
Breitbart, other conservative outlets escalate anti-SpaceX campaign - rbanffy
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/breitbart-other-conservative-outlets-escalate-anti-spacex-campaign/
======
marksellers
This new flavor of conservatism is so strange in light of how bound to free
market ideals most flavors of conservatism are.

In general, I really quite dislike Conservative/Liberal labels as political
stances are not two-dimensional, but rather multidimensional. Parties are
loose alliances of disparate groups. And somehow there's this rising
contingent of neocons, who also happen to dislike SpaceX.

Does anyone understand this?

Edit: I want to clarify that the alternative to private enterprise competing
for government contracts (usually military, again usually a conservative
delight) is direct government sponsorship, i.e. NASA.

SpaceX is one of those cases where the free market actually has been more
effective. So why not seize on it?

~~~
eli_gottlieb
"Neocons" were the foreign-policy hawks of the 2000s. These guys largely call
themselves the "alt-right".

They're basically as bad as you've heard, but hiding it sometimes.

Even I find this particular turn against SpaceX somewhat weird. My internal
model of the alt-right has largely been that they have one wing who are
basically Nazi fanfiction, another who idolize the "throne and altar
conservatism" of pre-Revolutionary France, and another who think they should
build Warhammer 40K's Imperium of Man as a real-life society (they're _very_
pop-culture influenced). Turning against a private space company seems to
indicate that some factions (Nazis plus... someone else?) are throwing the
"far-right futurism" faction overboard.

(Again, these guys are _really weird_ , but hey, it's all there on their
blogs.)

My big question is: where's Peter Thiel in all this? Just last year, he was
the one trying to assure everyone that, oh don't worry, this was all about
tearing down overbearing regulations and political correctness in favor of
unbound innovation, that the Right weren't anti-science religious people
anymore, etc. Turning against SpaceX isn't just throwing a faction of bloggers
overboard, it's thrown Thiel overboard, and he was a major billionaire backer
for all of this.

~~~
exelius
I'm not saying I agree with them, but a common theme I hear from the alt-right
is "no gods no masters" (Game of Thrones reference, ding on the pop-culture).
Now, nevermind that these guys are setting up as many gatekeeping functions as
they tear down; they simply justify it as "protecting real hard-working
Americans" through xenophobia.

It's all built on the false nationalism of a flagging superpower, and if any
of these people traveled in the least they would see that other countries are
actually doing a lot of things better than we do here. We got arrogant, our
politicians got greedy, and our voter base got complacent. It's only going to
get worse too.

~~~
kevinmchugh
> "no gods no masters" (Game of Thrones reference, ding on the pop-culture)

that's not a game of thrones reference as far as I can tell. It's an old
anarchist and socialist slogan. It'd be an odd fit for that part of the right.
"No gods or kings, only man" is a Bioshock reference that pops up sometimes in
those parts.

~~~
Freak_NL
> "No gods or kings, only man" is a Bioshock reference that pops up sometimes
> in those parts.

Which in turn uses Ayn Rand's philosophy (Objectivism) as the basis of the
fictional (failed) society in Bioshock.

(Compare with this quote: [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/207108-at-first-
man-was-ens...](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/207108-at-first-man-was-
enslaved-by-the-gods-but-he) )

Ayn Rand and her philosophy are quite popular in right-wing circles (and
incidentally, largely denounced in academic circles).

~~~
wmil
> and incidentally, largely denounced in academic circles

Not surprising. A tenured professor getting government grants for research is
a villain by Randian standards.

~~~
jandrese
It has been many years since I read the books, but I'm pretty sure university
intellectuals were actual villains in Atlas Shrugged. IIRC didn't they say
that more testing was needed before they could count the new supermetal as
safe?

I remember thinking at the time that the hero was being really reckless and
that advanced composites often fail in new and unexpected ways and that
building an entire rail line out of the stuff before you understand how it
fails is beyond risky. Of course because it was a book the metal is perfect in
every way and never has a problem, but the real world is rarely so forgiving.

------
tim333
Not that I agree with it but the conservative argument against SpaceX seems to
be largely:

>Despite the numerous public statements by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk decrying crony
capitalism, SpaceX would not exist without government contracts and subsidies.
According to The Wall Street Journal, government contracts account for about
70 percent of SpaceX’s contracts. U.S. taxpayers have provided SpaceX more
than $5.5 billion in the form of Air Force and NASA contracts.

from "Ron Paul: Crony defense budget hands SpaceX a monopoly - why?" op ed in
Fox News [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/09/12/ron-paul-crony-
def...](http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/09/12/ron-paul-crony-defense-
budget-hands-spacex-monopoly-why.html)

I think he also annoys Breitbart types by talking about global warming.

~~~
Cuuugi
Thank you for not falling into the "Conservatives hate science" trap.

I can't speak for other people, but my personal issue with Musk's ventures are
how much money he funnels from the government.

