” 478). In his article he warned the public what the costs would be of the necessary measures to prevent a Communist victory: “The price to us will be year after weary year of higher taxes, harder work, grim devotion … and perhaps, despite all this – death. But we shall die free!” (“Patrick” 478). Despite the publication of Heinlein’s article and the actions of the
Patrick Henry League, President Eisenhower ordered an end to nuclear weapons testing. De Jong 24
Heinlein was astonished by this decision even though he “should not have been as I knew that he was a political general long before he entered politics – stupid, all front, and dependent on his staff” (Afterword 481-82). Heinlein also mused upon how he was proven correct in his assessment of the situation: “when it suited him, Khrushchev resumed testing with no warning and with the dirtiest bombs ever set off in the atmosphere” (Afterword 481). After President
Eisenhower’s executive decision to end nuclear weapon testing, Heinlein ceased campaigning for the league. Rather than returning to work on Stranger in a Strange Land, he turned his attention to a new novel in response to Eisenhower’s decision: Starship Troopers. Reflecting upon this period in 1980, Heinlein said that “The ‘Patrick Henry’ ad shocked ’em; Starship
Troopers outraged ’em” (Afterword 482).
De Jong 25
Chapter 3
An Exploration of Responsibility and Morality in Starship Troopers
Eisenhower’s decision to end nuclear weapon testing left Heinlein “mulling over the intertangled notions of freedom and responsibility, duty and moral self-discipline and citizenship” when he started on Starship Troopers (abbreviated to Troopers hereafter)
(Patterson, V2 161). Heinlein’s juveniles of the 1950s had expressed not only “an ebullient, optimistic, visionary drama of boundless expansion into the universe” but also included
“works dominated by a dark, tortured, nightmarish sense of despair and strangulation, punctuated by shouts of defiance” (Franklin 66). Troopers, which falls into that last category, was published simultaneously as a novel and in an abbreviated serial form in the October –
November 1959 issues of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction as Starship Soldier.
While Heinlein’s anxiety about irresponsible government inspired the novel, in part, he was also spurred on to write about military matters by his father’s “conviction… that only those who fought for their country were worthy to rule it,” a statement he had overheard at the age of five (qtd. in Patterson, V2 161). Therefore, exploring the relationship between the government and the military became one of the novel’s philosophical cornerstones.
The novel received negative reviews; comments ranged from it being “an ‘irate sermon with a few fictional trappings’” to Heinlein personally being referred to as “a peddler of dangerous ideologies” (Patterson, V2 179). It troubled Heinlein that many reviewers seemed unable to understand the premise of Troopers: that individual freedom requires responsibility and that personal sacrifice “is the highest and most human form of survival behaviour” (Patterson, V2 181). Reviewers seemed to focus solely on the apparent glorification of the military and the system of voting rights in the Terran Federation. Heinlein was most annoyed about the latter argument, saying that “the dismaying idea that a voice in De Jong 26 governing the state should be earned instead of being handed to anyone who is 18 years old and has a body temperature near 37° C” was what offended his critics the most about the novel (Afterword 485).
Even nowadays the novel remains subject of much discussion amongst science fiction critics. Depending on the political leaning of the reviewer, the novel is cherry-picked for examples that illustrate a certain ideological perspective. Heer, who believes that Heinlein’s
Libertarian principles are a form of madness, argues that the novel is “a gung-ho shout-out for organized belligerence as the key to human survival,” calling it “a thoroughly authoritarian book” and takes the flogging of a trooper and “execution of mentally disturbed criminals” out of context as evidence to make his point. In a more moderate essay, MacLeod argues that
Troopers “may be analogously benign” since the majority “of its readers must have been stimulated by it to take an interest in political and moral philosophy than have been converted to that advocated in the text” (233).
This chapter will argue that Starship Troopers is an exploration into the Libertarian notion of unrestricted individual freedom in combination with a discussion both on individual and governmental responsibility. The novel argues that individual freedom and responsibility lead to moral behaviour, which results in moral responsibility in the form of patriotism.
Loyalty to one’s country is thus the driving motivation for individual sacrifice for your society. The novel also argues that governmental responsibility can only be achieved if those who elect the government take their individual responsibility.
3.1 – Individual Freedom and Responsibility in the Terran Federation
Troopers revolves around the intergalactic war against a hive-like alien species, derogatively referred to as “the bugs” because of their Arachnid appearance. Heinlein modelled the novel’s antagonists around the Communists in the Soviet Union. According to De Jong 27
Franklin, they are “obviously extrapolations from Heinlein’s conception of twentieth-century communism” (117). He continues his argument by stating that “the society of cooperating individuals” from the Terran Federation, an allusion to the 1950s United States, “is now locked in struggle with the communist hive for total control of the galaxy” (Franklin 117).
Heinlein wrote Troopers as an allegory warning the western world of the dangers he perceived in Communism. Through Johnnie Rico, the novel’s protagonist and narrator,
Heinlein warns his readers: “we were learning, expensively, just how efficient a total communism can be when used by a people actually adapted to it by evolution” (161). Not only does Heinlein warn his readers of the dangers of Communism, he also states his beliefs that Communism is not a viable form of governmental organisation. He argues that humanity, unlike the Arachnids, will not be able to thrive within a hive-mind like political system.
Heinlein beliefs that the “soulless hive-creatures, representing the forces of totalitarian collectivism… threatening to overwhelm the free world” are the complete opposite to the
“libertarian, democratic, almost idyllic utopia” of the Terran Federation (Patterson, V2 163).10
Heinlein’s criticism of totalitarianism focuses on the restriction of individuality that he perceives in the system.11 It is “the subordination, integration and homogenisation” of the individual under a regime that “aspires toward a monopoly of power … with the chief objective of conquering society” that is antithetical to Heinlein’s ideals of personal freedom
(Gentile 33-34). The notion that humanity is not suited for a totalitarian system, but rather thrives in a system allowing for maximum personal freedom was a fundamental principle in
Heinlein’s political thinking. Referring to the restriction of freedom under British rule prior to the American Revolution, Thomas Paine argued in “Common Sense” that “government even
10 Heinlein was raised a Methodist in America’s Bible Belt, even though he was “a deeply spiritual person… he had never had any attraction to the creeds and dogmas of any church,” arguing that “churchgoing is what you did ‘instead of’ religion” (Patterson, V1 21, 238). Heinlein’s choice of the word “soulless,” being aware of its traditional Christian humanist concept of singling out man by virtue of his soul, reflects his deep resentment. 11 Totalitarianism can be defined as a system that is based “on a single-party regime,” requiring complete submission to the ruling party and restricting all individual freedom (Gentile 33-34). De Jong 28 in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one” (Morton 174). The notion of a government that subjects the individual to its needs, like in a totalitarian system, was one of the fundamental reasons for the American revolution. America’s founding principles are antithetical to totalitarianism, and thus also explains its deep-rooted antipathy against Communist regimes.
The examination of philosophical questions in Troopers takes place in the History &
Moral Philosophy classes, which Johnnie Rico takes in High School and during Officer
Candidate School. To become a teacher of History & Moral Philosophy you must have completed a term of Federal Service.12 These teachers act as Heinlein’s mouthpiece as he examines the philosophical topics of the novel. His primary agent is retired Lieutenant-
Colonel Jean Dubois, Rico’s high school teacher. Heinlein employs flashbacks to integrate these lessons into the timeline whenever the story requires an examination of a moral value.
One of these values Heinlein discusses is an individual’s rights. Through Dubois, Heinlein sharply defines his supposition here: “a human being has no natural rights of any nature”
(125). The notion that a human being must work for and earn his rights is a key notion that is expressed in this novel. In a discussion with an unnamed student in the class, Dubois is asked about the founding principles of the United States: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
(126).13 Heinlein refers to these rights to further his argument on the importance of individual freedom and the salience of those founding principles. Dubois then embarks on a monologue in which he applies hyperbole to emphasize the importance of the freedom to make individual choices:
12 A two-year term (subject to the requirements of the service), which can include either “Federal Civil Service” or a military branch (Afterword 483). It is important to note that although volunteers can resign at any time of their choosing, they do not have any influence as to which service they are assigned to. It is also possible to “go career,” in which case the term is extended to twenty years (169). 13 Heinlein refers to the Declaration of Independence by citing this well-known phrase which defines the “unalienable rights” of an individual, bestowed by God, which the United States government – “deriving… [its] just powers from the consent of the governed” – is charged to protect (“Declaration”). De Jong 29
What ‘right’ to life has a man who is drowning in the pacific? The ocean will not
harken to his cries. What right to ‘life’ has a man who must die if he is to save his
children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he so as a matter of ‘right’? If two
men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is
‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great
document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never
unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always
vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented,
liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third ‘right’? – the
‘pursuit of happiness’? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a
universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a
dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can ‘pursue happiness’ as
long as my brain lives. (126)
Through Dubois acting as his mouthpiece, Heinlein explores how his society has developed an extreme viewpoint on the elaboration of these rights. This is part of his discussion of the future development of American society as he perceived it in the 1950s. Already Heinlein’s anxiety about the changing nature of society is visible in his nostalgic references to the founding principles of the United States.
Despite the hyperbole in the quote from the novel above, Heinlein’s argument is that of these three rights the right to liberty is the most essential. He argues that the right to life is superseded by the right to liberty, following Libertarian ideology that an individual’s freedom may not interfere with another’s. These rights must thus be earned, assuming complete gender and racial equality – which Heinlein promoted throughout his career. He then returns to his criticism of early twentieth-century American democracy and its expected downfall, which he was “inclined to think” was inevitable (Patterson, V2 183). Heinlein concludes his argument De Jong 30 that the belief in these rights “was the soft spot which destroyed what was in many ways an admirable culture … their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of
‘rights’ … and lost tract of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure” (126).
Heinlein’s words infer his belief that American democracy has strayed away from its founding principles as embodied in the increasing restriction of personal freedom and the abandonment of limited government. Individual freedom, he argues, comes with individual responsibility, not only for your own immediate surroundings but for your nation as well.
One of Heinlein’s key arguments in Troopers is that individual freedom extends into personal sacrifice. Dubois argues that “the best things in life are beyond money; their price is agony and sweat and devotion … and the price demanded for the most precious of all things in life is life itself – ultimate cost for perfect value” (99). Heinlein refers here to personal freedom, arguing that the protection of individual liberty is paramount. Since those teaching
History & Moral Philosophy classes are veterans of Federal Service, it is unsurprising that
Dubois argues in favour of serving a term. Heinlein again argues the importance of individual free choice regarding military service. Consequently, he was also strongly opinionated against military conscription, arguing this repeatedly in fiction, non-fiction, and speaking engagements.14 Voluntarism, Heinlein argued, was the only acceptable option of constituting a standing army:
If there are not sufficient Simon-pure, utterly uncoerced volunteers to defend a country
and save it … then let it go down the drain! And that applies just as much to my own
beloved country as it does to the Roman Empire … The thought of a draftee being
required to die that I may live is as morally offensive to me as that of galley slaves,
chained to their sweeps, and drowning in battle not of their choosing. (qtd. in
Patterson, V2 183).
