In 2026, it is not wise to believe that almost all politicians are honest. It is better to be skeptical of their motivations and hope they are honest enough to do the right thing for the citizens they represent.
Mate, it wasn't wise to believe that in 1952 either. It's gotten worse, sure, especially at the top, but there are still thousands of "politicians" out there running local board meetings and trying to do their best to keep their communities going.
History would have some objections to what you believe. In defense of your position, however, the last 40 years (at least in the US) have been dominated by the ethos you describe, and the eras and the politicians who were not consumed by greed tend to be less common than the reverse.
"Several years ago, when I was ill, Heinlein offered his help, anything he could do, and we had never met; he would phone me to cheer me up and see how I was doing. He wanted to buy me an electric typewriter, God bless him—one of the few true gentlemen in this world. I don't agree with any ideas he puts forth in his writing, but that is neither here nor there. One time when I owed the IRS a lot of money and couldn't raise it, Heinlein loaned the money to me. I think a great deal of him and his wife; I dedicated a book to them in appreciation. Robert Heinlein is a fine-looking man, very impressive and very military in stance; you can tell he has a military background, even to the haircut. He knows I'm a flipped-out freak and still he helped me and my wife when we were in trouble. That is the best in humanity, there; that is who and what I love."
Heinlein wasn't "regressive" but conservative. Your formulation indicates that it is you who might not be progressive but regressive since conservatism - same root as conservatorship - is a legitimate and, especially in good times, logical and effective strategy: keep that which works, change only that which needs changing and be careful not to change it too much or too fast lest you destroy that which worked. Heinlein wrote this in 1952 when the sky wasn't the limit anymore and people were reaching for the "stars" - well, low earth orbit anyway - so he had plenty of backing for his conservatism.
> conservatism is a legitimate and, especially in good times, logical and effective strategy: keep that which works, change only that which needs changing and be careful not to change it too much
Conservatism runs entirely on the ingroup-outgroup divide - "keep that which works for us", and be a force opposing changes sought by people for whom things are not going so well, for whom change is the logical strategy.
Honest conservatives can see past the blind spot of the divide and don't try to present their strategy as a universal ethical good.
That is not what conservativism as political ideology is. Like common, not clearly that and we have multiple years where this was made super clear by conservatives themselves.
Conservativism has nothing to do with "conservatorship". They are not trying to conserve, they are trying to force radical change - sometimes to imaginary past and sometimes toward something completely new. And then violently keep it there regardless of needs of other people.
It’s one of those cases where the label has stayed the same, but the thing it commonly describes has changed so much that the word just has multiple completely different meanings.
There’s the “let’s create National Parks to conserve our natural treasures!” conservatism and there’s the “let’s sell our National Parks to the highest bidder so they can drill for oil!” conservatism. It can mean fiscal responsibility and small government, or it can mean crypto scams and surveillance state.
This happens a lot when describing political positions.
The kind of conservatism that Heinlein embraced supported the idea that world government was necessary to prevent nuclear war. Today, granting more power to the UN or any other international body is ridiculed by most conservatives.
What is called conservatism in many countries today is totally different from what it was while Heinlein was alive.
This is like how Americans of the "conservative" bent use "liberal" as a perjorative, despite holding to liberal (or, occasionally, neoliberal) economic theory. I don't get America at all.
No. That is reactionary. Conservatism means "government should govern as little as possible to guarantee freedoms, and no less. it should not provide services for a fee (aka tax)."
It never meant that. Conservativism does not care about freedoms, except for cherry picked few freedoms for selected few. It also does not care about small government, it cares about government small in some areas and huge in others.
Conservative voters do not care about freedom, conservative politicians do not care about freedom and and considerable amounts of them are actively opposed to it.
Conservativism is consistently very authoritarian. It is about hierarchies, not freedom.
Agreed. "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is a good example - Heinlein tries quite hard to envisage a society in which women wield more social power, but can't quite relinquish the idea that women wish and deserve to be dominated by powerful men. Worth stating that 1952 was shortly after WW2 i.e. at the start of Heinlein's "middle period" when his worldview shifted dramatically towards more right-wing values (military patriotism, anti-communism, and individual self-reliance).