~~~
pjc50
Multiple choice question!

For its launch capability, the US government should:

\- buy on the open market at the lowest available price. Currently this turns
out to be Russia.

\- buy on the US market at the lowest available price. This may be SpaceX
although other contenders are mentioned in the article

\- build its own rocket systems from scratch inside government agencies

\- just pay Boeing/Lockheed like they've always done

\- just give up on space

(basically, if you think Musk funnels a lot of money from the US government,
you should check out the rest of the aerospace industry...)

~~~
wallace_f
There is a fair point to be made that we _should_ be quite critical of how
taxpayer dollars are spent. Musk himself even agrees that subsidies lead to
cronyism. He has even said himself that subsidies to Tesla should end in favor
of a carbon tax, which would be a more just,fair, competitive, and efficient
policy tool. Musk and Ron Paul are both actually right about that.

So given that government money spent towards space should be spent fairly and
in support of a policy that maintains multiple competitors, these criticisms
are a mix of 1) A warranted and necessary critical thought process, 2) likely
influenced and supported by some good-old-boy network/industry support for
ULA, and 3) opportunistic politics cashing in on a shallow opportunity to get
back at a couple of Trump's adversaries like McCain and Musk.

------
InTheArena
Ron Paul and Rand Paul identify as libertarians and are as close to
libertarian as the (R) party gets. Ron Paul has the added benefit of having
wacky neo-nazi roots that he disavowed during the Clinton era. They loathe any
sort of government investment. McCain is the only real conservative mentioned
here. The alt-right has their true god (Bannon) and their lesser god (Trump).
Trump loathes conservatives, and conservatives mostly loathe him, but they
need each other (for the moment). McCain has traditionally been a huge backer
of Mueller, and is openly looking to take Trump down.

Both sides have seen ideological purges, and the "blue dog democrats" and
"Rockefeller republicans" were purged over the last twenty years. The last
real moderate was probably Boehner, and the combination of the Tea Party, and
aborted "great compromises" by Obama did him in. The former Senate Majority
leader claimed to be a pro-life (personally) Democrat from Vegas, but
increasingly abandoned this as his party lurched to the left, and was replaced
by a corporatist Democrat with deep deep links to investment banks (Schumer).
Biden is still out there as a moderate Democrat, but was completely
marginalized in party politics when his great compromise efforts with Boehner
were torpedo'd by more activist portions of Obama's cabinet. (No one has ever
taken credit for actually convincing Obama to ask for additional trillions in
tax-raises last minute both times). I think Biden is just about the only
candidate who could have won against Trump in the last election.

The so-called "Neo-cons" (their original name was "Vulcans") were not neocons
because they were reformed conservatives, but rather former Wilsonians who
turned more Jacksonian over time.

As for Musk, Shelby and Ryan, more then anything else, they are opportunists.

There is a very similar fracturing and disintegration on the left right now,
with the AntiFa, the move on crowd and so called progressives all purging
those who disagree with them. Then you have much much more radical elements in
the colleges and universities.

The French Revolution comparisons are not without merit.

~~~
orblivion
The "god" of the alt-right is Richard Spencer. Granted the definition of alt-
right has shifted around, but by the current prevailing standard among those
who adopt the label and used to do so, I think it is strictly an
ethnonationalist movement. Unless you're going to cite rumors about Bannon,
I'd say Breitbart doesn't quite qualify. Again, forgetting anything Bannon
once said about it being the platform of the alt-right, and going by current
running definitions. Breitbart would probably be considered "alt-light".

~~~
bbctol
No one cares about Richard Spencer other than media figures who needed a dude
in a suit to claim to be the leader of the alt-right. He's a random non-entity
that was virtually unknown even in cryptofascist circles until liberals
decided, for no good reason, to start paying attention to him.

~~~
orblivion
Well, he coined the term alt-right. Maybe he's not the most important figure,
that was just my best guess.

My point is about use of the term. In particular, the way it's fuzzy, and
attributing ethnonationalism to people who are civic nationalists.

------
curiousgeorgio
I'm not intimately familiar with the details of this issue, nor with the
various "flavors of conservatism" mentioned in comments here, but this article
makes a strong argument for a few points that we can probably all agree on:
SpaceX likely isn't responsible for pushing for the legislation in question
(as some news outlets claim), but there _does_ seem to be ample evidence of
private influence on the government leading to proposed legislation with
anticompetitive characteristics. If it does pass, SpaceX is expected to
benefit as a result, so whether or not they are pushing for the legislation
themselves, the end result may be just as worrying as if they had.