14 The United States Armed Forces did not become an all-volunteer service until 1973 (“Selective Service”). De Jong 31
In Troopers, Heinlein argues that voluntarism “is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part … and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live” (171). This is in line with Heinlein’s Libertarian notions about individual freedom; a society should not force any of its members to risk its life in defence of the state. This should always be a personal choice, made in complete personal freedom. Heinlein also argues that this individual freedom requires a specific moral behaviour to achieve individual responsibility.
3.2 – Morality and Responsibility as Cornerstones of Society in the Terran Federation
Troopers explores the idea that personal freedom and responsibility leads to moral behaviour. To achieve this, Heinlein posited the central idea of Troopers as “an inquiry into why men fight, investigated as a moral problem” and that “being a novelist … [he] tried to analyze [sic] it as a novelist” (qtd. in Patterson, V2 162). “Moral behaviour,” Heinlein argues, is “survival behaviour … for the individual, for the family, the tribe, the nation, the race” (qtd. in Patterson, V2 163). He then concluded that moral behaviour is behaviour “in which duty and loyalty are shown toward a group too large for an individual to know all of them … [and] is called ‘patriotism’” (“Pragmatism” 564). Heinlein refined this argument by saying that “it means that you place the welfare of the nation ahead of your own, even if it costs you your life” (“Pragmatism” 567). He then connects this definition to his Libertarian ideas, arguing that “‘moral’ decisions cannot be determined by law, by committee, by group – to fight or not to fight is a personal, moral decision,” one that must be determined individually (qtd. in
Patterson, V2 163). Scholars disagree about the role of patriotism in moral philosophy.
Whereas some consider it “a virtue, the fount and bedrock of all morality,” others consider it
“a non-moral attachment … [which] ought to be constrained” and in some cases “we should
[even] work for its demise” (Primoratz 204). Heinlein arguably belongs to the first category as De Jong 32 he considers patriotism as the “love of one’s country,” holding “[a] special concern for its well-being and that of [his] compatriots” (Primoratz 206). To Heinlein, patriotism and individual freedom were the cornerstones of his beliefs, expressing them in both fiction and non-fiction.15
Throughout the History & Moral Philosophy classes, the characters functioning as
Heinlein’s mouthpiece build up an argument that certain moral values such as selflessness, patriotism, and responsibility are the pillars of a well-functioning society, which can arguably be considered conservative values in today’s political spectrum. However, Heinlein was not a conservative thinker. Rather, he can be described as a classical liberal edging increasingly further towards Libertarianism. In contrast to conservative ideology, Libertarianism focuses on individual freedom rather than social restrictions (Easterbrook, “Libertarianism”). Heinlein had come to believe in a limited government that interferes as little as possible in an individual’s life yet allowing for maximum individual freedom. Heinlein also postulated that an individual had the moral responsibility to contribute to society. The difficulty in Heinlein’s reasoning is his notion of responsibility. Troopers explores the idea that taking responsibility means serving a term of Federal Service and in doing so serve society. However, he has not publicly asserted this opinion outside of the realm of fiction; it is a political idea that he purposely explores as a writer of speculative fiction. Although Heinlein felt strongly about serving in the military, he did not assert his own preference as the only responsible alternative. He does make the case that “a developed moral sense, rather than an instinctual one” is what differentiates a moral valuable member of society (Sullivan 222). In the fictional world of Troopers, it is primarily through the History & Moral Philosophy classes in school that teenagers develop the moral sense that their society demands of them. In one of these
15 Heinlein argued that any “religious feeling” he had, concerned “the United States of America. It is not a reasoned evaluation but an overpowering emotion… Every rolling word of the constitution, and the bright, sharp, brave phrases of the bill of rights – they get me where I live” (qtd. in Patterson, V1 300). De Jong 33 classes Dubois combines the concepts of morality and responsibility into duty: “a concept with the same relation to group that self-interest has to individual” (125). In Heinlein’s fictional society, where selflessness is one of the cornerstones, the logical continuation of responsibility is duty.
Franklin places the call for taking responsibility in Troopers in context of its time, arguing that in the late 1950s “much of the American nation was prepared … to respond to just such a call, to rise above the self-seeking exalted in the 1950s” (115). In support of his argument he refers to the exaltation experienced by many Americans during John F.
Kennedy’s inaugural speech in 1961: “ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country” (qtd. in Franklin 115). Two years before Kennedy made this statement, Heinlein had already incorporated this idea into Troopers. The Terran Federation also asks its youngsters what they are willing to do for their nation by means of Federal
Service.16 In one of the in-class discussions of the status of civilians and servicemen the notion of a Term of Service is discussed.17 Dubois asks his pupils about “the moral difference, if any, between the soldier and the civilian?” (27). It is Johnnie Rico who provides the
“textbook” answer: “The difference… lies in the field of civic virtue. A soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not” (27). At this stage of Rico’s development, he can recite the lessons he is being taught but does not yet fully comprehend them. As the story progresses, Rico starts to believe and represent these values, in that regard the novel also describes Rico’s moral growth as a soldier, although in other respects Rico remains a shallow character. An argument can be made that Rico’s lack of character development represents the
16 Serving a Term in Federal Service does not necessarily entail joining a military branch; only five percent of those in Federal Service do so in a military branch. If a volunteer is “young, male, and healthy, he may wind up as cannon fodder,” although the likelihood of this is slim (Afterword 483). 17 Federal service is open to both men and women. The term “servicemen” thus includes enlistees of both genders. De Jong 34 notion that to be a good soldier a shallow character is required. However, Heinlein tends to have his characters represent ideologies or ideas rather than develop them as well-rounded characters. This same argument applies to Rico as well, he becomes the embodiment of duty and responsibility, arguing the importance of free choice in serving his society. Rico thus comes to embody the idea of the “larger concept of family” and the role of the serviceman
(Clareson and Sanders 130). Whereas a civilian only cares for a limited group, a serviceman cares for everyone and puts his or her life on the line for society (Clareson and Sanders 130).
The combination of individual freedom and a moral sense of responsibility combine into a sense of duty to serve society. Because of having performed their duty, former servicemen in the Federated Nations have a different social status than civilians and are awarded voting rights.
3.3 – Responsibility and Democracy in the Terran Federation
Troopers is foremost a response to President Eisenhower’s decision to end nuclear weapons testing, in which Heinlein incorporated his criticism on this decision and his anxiety about the changes in American society and explored an alternative future based on his core socio-political principles. Heinlein believed that not all voters used their privilege responsibly.
He argued that historically “democracies usually collapse not too long after the plebs discover they can vote themselves bread and circuses” and that he perceived that process taking place in the United States of the 1950s (Afterword 485). In support of his argument, Heinlein referred to the Founding Fathers, who never intended that voting rights should be unrestricted.18 He argues that evidence of this can be found in the way suffrage was determined in the early years after the American Revolution: you had to be “a stable figure in
18 The Founding Fathers refer to the most influential statesmen who were involved in the drafting and signing of the Declaration of Independence, most notably among them Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson (Brogan 202-04). De Jong 35 the community” such as a landowner or a businessman (Afterword 485). The system of voting rights after the American Revolution remained similar to the British system that had been implemented in the colonies (Porter 1). These rights were determined through “the landed- property qualification” which required that to participate in the governing of the colony a man had to have a vested interest within said colony or state (Porter 7). The requirements varied from owning a minimum acreage to paying a stipulated tax (Porter 7). It was not until 1856 that North Carolina was the last state to “abandon the unmitigated property test,” securing voting rights to all white males (Porter 106). Unrestricted voting rights for women (1910s) and African-Americans (1960s) would not be secured until the twentieth century. Heinlein’s criticism then turns into cynicism: “but few pay any attention to the Founding Fathers today – those ignorant, uneducated men – they didn’t even have television” (Afterword 485).
Heinlein incorporates his discontent about the state of the American democracy in the
1950s and its expected downfall into the historic setting of Troopers. Heinlein voices these sentiments by referring to an adage: “the best things in life are free” (98). He does not believe this to be accurate, but rather that this was “the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century” (98). Heinlein then reiterates his expectations for the future of these democracies, particularly the American democracy, by describing them as “noble experiments” which “failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted … and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears” (98). Heinlein then expands upon this argument by exploring the restriction of voting rights as a possible solution to the perceived state of the American democracy and irresponsibility of its constituents.
Major Reid, the History & Moral Philosophy instructor at O.C.S., explains that “the one practical difference” between their government and those of the past is that “under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and De Jong 36 difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage” (193).
Even though “he may fail in wisdom … [and] may lapse in civic virtue … his average performance is enormously better than that of any other class of rulers in history” (193). Reid then explains what caused the failure of the democracies of the past, the American democracy in particular: “their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority” (193). Reid then argues that “authority and responsibility must be equal
… To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy” (193). As a result, Heinlein argues through his speaker, the democracies of the past never ascertained “whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority. If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead” (193-94).
Heinlein based the Terran Federation’s society on Libertarian ideology. Even though
“many complain … none rebel; personal freedom for all is greatest in history, laws are few, taxes are low, living standards are as high as productivity permits, crime is at its lowest ebb”
(192). The importance of personal freedom, the emphasis on voluntarism, and a small non- intrusive government are all representative of these ideas. However, its political system is one of its most controversial topics. Pohl argues that Troopers was written specifically with the intention to “demonstrate what a properly organized political system should be,” stressing that its main point was about “conferring the right to vote only on those who have served in its military” (Foreword to Clareson and Sanders 6). Considering the historical events prior to writing the novel, Pohl’s assessment of the novel is valid, even though he should have considered replacing “military” with Federal Service, which is a more specific interpretation of the novel. Others disagree, however, arguing that the novel “is less about what kind of government would be best … than it is about the moral imperative to fight to protect the collective” (Sullivan 226). Heinlein asserts in his alternative democracy that “only responsible De Jong 37 citizens should participate in politics,” defining “the most sincere demonstration of that responsibility” as “a verifiable offering of one’s life for the benefit of the state” (Dolman
208). He thus “builds the philosophical case for military service as the only way to become a voting member of society” through stressing the importance of “acting responsibly… or being punished for acting irresponsibly” (Sullivan 222). The debate is complicated by Sullivan’s apparent misreading of the novel that only military service results in voting rights. The source of the debate, according to Dolman, is that “the occurrence of democratic and military values in a single state is the embodiment of paradox” (197). He argues that “these two ideals are thought to be at least contrary, if not mutually exclusive” (Dolman 197). It is the “paradox” between these two ideals which has led to a frequent made argument that Troopers may be considered representative of fascist ideology.