Ah, Heinlein. There's not much energy up there, and the energy question is a big one. It's now 2026 and we are still at the point where we can only move a fraction to actual space of what we originally start off with down here. Our fuel is still not anywhere close to what we'd need in terms of energy density and throughput.
The point about politicians is the one I think today most needs. Our public systems don't work when we inherently distrust them. This isn't reason alone to trust, but a bias towards distrust is a pernicious thing for society.
This might be terribly controversial, but I think that even today, even at the highest levels of power, evil is a rare exception, rather than the rule, and we oughta be aware of that.
I believe much of it or want to believe much of it. But the section:
> I believe that almost all politicians are honest ... there are hundreds of politicians, low paid or not paid at all, doing their level best without thanks or glory to make our system work. If this were not true we would never have gotten past the 13 colonies.
I just cannot believe this is even remotely true any more. We seem to have descended into widespread corruption and hypocrisy since his time and that rot is apparent at the very top of the political ladder and seems to inhere downwards. Can’t see how it is going to improve now that it’s been legitimised and the political process completely gutted.
I’m not sure I believe this anymore. Maybe around 2 years ago, I think.
But the trajectory, of everything it seems, has completely changed. And I have no optimism left.
The world would need to possibly take up arms against its leadership to recover from where it is right now. The problem is, I know the masses are pacifist and reasonable, and it’s the insane few that are either running everything or have all the money. That dreads me, because just as I wouldn’t take up arms, nobody else will either, so who will stop the descent?
In 2026, it is not wise to believe that almost all politicians are honest. It is better to be skeptical of their motivations and hope they are honest enough to do the right thing for the citizens they represent.
Mate, it wasn't wise to believe that in 1952 either. It's gotten worse, sure, especially at the top, but there are still thousands of "politicians" out there running local board meetings and trying to do their best to keep their communities going.
It has not gotten any worse. The rapacious greed of politicians in service to their own interest has been universal since the beginning of politics.
History would have some objections to what you believe. In defense of your position, however, the last 40 years (at least in the US) have been dominated by the ethos you describe, and the eras and the politicians who were not consumed by greed tend to be less common than the reverse.
And these thousands still represent the vast majority. Vote for them.
(1952).
Heinlein was such an odd fellow. Extremely progressive on one hand and extremely regressive on the other, sometimes in the span of a single paragraph.
Yes. Philip K. Dick wrote this about Heinlein:
"Several years ago, when I was ill, Heinlein offered his help, anything he could do, and we had never met; he would phone me to cheer me up and see how I was doing. He wanted to buy me an electric typewriter, God bless him—one of the few true gentlemen in this world. I don't agree with any ideas he puts forth in his writing, but that is neither here nor there. One time when I owed the IRS a lot of money and couldn't raise it, Heinlein loaned the money to me. I think a great deal of him and his wife; I dedicated a book to them in appreciation. Robert Heinlein is a fine-looking man, very impressive and very military in stance; you can tell he has a military background, even to the haircut. He knows I'm a flipped-out freak and still he helped me and my wife when we were in trouble. That is the best in humanity, there; that is who and what I love."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick#cite_note-32
Heinlein wasn't "regressive" but conservative. Your formulation indicates that it is you who might not be progressive but regressive since conservatism - same root as conservatorship - is a legitimate and, especially in good times, logical and effective strategy: keep that which works, change only that which needs changing and be careful not to change it too much or too fast lest you destroy that which worked. Heinlein wrote this in 1952 when the sky wasn't the limit anymore and people were reaching for the "stars" - well, low earth orbit anyway - so he had plenty of backing for his conservatism.
> keep that which works
you forgot the "pretend that everything works" part
> conservatism is a legitimate and, especially in good times, logical and effective strategy: keep that which works, change only that which needs changing and be careful not to change it too much
Conservatism runs entirely on the ingroup-outgroup divide - "keep that which works for us", and be a force opposing changes sought by people for whom things are not going so well, for whom change is the logical strategy.
Honest conservatives can see past the blind spot of the divide and don't try to present their strategy as a universal ethical good.
That is not what conservativism as political ideology is. Like common, not clearly that and we have multiple years where this was made super clear by conservatives themselves.
Conservativism has nothing to do with "conservatorship". They are not trying to conserve, they are trying to force radical change - sometimes to imaginary past and sometimes toward something completely new. And then violently keep it there regardless of needs of other people.
