The Politics of Space Exploration

     

        Throughout the course of history, there has always been an uncharted frontier for Americans to explore–whether the New World, the West, or the depths of the oceans. Now, thanks to the effects of industrialization, the frontiers of this world are beginning to dwindle. There will, though, always be one unexplored frontier–one which cannot possibly be explored in entirety, never ceases to drive our curiosity as a nation, and inspires people around the world to dream big–space.
        Ever since the Space Race of the 1960s, the United States has been at the forefront of space exploration. While other nations have accomplished similar feats as those of the United States, no nation's space agency is as well-known as NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Since Armstrong first walked on the moon, NASA has inspired young minds to dream big, and even become astronauts. This ability to accomplish such great technological feats has been, for decades, a result of major bipartisan support for space exploration. For years, it has been an issue upon which Democrats and Republicans alike can, for the most part, unite and agree.
        Space exploration drives us forward as a nation, unites us under the cause of curiosity, and pushes us "where no man has gone before." Not only is there an ever-present desire in the American public for space exploration, but politicians, as well, seek to continue to explore our own solar system and beyond. Many view it as essential to the national agenda, as well as to our nation's scientific advancements. No matter how imperative the future of space exploration to this great nation, though, it is often undermined by a Congress unable to either agree or compromise.

        Recently, NASA requested its 2017 budget from various branches of the U.S. Government–the House of Representatives, the Senate, and President Obama. The budget was received rather differently from each respondent. Both the Senate and the President did not give NASA significant advances in funding; both of their budget proposals placed far more emphasis on space travel than on earth science, as well. The House committee that decides upon NASA's annual budget, however, was rather generous in its allotting of funds. Seeing that NASA needs a certain amount of funding for its ambitious space travel programs, the House provided NASA with a hefty $19.5 billion budget for 2017. This was $200 million more than the Senate's proposal and $500 million more than that of the President.
        This budget, which will have to pass through both the House and the Senate in order to become effective, could potentially grant NASA the ability to expand its programs and bring seemingly distant exploratory missions to the near future. However, the House and the Senate have not agreed upon a budget for the NASA since 2010–the Senate often being reluctant to endorse space spending in all fields. NASA's budget has historically been lowballed, which has resulted in NASA being limited in its capabilities. Should Congress be able to agree upon a substantial budget for NASA this year, the United States will be able to maintain its position of global leadership atop the ladder of space exploration. As stated in a Huffington Post article by Eileen Collins and Nick Lampson, "As a nation, we must put politics aside to ensure that expanding the space frontier occupies a prominent place on our national agenda."

        In the past several years, some have criticized the government's waning support for space exploration, as it has given rise to the growth of privatized space corporations, such as Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin. SpaceX, in particular, has publicized its intentions to launch missions to Mars in the next several years and has given a new hope to those wishing to see more space missions in the near future. The sort of fascinating research tests and propositions made by SpaceX have demonstrated that space exploration is not a lost cause. SpaceX, as well, has proven that, if NASA were to receive more substantial funding from the government, it would be able to accomplish more notable feats–as opposed to those it has focused on recently, the majority of which do not excite the public as much as the thought of a mission to Mars. 
        In addition, the House has demonstrated a great deal of interest in the rise of America's commercial space sector. In May, it passed the SPACE Act, which is helping to promote growth for companies like SpaceX, which possess similar objectives to NASA, yet far more capabilities. In recent news, SpaceX failed to successfully land its Falcon 9 rocket on a cargo ship, only to successfully land it on the ship during a second test. For companies like SpaceX, which have far more budgetary flexibility than NASA, it is okay to fail once in a while. Nonetheless, NASA has shown interest in cooperating with SpaceX's proposed missions to Mars in the future, giving hope to a potential merge of public and private spaceflight organizations.
        Moreover, although space exploration seems to be an issue with a great deal of bipartisan support, there is, nonetheless, a certain level of partisan division regarding the placement of funds for NASA. While Republican politicians tend to favor more funding for deep-space-exploration missions, such as NASA's planned Orion Exploration Mission, Democrats typically support more tangible space projects–such as those regarding NASA's earth science division, which often deals with research on climate change and has, for years, received inadequate government funding thanks to an incompetent Congress.
        As Lamar Smith, Republican Representative and chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, told The Atlantic in an interview, "The future is bright for discovery, but failure to invest in innovation and space exploration could leave America in the dark." It is clear that members of both major parties see the need to invest in the future of space exploration, yet it is often the result of partisan quarreling that NASA's budget remains too low for it to strive for anything truly revolutionary. If Congress can simply agree upon a substantial budget for NASA, it will allow the United States to remain a global leader in space exploration and to continue to push further into the infinite universe. 