Gentile describes fascism as a system which requires a “total devotion to the state,” and in which “the militaristic ethics … glorified sacrifice … [and] discipline” (37). He also argues that fascism holds a “disdain for liberty … [and] equality,” and its “ultimate aim …
[is] creating a new order and a new civilisation” consisting of “an ethnically homogenous organic community” (Gentile 35-37). Considering the apparent militaristic theme of the novel
– which will be discussed in a later section – and the connection between military service and participation in government, the correlation between the novel’s ideas and fascism can be made. However, it is not the only possible interpretation of the novel. MacLeod argues that
“the civilian society which this political system secures is one without wars within the human species, with lots of personal freedom, where almost everyone is reasonably well off, and people who despise the government can do so openly and fearlessly” (233). Rather than a fascist regime, the Terran Federation combines “the Wellsian idea of rule by a voluntary nobility (i.e., one composed of those who volunteer to lead a life noble in his difficulties, dangers, privations, sacrifices)” with “the old utopian idea of getting the garbage collected De Jong 38 and the other hard or dirty work done by requiring all young people to undergo a year or two of public service” (Mullen). This service “is voluntary, military for some but nonmilitary [sic] for most, open to all with absolutely no exceptions, and rewarded on its completion with the exclusive privilege of participating in politics” (Mullen). Holding a political office while still in Federal Service is not allowed, thus ruling out military influence on the political apparatus.
Considering the dangerous nature of the profession “a career military man is most unlikely ever to vote or hold office; he is more likely to be dead” (Afterword 484). Were a career soldier to survive his twenty-year term “he’ll vote for the first time at 40 or older” (Afterword
484). Throughout the novel, Heinlein reiterates the notion that personal freedom is paramount.
There are no limitations for joining the service, “anyone who can understand the oath may serve, regardless of their other attributes or abilities” (MacLeod 233). Servicemen can also choose to leave the Service at any time without repercussions other than not having completed their term.19 Heinlein ascribed to Libertarian ideology, which “is … the very opposite” of fascism (Lester 233). A fascist interpretation of the novel underplays the complexity of
Heinlein’s vision and the nuances present in the text.
Heinlein does not assert the righteousness of his proposed governmental system by presenting “a philosophical or moral justification,” rather he argues that the reason for maintaining this system in the Terran Federation is because “it works satisfactorily” (Sullivan
223). Heinlein was unresolved whether “this system would result in a better government” or if it would “insure ‘knowledgeable’ and ‘intelligent’ voting (qtd. in Patterson, V2 162).
However, the “results” of this system “would not… [be] any worse than those of our present system” (qtd. in Patterson, V2 162). He also acknowledged that the likelihood of this system being adopted is improbable (Patterson, V2 162). Heinlein’s comments show that he is aware of the controversial nature of the system he explores. His intention of the described political
19 The only exception is for military branches during combat. However, even moments before entering combat, a serviceman can still choose to prematurely end his term without consequences. De Jong 39 system then is not to convince his readers that this is the solution to good government, but to explore different options of government and instigate a discussion of that subject. In that regard can Troopers be truly considered speculative fiction.
3.4 – The Glorification of War and Militarism in Troopers
One of the most common criticisms of Troopers is its glorification of war and militarism. Considering some of the ideas discussed in the novel that qualification is valid.
Dubois, for example, argues that “violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms” (27). Through
Dubois, Heinlein justifies military action against any situation that the United States perceives as a threat. This concurs with the essence of the Patrick Henry League that the United States should be prepared to defend itself when necessary. Heinlein does not glorify war itself, he accepts the necessity of it as part of a soldier’s life but also acknowledges the hardships of it.
However, he does glorify life in the military. Panshin is critical of this glorification and argues that Heinlein uses the History and Moral Philosophy classes to give a “direct philosophical justification” for his ideas about “militarism as a way of life,” comparing the novel to a
“recruiting film” (ch4.2). To determine whether Troopers is indeed a militaristic novel the term requires a definition: militarism is “the adulation of [a] warrior culture” (Karsten 510).20
Following this definition, Panshin is incorrect in his criticism. There are no references in the novel to any adulation of military personnel. Dolman also argues that “while it is true that
Starship Troopers celebrates the harsh military lifestyle and commends the role of its virtuous
20 The definition of militarism varies depending on which source is consulted. Another possible definition is “the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests” (“Militarism”). Considering the specific connection Karsten makes in his article to American society it is likely that this definition is closer to Heinlein’s interpretation of the term. De Jong 40 alumni in government” it does not advocate militarism (198). On the contrary, despite
“espousing a military doctrine” the novel asserts a “sound policy of antimilitarist civilian control as well” (Dolman 204). Heinlein himself also argued that the Terran Federation is not a militaristic society. Not only does “the military tend to be despised by most civilians… this is [also] made explicit” (Afterword 484). An example of this is Rico’s father, who refers to
“Federal Service” as “parasitism, pure and simple” (25). He then expands upon on his criticism of the military: “A functionless organ, utterly obsolete, living on the taxpayers. A decidedly expensive way for inferior people who otherwise would be unemployed to live at public expense for a term of years, then give themselves airs for the rest of their lives” (25).
Heinlein’s choice to include this criticism of the military balances its glorification. Heinlein felt pride in his former occupation and purposefully included that sentiment: “‘That book glorifies the military!’ Now we are getting somewhere. It does indeed… would I have picked it for my profession and stayed on the rolls the past 56 years were I not proud of it?”
(Afterword 484). Franklin agrees with this assessment of the novel, calling it a “bugle- blowing, drum-beating glorification of the hero’s life in military service” rather than a militaristic novel aimed at glorifying war and militarism (111).
3.5 – Conclusion
Troopers is a work of speculative fiction filled with complex socio-political ideas. It incorporates Heinlein’s belief of individual responsibility and combines it with his criticism of President Eisenhower’s policies and American society. Heinlein’s purpose in Troopers was to open a discussion of President Eisenhower’s policies and the state of American society at the end of the 1950s. He explores a possible future development of this society by incorporating the founding principles of the United States in the Terran Federation, which was built upon its ruins. The novel resulted in allegations that Heinlein adhered to fascistic De Jong 41 ideology. Although the novel does contain some parts that, when taken out of context, can be considered fascist, that is not the ideology professed in the novel. Even though Heinlein
“oversimplifies utopia by suggesting democratic government can be perfected if only its citizens can be made responsible for their political actions,” Dolman concludes that “Heinlein is neither a fascist or a racist … he is an idealist” who incorporated his notions and “personal preference for responsible government” into a literary work which “had to be crafted in such a way to be both entertaining and consistent to the reader” (211-12). Heinlein was a personal
Libertarian who believed that individual freedom was of paramount importance. The novel revolves around the premise that individual choice is paramount. However, the novel also argues that such freedom comes with responsibility, which leads to moral behaviour in the form of patriotism. Heinlein equates patriotism with taking responsibility for your society of your own volition, uncoerced by anyone, especially the government. Troopers is the culmination of Heinlein’s criticism of the American society of the 1950s and President
Eisenhower’s policies. Discussing individual freedom, personal responsibility, limited representative government, and moral values while exploring an alternative governmental structure for his beloved United States.
De Jong 42
Chapter 4
1960 – 1966
Global revolutions – Domestic Politics – Civil Unrest
The two decades after the Second World War characterised themselves internationally by colonial desire for independence. Eventually this turned into “a global wave” freeing itself from “the global reach of imperial control … [and] colonialism” (“Independence
Movements”). Parallel to this development, the Communist Revolution also spread through the world, followed in its footsteps by America’s struggle against Communism. After the
Cuban Revolution of the 1950s, the American government supported anti-Communist groups and provided training and support during the failed assault on the Cuban Bay of Pigs in 1961.
As a result, Soviet Union leader Khrushchev became emboldened and attempted to place nuclear missiles on Cuban soil, initiating the Cuban Missile Crisis. His aim was to protect its
Communist regime by “restrain[ing] the United States from precipitous military action”
(Hershberg 69). On October 22, 1962, President Kennedy announced publicly that Soviet missiles had been stationed on Cuba. Prepared and ready to use their homemade bomb shelter,
Heinlein “spent all his time glued to the radio” listening for news of the situation (Patterson,
V2 230). The United States Navy initiated a blockade of Cuba, intent on stopping Soviet vessels to deliver military equipment and troops to the island. Eventually Kennedy and
Khrushchev reached an agreement, the missiles would be removed from Cuba “in exchange for … [a] non-invasion vow” (Hershberg 82). Kennedy’s offer to remove missiles from
Turkey, kept secret at the time, “did not influence Khrushchev’s” decision, “contrary to long- held belief” (Hershberg 82-83). Kennedy’s successful intervention was met with approval by the American population (Brogan 651). Among them was Robert Heinlein, who after having been disappointed by the “kindly old gentlemen in the White House” for years was finally De Jong 43
“proud to be an American” again (qtd. Patterson, V2 230-32). Even though “he had [had] no great expectations of John F. Kennedy, however bright he was,” Heinlein’s fear that he was another “Chamberlain” who would “permit the Soviet Union to get away with” anything was unwarranted (qtd. in Patterson, V2 205, 230-32).21
In Indo-China, the United States became involved in a “war in the name of an obsolete view of the world and of America’s duty in it against peoples who were of the most marginal concern to the real interests of the United States” (Brogan 667). The impact of the Vietnam war would be “the worst stain on the national honour [of the United States] since slavery”
(Brogan 667). The “frightful consequences” of America’s actions, who “against these unoffending strangers … hurled her fullest might” was felt deeply for generations to come
(Brogan 667). Heinlein resented the war, stating that “it’s a proxy war, and I don’t like proxy wars. It’s a war fought with conscripts, and I don’t like conscription at any time under any pretext … Slavery is not made sweeter by calling it ‘selective service’” (qtd. in Patterson, V2
291). The use of conscript troops went against his core principles. Heinlein also criticised the way the war was fought: “What the devil are we doing fighting an infantry war in a rain forest
… I think Mr. Johnson has handled this war very badly” (qtd. in Patterson, V2 291).22 Despite his opinions on President Johnson’s leadership, his belief in the principles of democracy remained strong: “I took part in electing Mr. Johnson by voting against him; therefore I owe him full support during his tenure” (qtd. in Patterson, V2 291).