Instead of debating labels or levels of political congruence among the various
people who have brought up this issue, perhaps it would be more productive to
discuss the possible ramifications of this legislation passing. Also worth
considering is the topic of private influence over government (especially in
defense, where it's largely just "the way things are done"), and whether or
not business practices that benefit from such arrangements actually qualify as
capitalism.

------
perlpimp
Suppose ULA charges 10x for launches and SpaceX bargain bin launches that get
ever cheaper(with reusable rockets) have threatened ULA. I bet if you follow
the money you will find the culprits.

~~~
DenisM
ULA isn’t the only entity hurt by cheap launches.

~~~
le-mark
Are you alluding to other launch providers such as Russia, European Space
Agency, etc, or did you have something else in mind?

------
brennankreiman
I recall a congressional hearing where a person from SpaceX stated that
Couldn't figure out why ULA rockets cost $422 Million while SpaceX rockets
only cost ~$90 Million. Methinks there are some established players pulling
their congressional strings. [https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/air-
force-budget-rev...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/air-force-budget-
reveals-how-much-spacex-undercuts-launch-prices/?comments=1&post=33514969)

------
Mountain_Skies
Elon Musk picked up the mantle of Steve Jobs tech showman. His high visibility
makes him a target. There is no public face that I'm aware of for ULA and
while Jeff Bezos is certainly hated in that crowd for his ownership of the
Washington Post, Blue Origin gets very little criticism. Some of that might be
due to differences in what entanglements each has with the government but
Bezos also avoids the type of spotlight Musk goes to great effort to stand in,
at least when it comes to rocketry. If Tom Hanks somehow became the face and
chief string puller at ULA, he'd probably get the same hatred that Musk
receives.

------
laretluval
Not a single link to Breitbart in a piece about Breitbart. Are they so afraid
of the site that they feel they can't link to it?

The result is I can't evaluate what they're talking about. What Breitbart
articles do they have in mind? I found a bunch of neutral articles about
SpaceX there, and this negative op-ed: [http://www.breitbart.com/big-
government/2017/09/18/elon-musk...](http://www.breitbart.com/big-
government/2017/09/18/elon-musk-giveaways-wont-make-america-safe-
again%E2%80%A8/)

Is that what they're talking about?

------
maxxxxx
How can anybody keep reading Breitbart or other partisan sites? Are people so
addicted to outrage that they want keep reading stuff that's obviously wrong
if you take the time to check things for only a few minutes?

~~~
williamle8300
Breitbart is a bastion for free-thinking much like HackerNews. While you may
criticize their opinions, it's at least sane reporting... instead of
cheerleading and narrative controlling like CNN and NBC.

~~~
maxxxxx
Are you kidding?

~~~
mercer
Based on their comment history: it's a lost cause. Don't waste your energy
here.

~~~
maxxxxx
I honestly didn't think that anyone would think of Breitbart as sane
reporting. If the comment was honest then I have to change my opinion and have
learned something.

------
kharms
The only motivation I can think of is that Musk's resources are limited and if
he spends more time/money on SpaceX less gets spent on Tesla. Still, super
weird.

~~~
mmcwilliams
What about the fact that Musk publicly exited the presidential councils he was
a member of over the Paris Accord? It was a move that would have offended US
conservatives, particularly those at Breitbart, on at least two fronts:
supporting efforts to combat climate change and damaging the President's
reputation as an ally to Silicon Valley.

~~~
kelukelugames
True, the President is vindictive. I wonder if we can use this. Send in
someone who pretends to be anti renewable energy and then piss off Trump so
Trump will praise solar power.

------
gozur88
Ron Paul has always been seen as a crank, even by other conservatives.

------
Helmet
EDIT: The article does break down the purpose of Section 1615, and shed light
on its context - I did not see that the article continued beyond the massive
picture below the blurb that I quoted.

~~~
tclancy
It's very strange you would read that bit entirely but miss the multiple
paragraphs directly below it saying it is equivocally untrue.

~~~
Helmet
All I saw was a large picture below the article and didn't scroll all the way
down. I've updated my comment after this was raised to my attention.

------
PatientTrades
Elon Musk has proved again and again that he is a gift from heaven to the
human race. We must continue to support genius like him for the sake of
humanity. Stop wasting money on endless wars, entitlements, fraud, waste,
abuse, etc. Give our tax dollars to people that want to help mankind make a
quantum leap forward. Extending life beyond earth is a necessity for the
sustainment of humans

~~~
strange_quark
Is this supposed to be satire?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
My money's on "true believer", but satire is also possible...