It’s one of those cases where the label has stayed the same, but the thing it commonly describes has changed so much that the word just has multiple completely different meanings.
There’s the “let’s create National Parks to conserve our natural treasures!” conservatism and there’s the “let’s sell our National Parks to the highest bidder so they can drill for oil!” conservatism. It can mean fiscal responsibility and small government, or it can mean crypto scams and surveillance state.
This happens a lot when describing political positions.
The kind of conservatism that Heinlein embraced supported the idea that world government was necessary to prevent nuclear war. Today, granting more power to the UN or any other international body is ridiculed by most conservatives.
What is called conservatism in many countries today is totally different from what it was while Heinlein was alive.
This is like how Americans of the "conservative" bent use "liberal" as a perjorative, despite holding to liberal (or, occasionally, neoliberal) economic theory. I don't get America at all.
No. That is reactionary. Conservatism means "government should govern as little as possible to guarantee freedoms, and no less. it should not provide services for a fee (aka tax)."
It never meant that. Conservativism does not care about freedoms, except for cherry picked few freedoms for selected few. It also does not care about small government, it cares about government small in some areas and huge in others.
Conservative voters do not care about freedom, conservative politicians do not care about freedom and and considerable amounts of them are actively opposed to it.
Conservativism is consistently very authoritarian. It is about hierarchies, not freedom.
You definition sounds more like anarchism or some kind of ultra-libertarian end goal.
Agreed. "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is a good example - Heinlein tries quite hard to envisage a society in which women wield more social power, but can't quite relinquish the idea that women wish and deserve to be dominated by powerful men. Worth stating that 1952 was shortly after WW2 i.e. at the start of Heinlein's "middle period" when his worldview shifted dramatically towards more right-wing values (military patriotism, anti-communism, and individual self-reliance).
It is also possible, maybe even likely, that we are the ones who are odd.
Interesting that you choose "regressive" as the opposite of progressive. thinking emoji
Ah, Heinlein. There's not much energy up there, and the energy question is a big one. It's now 2026 and we are still at the point where we can only move a fraction to actual space of what we originally start off with down here. Our fuel is still not anywhere close to what we'd need in terms of energy density and throughput.
Excellent points on the intrinsic motivations and qualities absolutely dominating any control system.
But also plenty of places are nothing like Heinlein's hometown so this is far from universal.
>Politicians
I have yet to see one that isn't in it for personal gain without regard for the voters.
For the rest of the text, agree completely.
Did you engage in local politics?
Heinlein's preferred title for this essay was "Our Noble, Essential Decency."
The point about politicians is the one I think today most needs. Our public systems don't work when we inherently distrust them. This isn't reason alone to trust, but a bias towards distrust is a pernicious thing for society.
This might be terribly controversial, but I think that even today, even at the highest levels of power, evil is a rare exception, rather than the rule, and we oughta be aware of that.
I love it and I believe the same as him.
In dark hours I remind myself that humanity must be at least 50.1% good and 49.9% bad. Otherwise we would never have come so far.
THIS IS EDITED by the whoever owns the site. Might be slop generated.
Few paragraphs are taken out to smooth it out.
I think that this is the original: https://thisibelieve.org/essay/16630/
The world will definitely keep getting better
Damn good.
I believe countries and civilizations die when they stop believing this.
I believe much of it or want to believe much of it. But the section:
> I believe that almost all politicians are honest ... there are hundreds of politicians, low paid or not paid at all, doing their level best without thanks or glory to make our system work. If this were not true we would never have gotten past the 13 colonies.
I just cannot believe this is even remotely true any more. We seem to have descended into widespread corruption and hypocrisy since his time and that rot is apparent at the very top of the political ladder and seems to inhere downwards. Can’t see how it is going to improve now that it’s been legitimised and the political process completely gutted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
Results of that still up in the air.
I’m not sure I believe this anymore. Maybe around 2 years ago, I think.
But the trajectory, of everything it seems, has completely changed. And I have no optimism left.
The world would need to possibly take up arms against its leadership to recover from where it is right now. The problem is, I know the masses are pacifist and reasonable, and it’s the insane few that are either running everything or have all the money. That dreads me, because just as I wouldn’t take up arms, nobody else will either, so who will stop the descent?