In the first half of the 1960s, American society changed significantly as well; the nation “saw the birth of … an American revolutionary movement” (Franklin 160). Through
“interactions with the global revolution of non-white peoples” and the civil rights movement
21 Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Neville Chamberlain gained notoriety for his “appeasement” politics in dealing with Adolf Hitler in the late 1930s (“Chamberlain”). After the Munich accords, he returned to London claiming “peace for our time,” only to declare war the following year (“Chamberlain”). 22 Lyndon B. Johnson, vice-president under President John F. Kennedy, became president in 1963 after the assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas (Brogan 654). De Jong 44
“American social reality was being radically transformed” (Franklin 160). Domestically, peaceful protests were alternated with “explosive Black rebellions” and “campus revolts” while abroad “large-scale mutinies of American soldiers and sailors in Indochina, usually led by Black and Puerto Rican GIs,” took place; this eventually resulted in “the first appearance of a revolutionary press, revolutionary pre-party formations, and even a small armed revolutionary underground” in the United States (Franklin 160).
The traditional political establishment in America also underwent change. According to Patterson, “politics in America had been shifting around in a puzzling way (V2 205).
Heinlein had also perceived a shift in the political identification of those around him. He argued that he had not “moved to the right,” rather he believed that “both parties have moved steadily to the left – until the republicans … occupied a position somewhat left of center whereas the Democratic Party had moved to the far left” (qtd. in Patterson, V2 247-48).
People referring to themselves as “‘liberal’ had taken on a bizarre kind of internationalist pseudo-pacifism,” while those who referred to themselves as “conservatives and Republicans” were “liberals he could actually recognize, as he understood the term from his own liberal politics of the 1930s … including some New Dealers … [like] Barry Goldwater,” whose 1964 presidential campaign Heinlein and his wife Virginia supported as campaign volunteers (V2
205, 247).
Heinlein argued that he did not believe his personal opinions had changed over the years. He had “grown far more experienced, far more knowledgeable,” and had become more opiniated; he “was an individualist and a democratic constitutionalist then and … now” who
“thought Jefferson had just about the right ideas then – and I do now” (qtd. in Patterson, V2
247). According to Patterson, “Heinlein was – and always remained – a traditional American liberal, Jeffersonian – not left and not right” (V2 248). However, Heinlein cherry-picked certain aspects of Jefferson’s ideals. Jefferson did not only focus on “individualism” but also De Jong 45 on “socialistic” ideals (Wiltse 838). Jefferson’s “economic doctrine … [is] laissez-faire,” yet he also beliefs that “the welfare of the whole is the proper purpose of the state” which thus leads to a government that allows for the restriction of individual freedom “for the common good” whenever necessary (Wiltse 849). Jefferson believed that ideally no government would be preferential, however, “only in a community” without any form of “political coercion of any kind can the individual enjoy complete freedom” (Wiltse 839). Even in the early nineteenth century this notion remained an ideal, Jefferson accepted that “in all except the smallest and most congenial groups, anarchy means chaos, and in the end control by the stronger and more ruthless at the expense of the weaker” (Wiltse 839). Heinlein’s adherence to Jefferson’s ideals in the 1960s was restricted to the notions on individual freedom and no longer all ideals. He considered himself a Libertarian before “Libertarianism became associated with” neoconservatism (Patterson, V2 249).23 Describing his personal view of
Libertarianism, Heinlein argued that “we believe in freedom and individualism to the utter maximum attainable at all times and under all circumstances … with meticulous respect for the other person’s equal freedom” (qtd. in Patterson, V2 249).
Heinlein’s thoughts on the turbulent global and domestic politics of the 1960s combined with his interpretation of Libertarian ideology, developing economical views, and nostalgic patriotic ideas inspired him to write his next novel, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
23 Neoconservatism “combines features of traditional conservatism with political individualism;” focusing on the moral decline of society and agreeing with “religious conservatives” that this is caused by “the declining influence of religion” on society (“Neoconservatism”). It also prescribes that “cultural diversity… [and] multiculturalism… tends to undermine the traditional culture” of a nation (“Neoconservatism”). Economically, neoconservatism promotes a regulated form of capitalism, in which a limited “social safety net” is supported through a variety of taxes (“Neoconservatism”). De Jong 46
Chapter 5
A Libertarian Retelling of the American Revolution in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (1966) (abbreviated to Moon hereafter), Heinlein combined his skills as a writer of action adventures for the pulp magazines with the philosophical nature of his earlier master-piece Stranger in a Strange Land. In Moon,
Heinlein “challenges … preconceived notions about the nature of property, … proportional representation, … and government” through his tale of the Lunar revolution (Feofanov 74). Its
“lengthy homilies on good government, social order, and ethical action” are a trademark of
“political science fiction” (Easterbrook, “State 45). The strength of the novel lies in “the fully functioning political structure … [Heinlein] erected around his story;” his society, “it is impossible to doubt while … reading the novel, would work” (Pohl, “Politics” 15). However, the novel also “represents a transition in Heinlein’s career;” it is the last novel in which he extensively discusses politics (Clareson and Sanders 155). Franklin supports this notion, arguing that in Heinlein’s writing after Moon “the public world of politics and history” would fall “far into the background” (170). The novel remains source of much debate, which emphasises the relevance of Heinlein’s work to American literature and reveals the everchanging nature of the nation (Reid 58-59).
This chapter will show that in Moon Heinlein explores Libertarian ideology in a SF setting which enables him to not only apply his Libertarian ideals to a colonial system, inspired by the American colonies and its revolution, but also to criticize the political ideology of the United States in the 1960s and the way in which it has pulled away from the principles of the Founding Fathers. The Libertarian ideology Heinlein advocates in this novel extends beyond individual freedom to economic freedom; for Heinlein individual responsibility and a free market are the core principles of a Libertarian society. Whereas in De Jong 47 earlier works Heinlein considered a world government to be the solution to the global political unrest of his time, he now argues no government is the best alternative.
5.1 – Moon as a Revolutionary SF novel
Whereas in earlier Heinlein writings the world government was a benevolent and necessary organization, in Moon this organization, and its proxy, the Lunar Authority, are the antagonists from whom the Lunar colonists must gain independence. He presented the
Federated Nations “as the greatest nemesis of human freedom” and expressed his view that world government embodies the “ultimate spectre of bureaucracy, imperialism, and monopoly,” which he considered to be “even worse than international Communism”
(Franklin, 160). Heinlein incorporated “his responses to the world of the mid-1960s into an imaginative vision far more relevant and complex than” his earlier works; “the moon becomes the archetypal colony fighting the quintessential war of national liberation” (Franklin 162). In that respect Heinlein’s criticism was “as much about [his] present as about the future”
(Feofanov 73). Heinlein alerted his readers to what he perceived to be the immediate dangers faced by the United States: the global wars they had become involved in – particularly
Vietnam – and civil unrest within the United States itself, specifically the uprising of African-
American revolutionary movements following in the footsteps of the civil rights movement.
Professor De La Paz, “the wise old anarchist who most consistently expounds
Heinlein’s ideology,” is “the main theoretician of the revolution” (Franklin 164). Despite
Franklin’s incorrect use of the term ideology, his basic assertion about the professor is correct.24 De La Paz’s role is like that of the instructors of History & Moral Philosophy in
Troopers. He acts as Heinlein’s “mouthpiece” and explains the author’s philosophical ideas to
24 Within critical theory, ideology generally refers to a system of beliefs subscribed to by a large group of people that structures their experience of society (see Eagleton, Ideology: An Introduction (1991), 1-2). De Jong 48 the reader (Klein 152). In a dialogue on the role of government, the professor asks Manuel, the novel’s protagonist and narrator: “under what circumstances may the State justly place its welfare above that of the citizen?” (82). Manuel responds that there “are no circumstances under which State is justified in placing its welfare ahead of mine” (82). The professor then expounds by asking “under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone? … It is the key question … that strikes to the root of the whole dilemma of government” (82-83). Heinlein thus “illustrate[s] what may happen when … [governments] put mere economic stability ahead of respect for one’s citizens or one’s neighbors” (McGiveron, “Starry-Eyed”). Heinlein’s anxiety about a unified world government was one of the foundations on which Moon was constructed. However, whereas Heinlein previously provided a solution to his perceived problem, in later works he no longer offered “any specific form of government” but rather “in world-weary voices like that of Professor de la Paz” presents readers with “a series of statements and situations” arguing “that all forms of government are subject to corruption and rapid deterioration”
(Mullen).
The Authority is concerned exclusively with meeting its quota of grain shipments. The result of this policy is that the colonists, even those who have served their sentence, are exploited by the Authority “as semi-slave labor to feed the overpopulated Earth” (Feofanov
75). The combination of a “weak” government “lacking in social programs or laws to protect the disenfranchised” has formed a society in which “currency is the only driving force”
(Forrest 206). Professor De La Paz argues that removing the Authority from power is a necessity because it “is ridiculous – pestilential, not to be borne” (33). He continues his argument by saying that being governed “by an irresponsible dictator” who has no sense of the “essential economy” of the Lunar colony “strikes at the most basic human right, the right to bargain in a free marketplace” (33). The “irresponsible dictator” in Heinlein’s analogy De Jong 49 refers to the English King George III, who ruled the British Empire during the Revolutionary
War. The notion expressed by the professor is distinctly Libertarian. Even though the colonists “have adequate political and economic justification for requesting independence,” the Federated Nations has no interest in granting this; the “advantageous one-sided relationship” that Earth has maintained with its satellite is too important and profitable to surrender (McGiveron, “Starry-Eyed”). The economic relationship between Earth and the
Moon is not unlike the relationship between the American colonies and England in the eighteenth century. They also suffered from an “imbalance in trade” and “economic exploitation” (Morton 14). However, in contrast to the historic colonies, the Lunar colony does not import more than it exports; rather, it only supplies grain to Earth without receiving goods in return, essentially being self-sufficient. Heinlein’s portrayal of this relationship and the feelings of national identity thus closely resembles America’s struggle for independence.
The novel extensively discusses the workings of the Lunar revolution. From the precise organisation of the cell structure to the requirements of inciting a population, Heinlein envisioned them all. According to Clareson and Sanders, “one of the chief fascinations … of the book is that Heinlein seems to have thought seriously about how an underground political movement could be safely organized” as well as “what would be necessary to start a revolution” (158). “Revolutions,” professor De La Paz argues, “are not won by enlisting the masses” (76). He points out that “Revolution is a science only a few are competent to practice” and that it relies primarily “on correct organization and … communications” (76).
He continues his argument by saying that “at the proper moment in history, they strike.