~~~
mercer
Part of the appeal is that's it's impossible to tell.

------
make3
"Musk has given lavishly to politicians, especially Arizona Senator John
McCain (R). In return, McCain added Section 1615 to this year's defense
authorization bill, which includes language to restrict the military from
investing in new launch systems."

As much as I love Musk, this is fucked up. Just a normal day in the American
democracy I guess

~~~
Footkerchief
That argument is presented for context in the introduction. The entire rest of
the article is about debunking it:

> The central canard of these attacks is that John McCain did not, in fact,
> add "Section 1615" to the Defense Authorization Act, which is now being
> finalized by a conference between the House and Senate. This clause does not
> exist at all in the Senate language. Rather, it was inserted into the House
> legislation by US Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican from Alabama.

> Two sources familiar with the legislation told Ars that Rogers added Section
> 1615 specifically to benefit Aerojet and its AR1 rocket engine.

> "The purpose of the provision is simple," one Washington DC source said.
> "Instead of the Department of Defense continuing their open-ended, market-
> friendly risk reduction investment across several providers to enable
> Russian-engine-free launch capabilities, Rogers wants DOD to fund Aerojet to
> build AR1 to be inserted into Atlas V." In other words, the language
> benefits Aerojet by favoring its "drop in" engine solution over building a
> completely new Vulcan rocket.

------
danjoc
Suppose Elon is a bad guy. What's to stop him from dragging a big space rock
into orbit and holding the planet hostage in X years? Government will build in
redundant checks and balances at extra expense. Corporations, not so much.

~~~
tekromancr
The hundreds, maybe thousands, of people working under him. The majority of
which would need to agree that project "Dr. Evil style giant space rock
randsom" was a good idea.

~~~
danjoc
You're the only response that actually tried to make a legitimate argument
without resorting to logical fallacies and insults. Thanks.

Still, I have to disagree with your point. Lots of people did bad things on
Hitler's orders. Lots more looked the other way. The "thousands of people"
argument falls apart when looking at historic examples.

------
creaghpatr
So is their argument “the bad guys are against it so it must be right?”

They made a point to drop that terrifying B-bomb in the title, sending shivers
up the spine of many a HN reader.

I see the ULA vs Space X competition as productive in producing innovation,
regulatory fairness aside. Regulatory problems are much less of a drag if
resulting innovation is a net positive for both private and public sectors

~~~
linkregister
> They made a point to drop that terrifying B-bomb in the title, sending
> shivers up the spine of many a HN reader.

I chuckled at this.

I think your analysis of their rhetoric is apt.

That said, the lede of the article is the media campaign pushing the pay-to-
play narrative, not the righteousness of SpaceX (which is expected to be taken
as a given).

Overall, the article was informative because I wouldn't have known that there
was a counter argument to Sen. Paul's narrative.

------
eighthnate
As much as I despise all "news" organizations, I say good.

Considering that most of the media has been fawning over musk and spacex and
everything musk does, perhaps some criticism of musk is required in a free and
democratic system.

I just don't like how so much of media are pretty much colluding with each
other to spread the same narrative. On almost all topics, it seems like most
of the media is pushing a particular narrative.

I wish we had a media environment where about a third is pro-musk, a third is
anti-musk and a third is neutral.

The same with trump/obama/clinton, politics, technology, business,
globalization, economics, international relations, etc.

All we seem to get is cheerleading by the media for one particular agenda.

I'm a believer in diversity and I think we need diversity in the media.

And I don't believe in saints. Musk has done a lot of good things, but he
isn't a saint. He has done plenty of things that can be criticized. How most
of his business lives off government subsidies. How much in bed he is with
wall street. How he really hasn't invented or created anything new. Most of
his proclamations and "inventions" are decades old technologies. None of his
grandiose proposals have born fruit yet.

If all the media seems to do is praise or criticize, then I know something is
wrong.

Edit: Wow, that was a swift and quick number of downvotes. I know that pay to
play is a big thing in news ( both arstechnica and brietbart and everyone else
does ). But I wonder if musk has pr firms working the social media scene?

~~~
barrystaes
In the US are only two political parties. Yet North Korea and Russia only have
one, so its not that bad.

And diversity does exists.

~~~
corpMaverick
AFAIK, China only has one. And it seems to work remarkably well. At least they
seem to have very smart people at the top.

~~~
kelukelugames
I would say the bottom quintile Americans is doing orders of magnitude better
than the bottom quintile of Chinese. Maybe even bottom half. This is probably
true when comparing any developed nation to a developing nation.

~~~
rbanffy
It seems the bottom quintile Americans (WRT intelligence) took over the
government...

Burn, karma, burn!

