A Critique to Andrew Harlan's Case Against the Moon

[pic 1]

  After Apollo 17 in 1972, The Constellation Program was implemented in 2004 to resume manned missions to the moon after almost 40 years of unmanned lunar exploration. However, in 2011 President Obama announced his plan to cancel this program and shift the focus of future U.S exploration toward asteroids and Mars. He explained cancelling The Constellation Program by saying that it was “over budget, behind schedule and lacking in innovation” according to the findings of the Augustine Committee. Naturally, this decision shocked the Congress and American people. One of the many people who opposed this decision was Charles Krauthammer, a very influential political commentator and a Pulitzer Prize winner. He expressed his indignation at the abandonment of manned lunar exploration in his op-ed “The Moon We Left Behind” on July 17, 2009. He claimed that cancelling the moon program was a big mistake: “We came. We saw. Then we retreated. How could we?” In response to this article, Andrew Harlan wrote “A Critique of Charles Krauthammer’s The Moon We Left Behind” on January 11, 2011. Harlan generally claimed that going to the moon is important and that we should not completely cancel plans to go back there, but he also showed that he understood why people would be reluctant to agree. However, if one deeply thinks about this sudden cancellation given the context of surrounding conditions, he or she would believe that abandoning or postponing the moon program was a good decision.

  The gist of Harlan’s response is that there are good reasons to go to the moon as well as valid arguments not to go. However, he basically emphasized the reasons not to go back. He summarized Krauthammer’s arguments that no progress would occur if we waited for the problems on earth to be solved, that a fraction of the government’s budget spent on the stimulus program would be enough to fund lunar missions, and that the glory of going back to the moon is so great that it is enough reason alone to go back. Amongst the criticism and praise, Harlan claimed that the moon trips would create admiration, hope, and solidarity among not only Americans but also all people in the world. He also added that going to the moon has engendered technological development applicable in the fields of medicine, manufacturing technology, and transportation. According to him, a return would further enrich our discoveries and would provide employment opportunities for engineers, biologists and meteorologists along with hosts of supporting jobs. Nevertheless, Harlan explained the point of view of citizens regarding this topic; people see a big difference between going back to the moon and going to the moon. They believe that most contributions of such trips to technological progress have already been achieved. Besides, the current circumstances of the U.S are not as convenient for conceiving moon exploration programs as those extant when the first trips to the moon took place. The conclusion that he reached was that the dispute over the continuation of a lunar program depends on each individual’s definition of the word ‘government’.  

  The information that Harlan provided was accurate and clear; he introduced his topic with a quote stated by JFK, including the year he said it (1961). This was a good attempt to clarify why Krauthammer referred to JFK in some parts of his writing. Harlan also included a brief history of moon travel done by Americans enriched with accurate dates. This approach to ethos gives the readers the feeling that Harlan is well informed and credible, which makes them more likely to accept his point of view. The writer of the critique successfully criticized some points made by Krauthammer; Krauthammer used the Straw Man fallacy in his rebuttals to anticipated objections. He translated his critics’ arguments into a simple: “We have enough problems on earth” and answered that “we’d still be living in caves.” Harlan rectified this undermining translation later on in his text by stating that “This country faces financial pressures more serious than those at any other time since the Great Depression” and that “the public is likely to see the matter in terms of choices between a re-funded lunar program (optional) and renewed jobless benefits (essential).” Additionally, Krauthammer stated that we go to the moon for the glory of it and its immense possibilities, which is somewhat vague. Harlan’s criticism of this point later on was indeed in its place; He explained that there are concrete and significant examples of the past benefits resulting from our trips to the moon and lists those examples as well as the employment prospects that would arise upon the initiation of a renewed moon program.

  Although Harlan’s critique is generally fair and convincing, he made some mistakes of his own. He actually supported the emotional aspect (pathos) of Krauthammer’s argument, evident in paragraphs five and six. His support was expressed in a dual fallacy: “…people collectively held their breaths after an oxygen tank explosion disabled Apollo 13 on the way to the moon and as the astronauts and Mission Control guided the spacecraft to a safe return. A renewed moon program might similarly help to reduce divisions among people-or at least Americans-and highlight the reality that we are all residents of the same planet, with more common interests.” This is both a false analogy and argument to the people. The backing of this false analogy is weak; the kind of solidarity he exemplifies is not one that can be applied to the complex American divisions by trips to the moon. He also appealed to stirring symbols by making them believe that returning to the moon will unite them. Moreover, Harlan used Ad Hominem in the tenth paragraph when he attacked Krauthammer himself rather than his argument: “Finally, it’s surprising – and philosophically inconsistent – for a conservative like Krauthammer, who believes in a smaller, less free-spending government, to be complaining about the withdrawal of massive support for a renewed moon program.” Furthermore, Harlan didn’t mention that Krauthammer used circular reasoning when he said “If we are to remain true to our spirit of inquiry, we cannot ignore the investigation of space, because scientific and technological progress is also a human responsibility.” Similarly, he didn’t point out that Krauthammer appealed to ignorance when he argued that a fraction of the funds being showered on the government’s stimulus programs (some $1 trillion) would be sufficient to fund a viable space program. Krauthammer merely took advantage of the economic controversy of government intervention and the effectiveness of the stimulus package. The results of economic intervention are difficult to detect, but that doesn’t give him the right to just assume $1 trillion of the stimulus package are a waste. Just because the economists cannot concretely pinpoint the utter need for such a sum of money does not mean the program can manage to cut down on a trillion dollars.