Correctly organized and properly timed it is a bloodless coup. Done clumsily or prematurely and the result is civil war, mob violence, purges, terror” (76-77). To ensure favourable circumstances, Manuel, a computer technician, involves Mike, a sentient supercomputer overseeing all operations in the Lunar colony. Through the voice of Mike, Heinlein invokes De Jong 50 the idea that neither the American colonies in the eighteenth century, nor other unspecified colonies in the twentieth century, “had … broken loose by brute force” (167). He continues his argument by saying that “in every case imperial state was busy elsewhere, had grown weary and given up without using full strength” (167). To achieve a similar situation, Manuel and his co-conspirators must stir up sufficient unrest. This requires “intensifying the
Authority’s intrusions until they become unbearable while at the same time making Loonies aware that they can/should stop being mistreated” (Clareson and Sanders 158).25 Rather than being just “revolutionists” the conspirators “must become urban terrorists, largely nonviolent only because they can count on the Authority’s blundering into offensive actions on its own”
(Clareson and Sanders 158). Mike plays a vital role in this process, in charge of air pressure, phonelines, and other computer operated systems he creates the required chaos and unrest.
Heinlein’s description of “Mike’s manipulation [of] information” is arguably the first successful “internet revolution,” written in a decade when computer technology was only in its infancy (Feofanov 75-76).
In Moon, Heinlein refers to multiple historical revolutions. In one of the dialogues between professor De La Paz and Manuel, the professor refers to the French Revolution, by exclaiming its adage: “Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!” (27). However, more attention is given by Heinlein to the Russian Revolution. Manuel’s first interaction with revolutionary ideas is at a meeting where he is introduced to Wyoming. During the meeting the crowd sings “Arise,
Ye Prisoners of Starvation” (27).26 The use of a phrase from “the Communist Internationale” is a direct reference to the Communist revolution in the Soviet Union and presents the Lunar revolution as the “archetype of all revolution” (Franklin 164). Heinlein modelled “the
25 The narrator colloquially refers to the colonists as “Loonies.” Although not used in a derogatory manner (considering the literal meaning of the word loony) the idea that the colonists – from an Earth side perspective at least – are considered crazy is implied. 26 The line cited by Heinlein is the opening line of The Internationale, which is “a revolutionary song” of French origin which was used as the national anthem of the Soviet Union until 1944 (“Internationale”). De Jong 51 structure of the revolution” on his “understanding of Leninist theory” (Franklin 165). The organizational structure of the revolution closely resembles the “classical Leninist structure … made up of interlocked ‘cells’ … [and] also following Lenin’s principles, there is an acute sense of precise timing for each stage of the revolution” (Franklin 165).27 During a discussion between Manuel and Wyoming on their chances of success, Wyoming argues that
“revolutions have succeeded before. Lenin had only a handful with him” (47). Manuel’s response focuses on the requirements of a successful revolution and how “Lenin moved in on a power vacuum;” arguing that “Revolutions succeeded … only when … governments had gone rotten, soft, or disappeared” (47-48). It is through Wyoming that Heinlein eventually leads his readers to the American Revolution: “They had the sort of troubles with England that we are having now – and they won!” (48). Rather than representing “the socialist-
Communist revolution sweeping across the world” at the moment of writing, Heinlein presents the novel as a retelling of the American Revolution to “overthrow industrial monopoly capitalism and reinstate free enterprise mercantile capitalism” (Franklin 165). The novel advocates a minimalistic government without “bureaucrats and managerial elite” and free unrestricted trade “in the marketplace” (Franklin 165). It also argues against “the emerging rights to free education, medical care, transportation, and other social services”
(Franklin 165). Heinlein promotes a return to what he perceived to be the liberal founding principles of the United States, and thus presents “the American Revolution” as “the true model for this revolution” (Franklin 165).
27 Lenin believed that to succeed, the revolution must rely on “action by a small, deeply committed group” to ensure “efficiency and discretion;” Lenin also believed that unless every action was controlled, the “spontaneity” of the moment “would not bring the desired outcome” (“Leninism”). De Jong 52
5.2 – A Brief Overview of the American Revolution
During the seventeenth and eighteenth century, Britain employed the practice of
“Mercantilism” to effectively govern its “worldwide empire” (Morton 9).28 As a result of the
Seven Years’ War (1756-1763), Great Britain was heavily indebted. Rather than increase the already substantial taxation of the British people, the government looked towards “the heretofore undertaxed … colonies” for extra revenue (Morton 15). In the “1760s and early
1770s” the British government took measures to implement “a tighter, more efficient control” of the colonies and thus increase income (Morton 15). Because of the “large influx of non-
British immigrants and the significant increase in the number of settlers born in America” the cultural identity of the colonies began to become Americanized (Morton 17). This increasing awareness of the American identity as well as unpopular measures by the British government, such as the “Royal Proclamation of 1763” and the “Stamp Act” of 1765, led to dissent and uproar in the colonies (Morton 18-21).29 An important argument in this discussion was the idea that “taxation was a violation of the unwritten British constitution,” which called for proper representation in parliament before being taxed, as was not the case with the unrepresented colonies (Morton 21).
In the following years a series of incidents, such as the “Boston Massacre,” increased the feelings of unease with Britain.30 The passing of the “Tea Act” in 1773, which “prompted a series of tea parties,” created “a trade monopoly in tea for the East India Company” which was considered a prelude to “other monopolies equally detrimental to colonial interest”
28 Mercantilism is an “economic system” whose “highly nationalistic” purpose is “economic self-sufficiency” (Morton 9). To achieve this the colonial system was indispensable, the colonies would “provide overseas markets,” enabling mutual commercial benefits but also serve as an additional source of revenue during times of economic hardship when the colonies “had to suffer” rather than the mother country (Morton 9) 29 The Royal Proclamation “established the Appalachian Mountains as the dividing line between colonists and Native Americans,” thus blocking the westward expansion of the colonies (Morton 18). The Stamp Act “levied a tax on business paper, legal documents, newspapers,” and other documents (Morton 21). 30 The Boston Massacre refers to an incident in 1770 wherein British soldiers were confronted by “a boisterous, unruly mob” and opened fire (Morton 28). The incident was exploited by Samuel Adams, who “exaggerated the extent and severity” of the incident to increase anti-British sentiments (Morton 28). De Jong 53
(Morton 31). In response to these incidents, British parliament passed the “Coercive Acts,” intended to punish the colonists in Massachusetts, but also “thwart the expansionist aspirations of many prominent Virginians” (Morton 33). In response, colonial leaders met in the “First National Congress” (1774) with the intention to establish a unified approach, but only resulted in a petition to the English crown against its policies (Morton 34-36). In response Britain passed the “New England Restraining Act,” which resulted in an economic boycott of the colonies, allowing only for regulated trade with England, and was thus considered “an economic declaration of war” (Morton 37). In 1775, the Second Continental
Congress convened, which “gave birth to the first American union” and “created the
Continental Army and Navy” (Morton 38). In response the British armies moved against the colonies and the first armed conflict took place during the battles of Lexington and Concord.
In 1776, the Continental Congress drafted the Declaration of Independence, declaring “that these United colonies are … free and independent States … absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown” (Brogan 179-80). The armed conflict between the colonials and the British army lasted until the defeat of the British at the Battle of Yorktown in 1781, which led to the
1783 Treaty of Paris where “Britain recognized American Independence” (Morton 73).
5.3 – Moon as a Retelling of the American Revolution
The idea of the American Revolution and Heinlein’s interpretation of the ideological principles of the United States are a recurring theme in Moon. The Lunar colony is modelled on former British colonies such as Australia and the Eastern seaboard of America. Heinlein presents the colonists of the Moon as “misfits, criminals, and rebels, [who have] … developed a far superior society, despite the repression and exploitation of the Lunar Authority”
(Franklin 162). Heinlein refers to the transportation of convicted criminals from Britain to the De Jong 54
American colonies.31 These exiled Britons became part of American colonial society, and thus assisted in establishing a society Heinlein perceived as superior to that of other nations. This is like the situation on the Moon, which “becomes a place of exile and isolation” appealing to
“anyone with sufficient courage, regardless of ethnicity or nationality” (Easterbrook, “State”
46). The Lunar colonists’ exile, mostly involuntarily, creates an analogy between the Moon and colonial America. In a discussion with a representative of the Authority, professor De La
Paz makes a direct reference to the United States as a country of immigrants by referencing a line from the poem “New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus: “give us your poor, your wretched; we welcome them… the mind cannot imagine the day when Luna would refuse another shipload of weary homeless” (229). Even though Heinlein makes no further references to it in
Moon, the idea presented at the end of the poem is a key theme in the novel; Lazarus writes about the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” referring to those wanting to emigrate to the United States (“The New Colossus”). The line presents a good metaphor for the colonists in the Lunar colony, crowded together in a hostile environment, desiring to live their lives free from oppression and according to their own beliefs.
Throughout the novel Heinlein references the American Revolutionary War, and specifically the Declaration of Independence. One of the most iconic moments in the
American Revolution was the Boston Tea Party.32 Prior to the revolution Manuel contemplates an idea that was suggested by the professor: “Prof kept saying we needed a
‘Boston Tea Party’, referring to mythical incident in an earlier revolution, by which he meant
31 The adoption of the “Transportation Act” in 1718 enabled Britain to “systematically adopt foreign exile as a punishment for serious crime” (Ekirch 1). Convict transports went primarily to the “Chesapeake colonies,” i.e. Virginia and Maryland (Ekirch 1-4). These convicts were then put to labour as “indentured servants,” which became the dominant labor system in the seventeenth century” (Morton 5, 9). It is estimated that before the Revolution approximately half of the “white immigrants” arrived as “indentured servants” (Morton 9). “Next to African slaves,” convicted Englishmen “constituted the largest body of immigrants ever compelled to go to America” where they were eventually absorbed by American society after serving their penance (Ekirch 2-5). 32 The Boston Tea Party refers to an incident on December 16, 1773, when “a group of thinly disguised ‘Mohawk Indians’… dumped 342 chests of tea into the harbour” in protest against granting a tea monopoly to the East India Company, which was seen as a prelude to other monopolies (Morton 31-32). De Jong 55 a public ruckus to grab attention” (169-70). The Lunar revolution eventually sees its own
Boston Tea Party. Like the British soldiers in the American colonies, the Authority had stationed peace troopers on the Moon to maintain order. After an incident involving the rape and murder of a young woman by peace troopers, the colonists unite in their cause for independence and revolt against the Authority.
