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
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
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”).
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
(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.
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
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.
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
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).
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.
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”)
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
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
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
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
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.
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).
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”).
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
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.
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
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).
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.
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
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
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
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
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”).
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
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).
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
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).
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
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).
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