HB2: The Bill that Reinvigorated the Transgender Debate

       

        The transgender debate, which has been under the radar for some time, was recently reenergized due to the heated controversy surrounding House Bill 2, North Carolina's so-called "bathroom bill." This bill, which was passed in the NC state legislature on March 23, requires all people, when in public facilities or universities, to use the bathroom which corresponds to their birth sex. 

        This new requirement, though, is only one point in an extensive bill limiting the rights of transgender people. Katie Zezima, in a May 14th Washington Post article, wrote, "the law not only reverses a Charlotte ordinance that had extended similar rights to gay and transgender people. HB2 also prevents cities and counties from establishing a minimum-wage standard for private employers and limits how people can sue for discrimination. And it contains a provision allowing the remaining parts of the law to stand if others are struck down in Court." 

        To sum, as the true motives of HB2 are beginning to surface, the North Carolina government has sought to deprive transgender people of certain civil rights which are guaranteed by law under the guise of a "bathroom bill."

        Since the passing of HB2 in late March, nationwide criticism of the bill has begun to surface; this discontent has, in particular, come from the transgender community and a number of civil rights groups. Many of these activist groups, one of the most prominent being the NAACP, claim that the bill discriminates against transgender people and violates federal civil rights laws. 

        "This is not about bathrooms. It's about whether or not you can codify hate and discrimination into the laws of the state," Rev. William Barber II, the leader of the North Carolina NAACP, told the Washington Post. For some time, groups like the NAACP have sought to reveal the unjust nature of the bill. In fact, there has been a growing national dislike of HB2, which is, in part, thanks to the growing opposition of the bill by civil rights groups. Recent NC polls show that the majority of people in the state oppose the bill; one poll demonstrated that around 45 percent of North Carolinians opposed the bill, while only 36 percent support it. Similar national polls have been conducted, the majority of which have conveyed similar sentiments toward the controversial bill.

        Additionally, there is clear evidence that the passing of HB2 may have simply been a political move made by NC Republicans, such as North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory. Some elected officials in NC have struggled to maintain support from the state's substantial evangelical population, the majority of whom reside in rural areas. This bill provides a favorable image for these Republican politicians, many of whom are expected to experience contentious races in November. The law, while alienating many of the state's more liberal voters, appeals greatly to the state's conservative, evangelical base. Likewise, the claims of state officials as to the necessity of the bill strongly appeals to conservatives who, supposedly claim to, hold high family values. Many believe that HB2 will help to prevent instances of sexual assault in bathrooms, thus implying that sexual assaults are likely to be perpetrated by transgender people. In reality, there has been virtually no proof that transgender people are likely to commit sexual assault.

        In the past several weeks, a battle has ensued over HB2 between the Justice Department and the state of North Carolina. First, the Justice Department, led by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, claimed that the bill, which limited the rights of transgender people, violated basic civil rights and could be seen as a form of state-sponsored discrimination. In response, Gov. McCrory filed a law suit to oppose the Justice Department and support the bill's lawfulness. To add, the Justice Department has stated that it possesses the authority to cut federal funding to both the NC Department of Public Safety and the University of North Carolina, citing a 1972 law banning sex discrimination in federally-funded schools. Atty Gen. Loretta Lynch, during her statement about the suit, noted, "It's about the founding ideals that have led this country haltingly but inexorably in the direction of fairness, inclusion, and equality for all Americans."

        In truth, the passing of HB2 has renewed a continuous debate over the extent of rights which many believe should be granted to all Americans, including transgender people. Much disagreement has arisen over this topic, a great deal of it existing across party lines. Yet, many members of both parties agree that all people, no matter their sexual identification, deserve certain rights. HB2 is a means by which one state government is depriving a large body of people a plurality of well-deserved civil rights. Furthermore, its passing will likely spark a renewed debate over the rights and privileges of transgender people in today's society, which seems to be becoming ever more accepting of LGBT people.