Despite this incident expediting their timetables, the conspirators seize the opportunity: “We gave them a Declaration of Independence. ‘In Congress assembled, July
Fourth, Twenty-Seventy-Six—’ Was beautiful” (206). Not only are readers aware of the historic significance of the date, the conspirators are also aware that declaring themselves independent “exactly three hundred years after that of North American British colonies, turned out to be wizard propaganda” since “North Americans are sentimental about their
“United States” even though it ceased to mean anything once their continent had been rationalized by F.N.” (252). According to Reid, Heinlein’s choice of date creates a “strong emotional association” with the American Revolution (61). Panshin also concurs with the symbolic importance of the date, arguing that “the date of the story is deliberately chosen for resonance with the American Revolution” (Ch4.4). Through repeated referencing to the date of the Declaration of Independence, Heinlein reminds his reader of the parallels between the
American revolution of the eighteenth century and the Lunar revolution of the future.
Besides the date of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Heinlein also refers to specific phrases and persons involved in its signing. In a discussion between the narrator and Professor De La Paz, the question is raised what an acceptable price would be for the removal of the Authority. The professor responds to this question by referring to the closing sentence of the American Declaration of Independence: “‘our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor’ … a price that once was paid” (86). By referring to this line, Heinlein equates the importance of the Lunar revolution to the American Revolution. He includes De Jong 56 another reference to the Declaration through the character of Foo Moses Morris, a co-signer of the Lunar Declaration of Independence who should remind the reader of Robert Morris, the
“financier of the American Revolution, who died in poverty” (Panshin Ch4.4). Manuel remembers Foo Moses Morris as “a dinkum comrade” who “co-signed much paper to keep us going - and wound up broke” (200). These references to the American Revolution would have sparked recognition with readers familiar with the historical details of the Revolution.
After the Lunar colony’s Declaration of Independence, Manuel and the professor travel to Earth to negotiate with the Authority. On Earth, Manuel visits a historical site from the American Revolution: “I was filmed laying a wreath on a place where a bridge had been in … Boston, Concord, … bridge is still there, actually; you can see it, down through the glass. Not much of a bridge” (254). Even though the historic significance of the place and moment escapes the narrator, Heinlein again equates the Lunar Revolution to the American
Revolution. After they return to the Moon from their failed negotiations, professor De La Paz refers to an important figure from the American Revolution, Patrick Henry.33 In an address to a large gathering of colonists the professor persuades his listeners of the importance of their struggle: “And if we die, let history write: This was Luna’s finest hour! Give us liberty … or give us death!” (283). Patrick Henry, who strongly opposed British interference in the colonies, spoke these famous words in “his spirited defense … to prepare Virginia for … the inevitable armed conflict with Great Britain” (Morton 135). Like Patrick Henry, the professor mentally prepares the colonists for the armed conflict that, like in the American Revolution, was inevitable.
33 Patrick Henry was highly influential in persuading the Virginia “House of Burgesses” to join the Revolution (Morton 134-35). He was “a strong advocate of states’ rights” and opposed the constitution because it “created a strong national government” (Morton 135-36). However, “along with George Mason and James Madison,” Patrick Henry was instrumental in ensuring the addition of the Bill of Rights to the constitution (Morton 136). De Jong 57
5.4 – Heinlein’s Libertarian vision in Moon
Moon is an economic far cry from Heinlein’s first novel Horizon, which described a utopian society in which the state provided food, education, and healthcare. In Moon, Heinlein takes a decidedly Libertarian standpoint on these matters. Because the Authority does not raise taxes, they also do not provide these services. They are “bought and sold in the marketplace” if required by the colonists (Franklin 163). Manuel provides an unequivocal example of this in a conversation with Stuart LaJoie: “was Earthside once and heard expression ‘Free as air.’ This air isn't free, you pay for every breath” (162). Heinlein’s description of “capitalism … [and] free markets” defines the Lunar colony as “a libertarian system” in which the individual takes full financial responsibility (Easterbrook, “State” 44-
45). Before the revolution free trade was only applicable on the colony’s internal market. All trade with Earth is regulated through the Authority, who pay a set price for grain which they then sell to the highest bidder on Earth, the profit to remain on Earth. The situation on the
Moon is perfectly suited for the colony’s capitalistic system: “the scarcity of nutrients and water for cultivation makes its ecology exceedingly fragile,” which in connection with the overpopulation and food shortages in large parts of the Earth intensifies “the urgency of establishing a free market” between Earth and the Moon (Pak 126). During the early stages of the revolution the conspirators take over the role of the Authority, paying the grain farmers with their own currency while they still send the grain shipments to Earth. The economic situation, with the Lunar Free State – as the liberated colony has branded itself – issuing its own money while not receiving payments from Earth closely resembles Douglas’ theory of social credit. Heinlein’s professed ideology is “a cross-pollination of economics, political science, and history, designed to give economic power to the individual” (Forrest 208). While the resemblance to Douglas’ social credit theory is valid during the period of upheaval during De Jong 58 the revolution, it is not the conspirators’ intent that this becomes a permanent situation, they believe in a completely unrestricted free market.
The Lunar colony’s monetary driven economy focusses on free trade. The colonists thrive under this system. This is visible for instance when the Authority, in response to the civil unrest, orders all civilians who wish to travel to other burrows to acquire a passport.
Rather than obtaining an official passport, the colonists prefer to get a false passport on the free market. Manuel notes that “early ones were crude. But before long, authentic paper was stolen and counterfeits were as dinkum as official ones - more expensive but Loonies preferred free-enterprise passports” (120). However, it was the monopoly on off-world trade which ultimately led to revolution. In a discussion between the main conspirators, Wyoming argues that the restriction of trade is the principal issue: “everybody does business with the
Authority, we can’t avoid it – and that’s the trouble, that’s what we’re going to change” (26).
Manuel is still reluctant, accepting the omnipresent Authority as an unavoidable element of life: “everybody does business with Authority for same reason everybody does business with
Law of Gravitation” (26-27). The professor intercedes, arguing that a free market will lead to prosperity: “here in Luna we’re rich. Three million hardworking, smart, skilled people, enough water, plenty of everything, endless power, endless cubic. But … what we don’t have is a free market. We must get rid of the Authority!” (31). The desire for internal as well as external free trade as a reason for Lunar independence, is a clear analogy to the colonial response to the economic sanctions Britain imposed on them by means of the Coercive Acts.
A phrase Heinlein made famous through his usage of it in Moon is TANSTAAFL, or
“There Ain’t No Such Thing as a Free Lunch.” Heinlein heard this phrase from a fan named
Jerry Pournelle, who explained the phrase’s origins as an “expression, still widely used in the
American South” where saloons prior to the first World War advertised “free lunches with De Jong 59 drinks;” however, “the cost was folded into the price of the drinks” (Patterson, V2 263-65).34
In the novel Heinlein refers to the phrase’s origin as well. During a conversation with Stuart
LaJoie, Manuel points at a sign that reads “FREE LUNCH” while arguing that “‘There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.’ And isn’t … or these drinks would cost half as much … anything free costs twice as much in the long run or turns out worthless” (162). The idea that a citizen pays for what he uses and therefore takes personal responsibility for himself and his dependants is an important element in Libertarian ideology. It “endorses absolute individual property rights … [and] rejects any coercive authority” which also infers that governments should not interfere with “regulating business, free association, speech, education, health care, discrimination” or anything related to an individual’s body (Easterbrook, “Libertarianism”).
Klein concurs with this notion, arguing that “individual freedom is the basis for the freedom of society” (153). Thus, when the suggestion is made to collect taxes in the Lunar Free State to provide services previously provided by the Authority, Manuel remarks that he “hadn't realised ‘Free Luna’ was going to have taxes. Hadn’t had any before and got along. You paid for what you got. Tanstaafl. How else?” (204). Despite Heinlein’s Libertarian ideas he still understood that the collection of taxes was necessary for a government to provide certain services, such as law enforcement, infrastructure, and national defence.
The Libertarian ideals Heinlein professes in Moon resonate from his disappointment in the United States government and the interpretation of its constitution; a “pessimistic view” which “is justified by history” argues Feofanov (139). He argues that “the Founding Fathers” were of similar beliefs; they “were deeply suspicious of the tyranny of authority” and therefore “attempted to prevent tyranny by establishing a government of separated, limited, and enumerated powers” (139-40). History has proven that “the dream of a limited
34 Jerry Pournelle would eventually become a best-selling SF author himself and considered Heinlein a mentor and friend, arguing that Heinlein had “helped… [with his] career a very great deal” (Patterson, V2 263, 283, 368). De Jong 60 government that stays limited is the ‘real’ utopia,” referring to the regulating of its citizens’ lives by the United States government (Feofanov 140).35 The conclusion can thus be drawn that Heinlein was justified in his assertion in Moon that America’s founding principles are no longer fully adhered to in the United States. Consequently, Heinlein embarks on an exploration of an alternative implementation of the American founding principles by discussing the drafting of the Lunar constitution. Throughout his examination he laces the story with cynic comments on the ability of the United States government to function, as well as his Libertarian notions that a society should have as few laws and regulations as possible.
The newly formed congress of the Lunar Free State starts drafting a constitution after successfully deposing the Authority. The “constitutional dilemmas” which “the Founding
Fathers of the American Republic” encountered are scrutinized through professor De La Paz
(Feofanov 125). In a speech to congress the professor warns its members of the dangers of government as Heinlein perceives them: “like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master. You now have freedom – if you can keep it. But do remember that you can lose this freedom more quickly to yourselves than to any other tyrant” (300). The professor then expands on his argument, saying that “in past history popularly elected governments have been no better and sometimes far worse than overt tyrannies” (301).
Heinlein then, through the professor, embarks on what is arguably his most emphatic argumentation for Libertarianism:
Let your document be studded with things the government is forever forbidden to do.
No conscript armies … no interference however slight with freedom of press, or
speech, or travel, or assembly, or of religion, or of instruction, or communication, or
occupation … no involuntary taxation … perhaps you congressmen should dig down
into your own pouches and pay for whatever is needed … if you really believe that
35 In support of his argument Feofanov provides examples of the United States government prescribing “how much grain can be grown … on land” and drainage regulations because of bird migrations (140). De Jong 61
your neighbors must have laws for their own good, why shouldn't you pay for it? …
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely
because you think it would be good for him. (302-03)
Throughout his career Heinlein discussed several political concepts extensively, and these are again reiterated in the professor’s speech. Particularly Heinlein’s antipathy against conscription and his belief that individuals should have no restrictions in how they choose to live their lives, regardless whether they are based on morality, religion, or any other argument to restrict someone’s personal freedom. At the end of his speech, the professor reluctantly accedes the necessity of government. He argues that it “is an inescapable disease of human beings” and that “it may not be possible to do away with government” (303). However, he also expresses his hope that “it may be possible to keep it small and starved and inoffensive”
(303). Heinlein discusses “the most fundamental political issue” by questioning “not the
‘nature’ of government, but the legitimacy of its very ‘existence’” (Feofanov 127-28).
Heinlein’s political beliefs, as expressed in this novel, edge towards Anarchism rather than merely Libertarian.36 Heinlein’s ideals partially reflect those of Thomas Jefferson, who as “the most libertarian of the Founding Fathers” believed “that individual rights predate the state, and that governments are instituted to secure these rights” rather than impose on them
(Feofanov 127-130). Jefferson’s ideals were complex though, not only did he argue the importance of the individual, he also believed that “the ultimate end of government … is to further the material and spiritual well-being of men” (Wiltse 838). To do this, Jefferson argued that education should be “at the public expense” and he was in favour of establishing
“a public dispensary where the poor could obtain medical service without charge” (Wiltse
36 Anarchism can be defined as the “ultimate projection of both liberalism and socialism” in a society which is organised “without government” (Ward 1). The modern interpretation of Anarchism originates in the political writings of William Godwin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Michael Bakunin, and Peter Kropotkin (Ward 3-5). De Jong 62
846). Heinlein’s evolving political principles thus strayed away from Jefferson’s and became increasingly Anarchistic.
Throughout the novel Heinlein “contrasts the relative value of authoritarian political systems (including democracy) to the freedom and liberty of individuals” and eventually he
“settles on social systems that ought to be described as anarchies” (Easterbrook, “State” 44).
These “social systems” can then be further defined as anarcho-capitalist (Easterbrook,
“Libertarianism”). This is a form of anarchism which “is predicated on a capitalist economic system” and “requires markets” and “private entities” which will “provide … goods and services necessary for society to function … without the existence of a state that coerces individuals into paying for or obeying legal institutions” (Hamowy 61). Heinlein used the term “rational anarchist” to describe these same principles.37 The professor, who defines himself as such, “believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals … but being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world” (83-84). In the novel, Heinlein also refers to Jefferson, defining him as the “first of the rational anarchists” responsible for some of “the most beautiful rhetoric ever written” (205). Considering how the professor acts as Heinlein’s mouthpiece throughout the novel and the ideas expressed by him regarding domestic government and overarching world government – something Heinlein ironically favoured early in his career – the argument can be made that Heinlein, who considered himself a
Libertarian, can also be identified as a rational anarchist.
37 Heinlein’s work reflects the ideals expressed by William Godwin in his work An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, and its Influence on General Virtue and Happiness, vol. 2: “There will be no war, no crimes, no administration of justice as it is called, and no government” (872). De Jong 63
5.5 – Conclusion
In Moon, Heinlein extensively explores the Libertarian ideals to which he subscribes and expresses them primarily through professor De La Paz. The basic premise of the novel is a retelling of the American revolution in a futuristic setting, denouncing the colonial practices of earlier centuries and exploring the founding principles of the American republic (Franklin
81). Heinlein draws many parallels between his Lunar colony and the United States, both to glorify its founding principles and to criticize the way these principles have been implemented. Heinlein’s narrative describes a society in which the Libertarian principles of free market and individual freedom are fully integrated. This concept is best described by
Heinlein’s catchphrase: “There Ain’t No Such Thing as a Free Lunch.” He believes that the government should not influence or regulate the economy; society is capable of handling this itself. According to Libertarian ideology, a government should be as limited as possible and restricted to the necessities required by society, such as providing stability, order, and national defence. However, Heinlein also argues Anarchistic ideals, rather than a small government, he claims that perhaps the best solution is to have no government at all. In that regard, Moon is not only a Libertarian novel, it is also an Anarchistic novel. Hamowy argues that anarcho- capitalism, or rational Anarchism as Heinlein coined it, is an evolved state of Libertarianism
(59). This stems from the idea that a Libertarian government is a paradox upon itself since
Libertarian ideology demands a government structure that is limited to such an extent that it is
“morally prohibited from … imposing taxes” and is thus incapable of executing its mandate; therefore, having no right to exist (Hamowy 58). In Moon, this same paradox is visible.
Despite the success of the revolution, establishing a state on Libertarian ideology eventually fails: “They never adopted any of … [the professor’s] ideas. Seems to be a deep instinct in human beings for making everything compulsory that isn’t forbidden” (382). Hence, the conclusion can be reached that Libertarian ideology thrives while it is aimed at existing De Jong 64 governments rather than implemented in the founding of one. Ideologically, Heinlein upheld not only Libertarian principles but also anarcho-capitalist ideals, accepting the inevitability of the existence of a limited government, while arguing the importance of economic and individual freedom and responsibility.
De Jong 65
Conclusion
Throughout his career Heinlein’s political views evolved extensively. However, his views on individual liberty remained quite consistent. Even in his early writings, such as
Horizon, the importance of individualism was clearly present. In this novel the focus on individual freedom was primarily in the choices one makes within a strictly regulated society, both economical and sociological. The social constraints of society are enforced through the carrying of guns. The idea that “an armed society is a polite society,” expressed Heinlein’s views on the second amendment and gun control, although he also complicated the workability of such a system. He argued that the freedom to wear guns was inherently
American, which even in his early career was important to him.
In Troopers, Heinlein’s views on individual freedom had evolved from a more Liberal standpoint to a more Libertarian perspective. Troopers revolved around the idea that individual freedom is the most important inalienable right as prescribed by the Founding
Fathers. In this novel, Heinlein developed the idea that freedom leads to responsibility, and this combination culminates in moral behaviour in the form of patriotism. In line with
Heinlein’s lifelong antipathy against conscription, which he believed was a modern form of slavery, this results in his argument for voluntarism. Heinlein shows appreciation for those
“who not only volunteer for armed service but who are actually willing to fight,” thereby distinguishing themselves “by their willingness to sacrifice themselves to others” (Clareson and Sanders 195). This is a valid sentiment considering the sacrifice men and women in the military may have to make for their nation, especially considering that Troopers was written fifteen years after the Second World War and six years after the Korean war and the large number of casualties in those wars were still fresh in Heinlein’s memories. As a former naval officer, having received his formal education at Annapolis, it is thus not surprising that De Jong 66
Heinlein assumes this appreciative attitude towards the military, feeling respect and admiration for those willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.
In Moon, Heinlein’s “paradigmatic example of libertarian SF,” his evolvement to
Libertarian ideology was completed (Easterbrook, “Libertarianism”). He created a society in which there were no limitations to what you could do, as long as it did not infringe upon another’s freedom. There were restrictions to Heinlein’s interpretation of Libertarianism though. His views were “moderated and enriched by compassion, pragmatism and a profound faith that human beings can improve themselves, gradually, by their own diligence and goodwill” (Brin). In that respect Heinlein adhered to the “libertarianism of the compassionately practical variety [as] preached by… the American Founders” (Brin).
The founding principles of the United States were a recurring theme in Heinlein’s political writing. His expression of Libertarian ideology also reflects the ideals described by
William Godwin, who argued that “man will seek with ineffable ardour the good of all …
Men will see the progressive advancement of virtue and good, and feel that, if things occasionally happen contrary to their hopes, the miscarriage itself was a necessary part of that progress” (872). Even though Godwin made his argument in favour of an Anarchistic governmental system, Heinlein believed that on an individual level the quest for self- improvement lay at the core of human existence and thus ideologically shared the same beliefs.
Heinlein’s transition as a political thinker could not be greater than in his economic ideals. Heinlein combined his political ideals of the 1930s in Horizon, which professed free healthcare, free education, free meals, and a basic income allowing for a comfortable life. His economic perspective when writing the novel was heavily influenced by the impact of the
Great Depression on the United States and the resulting poverty he had witnessed. His ideas on government investment and a welfare-state were a response to the devastating influence of De Jong 67 an unrestricted capitalist economy. However, in the years after the Second World War,
Heinlein’s economic views changed drastically. Even though in Troopers the economic structure of the Terran Federation is not discussed, the information that he did include in the novel leads to the conclusion that it contained a limited government with a capitalist economic system. Like his evolvement on individual freedom, economically he also progressed towards Libertarian ideology. In Moon, Heinlein’s economic ideals are fully
Libertarian, arguing a system in which everything, including healthcare and education, is based on a free-market system. The main reason for the Revolution is the restriction on trade, a parallel Heinlein draws with the American Revolution. He symbolized the unrestricted free economy through the novels motto “There Ain’t No Such Thing As a Free Lunch.” This idea combines Heinlein’s economic and individual Libertarian ideals, not only do companies have unrestricted market access, individuals are free to choose which services they require and which to purchase and which not. Heinlein’s preferred system later in his career was the direct opposite to what he proposed early in his career.
Whereas Heinlein originally posited the idea that a world government was the solution to all the world’s political and economic problems, in a clear departure from that notion it became the antagonist in Heinlein’s thinking. In both Horizon and Troopers, the world was united under one benevolent government, an evolved version of the United States. Yet in
Moon, Heinlein no longer considers world government a viable option. His view of the world has changed drastically because of the global events of the early 1960s. This resulted in an ideological shift in which a severely limited government, or even no government at all, would be the best solution. Heinlein’s almost Anarchistic preference for no government was founded upon his belief in America’s founding principles. A limited government, he argued in Moon, does not stay limited but will always attempt to restrict its citizens individual freedom. A notion he also incorporated in the novel’s ending. Even though he was of a similar mind as De Jong 68
Godwin, who believed that individuals are inherently good, Heinlein recognized that no government is not a sustainable solution. Sentiments also shared by the Founding Fathers.
They believed in the “particular utopian” notion that “people were virtuous, patriotic, hardworking, honest, and moral,” for them it was the basis for founding a new democratic nation (Morton 105).
During his career Heinlein interwove his work with the founding principles of the
United States. Depending on the period in Heinlein’s career the specific ideals varied, but he continuously expressed them in his novels. Ranging from Alexander Hamilton’s ideas on setting up a strong economy and a federated union, to Thomas Jefferson’s views on the construction of government, Heinlein incorporated these notions into his fiction. Heinlein’s works truly are “fantastic alternatives to his own twentieth-century America” which “rather than transcending and escaping from modern American history … [are] a revelation of the formative powers of that history” (Franklin 212). Even though Heinlein’s anxiety about the changing nature of the twentieth century and its global politics led him to argue a return to
America’s core principles, it is also through his fiction that he expressed alternatives to the
American government of the 1950s and 1960s.
Heinlein’s career spanned almost five decades and produced large amounts of fiction.
Within the scope of this thesis it is impossible to research all his work and determine exactly what the reasons are that caused his shift in political thinking. Some critics point out that he may have been influenced by his wives, he divorced his second wife Leslyn MacDonald, “a liberal Democrat,” in 1947 and shortly after, in 1948, married his third and last wife Virginia
Gerstenfeld, “a conservative Republican” (Heer). Although a spouse may certainly have an influence on her partner, it is unlikely that this alone would bring about such a fundamental political turnaround, despite Heinlein’s acknowledgements that “Virginia helped ‘re-educate’ him on economics” (Heer). It is more likely that Heinlein was influenced by the political De Jong 69 events of those decades and combined with his anxieties found ideological refuge in the core principles of his beloved country. Regardless of the exact reason of his shift, what remains is his legacy, which was not about “lecturing or preaching,” but about providing his readers with ideas and arguments so that they could “fume and mutter and debate with this bright, cantankerous, truly American soul, long after his body expired” (Brin). Heinlein’s ideas have influenced and inspired generations and will continue to do so for generations to come.
De Jong 70
Works Cited
Primary sources:
Heinlein, Robert A. Beyond This Horizon. Baen, 2002.
---. Grumbles from the Grave. Edited by Virginia Heinlein, Del Rey, 1989.
---. Starship Troopers. Ace Books, 2006.
---. The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. Orb, 2005.
---. “The Pragmatism of Patriotism.” Expanded Universe. Baen, 2005, pp. 557-570.
---. “Who are the Heirs of Patrick Henry.” Expanded Universe. Baen, 2005, pp. 471-480.
---. Afterword to “Who are the Heirs of Patrick Henry.” Expanded Universe. Baen, 2005, pp.
481-488.
Secondary sources:
Brin, David. “Robert Heinlein and Looking Beyond This Horizon.” Contrary Bin: Looking
toward the Future, 16 Jan. 2015, davidbrin.blogspot.nl/2015/01/robert-heinlein-and-
looking-beyond-this.html.
Brogan, Hugh. Longman History of the United States of America. Longman Group Ltd., 1985.
“Capitalism.” Britannica Academic, Encyclopædia Britannica, 10 Mar. 2017. academic-eb-
com.ezproxy.leidenuniv.nl:2443/levels/collegiate/article/capitalism/20150.
Clareson, Thomas D., and Joe Sanders. The Heritage of Heinlein: A Critical Reading of the
Fiction. McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2014.
“Clifford Douglas.” Britannica Academic, Encyclopædia Britannica, 9 Apr. 2018. academic-
eb-com.ezproxy.leidenuniv.nl:2443/levels/collegiate/article/Clifford-Douglas/31040.
“Conservatism.” Britannica Academic, Encyclopædia Britannica, 7 Nov. 2017. academic-eb-
com.ezproxy.leidenuniv.nl:2443/levels/collegiate/article/conservatism/117289.
De Jong 71
D’Amato, David. “The Case for Libertarianism in American Politics.” The Hill, 8 June 2017,
thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/336992-the-case-for-
libertarianism-in-american-politics.
“Declaration of Independence: A Transcription.” National Archives and Records
Administration, www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript.
Dolman, Everett Carl. “Military, Democracy, and the State in Robert A. Heinlein's Starship
Troopers.” Political Science Fiction, edited by Donald M. Hassler and Clyde Wilcox,
University of South Carolina Press, 1997, pp. 196–213.
Easterbrook, Neil. “Libertarianism and Anarchism.” The Oxford Handbook of Science
Fiction, edited by Rob Latham, Oxford University Press, 2014.
---. “State, Heterotopia: The Political Imagination in Heinlein, Le Guin, and
Delany.” Political Science Fiction, edited by Donald M. Hassler and Clyde Wilcox,
University of South Carolina Press, 1997, pp. 43–75.
Ekirch, Roger. Bound for America: the Transportation of British Convicts to the Colonies,
1718-1775. Clarendon Press, 1987.
“Election of 1800.” Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia, Thomas Jefferson's Monticello,
www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/election-1800.
Feofanov, Dmitry N. “Luna Law: The Libertarian Vision in Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh
Mistress.” Tennessee Law Review, vol. 63, no. 1, 1995, pp. 71–141.
Forrest, Wolf. ““There Ain’t No Such Thing as a Free Lunch”: Supply-Side Economics in
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.” Critical Insights: Robert A. Heinlein, edited by
Rafeeq O. McGiveron, Salem Press, 2015, pp. 199–214.
Franklin, H. Bruce. Robert A. Heinlein: America as Science Fiction. Oxford University Press,
1980. De Jong 72
Gentile, Emilio. “Fascism, Totalitarianism and Political Religion: Definitions and Critical
Reflections on Criticism of an Interpretation.” Fascism, Totalitarianism and Political
Religion, edited by Roger Griffin, Routledge, 2005, pp. 32-81.
Godwin, William. An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, and its Influence on General
Virtue and Happiness, vol. 2. G. G. J. and J. Robinson, 1793.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/236
“Grok.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster.
Hamowy, Ronald. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. SAGE, 2008.
Heer, Jeet. “A Famous Science Fiction Writer's Descent Into Libertarian Madness.” New
Republic, 9 June 2014, newrepublic.com/article/118048/william-pattersons-robert-
heinlein-biography-hagiography.
Hershberg, James. “The Cuban Missile Crisis.” The Cambridge History of the Cold War,
edited by Melvyn P. Leffler and Odd Arne Westad, vol. 2, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 2010, pp. 65–87.
“Independence Movements.” Encyclopedia of Global Studies, edited by Mark Juergensmeyer
and Helmut K. Anheier. SAGE Publications, Inc, 2012.
“Internationale, the.” The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, edited by Elizabeth
Knowles, Oxford University Press, 2005.
James, Simon J. “Science Journals: The Worlds of H. G. Wells.” Nature, vol. 537, no. 7619,
2016, pp. 162–64.
Karsten, Peter. Encyclopedia of War and American Society. SAGE Publications, Inc, 2005.
Keynes, John Maynard. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Edited by
Elizabeth Johnson and Donald Moggridge, vol. 7, Royal Economic Society, 1978. De Jong 73
Klein, Herbert G. “Loonies and Others in Robert A. Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh
Mistress.” Science Fiction, Imperialism and the Third World, edited by Ericka
Hoagland and Reema Sharwal, McFarland & Company, Inc., 2010, pp. 141-155.
Lazarus, Emma. “The New Colossus.” Poetry Foundation.
“Leninism.” Britannica Academic, Encyclopædia Britannica, 9 Apr. 2018. academic-eb-
com.ezproxy.leidenuniv.nl:2443/levels/collegiate/article/Leninism/47751.
Lester, J.C. “The Evolution of the Political Compass (and Why Libertarianism Is Not Right-
Wing).” Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, vol. 17, no. 3, 1994, pp. 231–41.
“Libertarianism.” Britannica Academic, Encyclopædia Britannica, 4 Oct. 2017. academic-eb-
com.ezproxy.leidenuniv.nl:2443/levels/collegiate/article/libertarianism/97651.
Lord, M. G. “Heinlein's Female Troubles.” Sunday Book Review, The New York Times, 2
Oct. 2005, www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/books/review/heinleins-female-
troubles.html.
Macleod, Ken. “Politics and Science Fiction.” The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction,
edited by Edward James and Farah Mendlesohn, Cambridge University Press, 2003,
pp. 230–240.
McGiveron, Rafeeq O. “‘Starry-Eyed internationalists’ versus the Social Darwinists:
Heinlein’s Transnational Governments.” Extrapolation, vol. 40, no. 1, 1999.
---. “On Robert A. Heinlein and His Works.” Critical Insights: Robert A. Heinlein, edited by
Rafeeq O. McGiveron, Salem Press, 2015, pp. 3–17.
“Militarism.” The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military. Oxford University Press,
2001.
Morton, Joseph C. The American Revolution. Greenwood Press, 2003.
Mullen, R. D. “No Time for Evolution.” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 6, no. 2, July 1979,
www.depauw.edu/site/sfs. De Jong 74
“Neoconservatism.” Britannica Academic, Encyclopædia Britannica, 9 Apr. 2018. academic-
eb-com.ezproxy.leidenuniv.nl:2443/levels/collegiate/article/neoconservatism/384516.
“Neville Chamberlain.” Britannica Academic, Encyclopædia Britannica, 9 Aug.
2011. academic-eb-com.ezproxy.leidenuniv.nl:2443/levels/collegiate/article/Neville-
Chamberlain/22309.
Pak, Chris. “Ecology and Environmental Awareness in 1960s-1970s Terraforming Stories.”
Terraforming: Ecopolitical Transformations and Environmentalism in Science
Fiction, Liverpool University Press, 2016, pp. 98–136.
Panshin, Alexei. Heinlein in Dimension. Advent: Publishers, Inc., 1968,
www.panshin.com/critics/Dimension/hdcontents.html.
Patterson, William H. Robert A. Heinlein: In Dialogue with His Century. Vol. 1, Tom
Doherty Associates, LLC., 2010.
---. Robert A. Heinlein: In Dialogue with His Century. Vol. 2, Tom Doherty Associates,
LLC., 2014.
Porter, Kirk H. A History of Suffrage in the United States. University of Chicago Press, 1918.
Primoratz, Igor. “Patriotism and Morality: Mapping the Terrain.” Journal of Moral
Philosophy, vol. 5, no. 2, 2008, pp. 204–226.
Pohl, Frederick. Foreword to Clareson, Thomas D., and Joe Sanders. The Heritage of
Heinlein: A Critical Reading of the Fiction. McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers,
2014.
---. “The Politics of Prophecy.” Political Science Fiction, edited by Donald M.
Hassler and Clyde Wilcox, University of South Carolina Press, 1997, pp. 7–17.
Reid, Robin Anne. “Reading the Man in the Moon: An Intersectional Analysis of Robert A.
Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.” Critical Insights: Robert A. Heinlein,
edited by Rafeeq O. McGiveron, Salem Press, 2015, pp. 55–69. De Jong 75
“Second Amendment.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 5 June 2017, `
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment.
“Selective Service.” U.S. Data and Statistics, 14 Mar. 2018, www.usa.gov/selective-service.
Simion, Eugen. The Return of the Author, edited by James W. Newcomb, Northwestern
University Press, 1996.
“Socialism.” Britannica Academic, Encyclopædia Britannica, 27 Apr. 2018. academic-eb-
com.ezproxy.leidenuniv.nl:2443/levels/collegiate/article/socialism/109587.
Sullivan, C. W. “Robert A. Heinlein: Building and Defending the Empire.” Critical Insights:
Robert A. Heinlein, edited by Rafeeq O. McGiveron, Salem Press, 2015, pp. 215–227.
Walker, Cheryl. “Persona Criticism and the Death of the Author.” Contesting the Subject:
Essays in the Postmodern Theory and Practice of Biography and Biographical
Criticism, edited by William H. Epstein, Purdue University Press, 1991.
Ward, Colin. Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2004.
Wiltse, Charles M. “Jeffersonian Democracy: A Dual Tradition.” The American Political
Science Review, vol. 28, no. 5, 1934, pp. 838–51.