NASA and the Last Fig Leaf of Big Government

We landed on the moon over two generations ago, and ever since NASA has been used as intellectual support for those who think we can solve any problem with a wave of the legislative or regulatory wand. “If government can put a man on the moon,” goes statist conventional wisdom, “it can do anything.” If you’ve ever been in a debate with a true believer in the magic of big government, you’ve probably heard some variation of this generic argument.

Despite the significant flaws in this logic, it was always difficult to convince the general public just why it was wrong. Now, with the ridiculous admission of NASA Administrator Charles Bolden that the so-called space agency’s priority is to boost Muslim self-esteem, this last fig leaf of big government has finally been removed. Believers in grand government solutions to all social problems are left naked for all to see.

The comment itself isn’t really the big story. Yes, it’s outrageous. It represents everything that is wrong with the PC-obsessed, America-bashing, leftist administration currently occupying the White House. But it’s merely the latest in a lengthy list of NASA disappointments. The real story is the slow, drawn-out transformation of NASA from a symbol of American exceptionalism into a national embarrassment.

Given the dramatic and iconic bang with which NASA introduced itself to the public, it’s easy to overlook that it’s a government bureaucracy just like any other. It suffers from all the typical failings of government institutions. Without market pressures, NASA has grown increasingly wasteful. A recent GOA report found that 9 out of 10 assessed projects experienced cost overruns and delays. That’s almost a perfect score in inefficiency.

The idea that NASA ought to concern itself, and much less as a top priority, with the self-esteem of Muslims is another example of the type of problems inherent in government bureaucracies. Specifically in this case, it’s mission creep. Unlike most private institutions (how sad is it that this statement now requires a qualifier at all?), public bureaucracies stay afloat by convincing politicians to continue allocating budgetary funds. The greater the number of “problems” an organization attempts to address, the greater pool of political money available. So rather than just concerning itself with space travel, NASA must make itself useful by finding other issues of interest to politicians. And it almost goes without saying that politicians are motivated primarily by political concerns like satisfying special interests and garnering votes. Their misguided priorities will eventually overwhelm any organization that relies on them for funding.

So what happened to this once successful agency? The truth is NASA just got lucky the first time, and reality has finally caught up. An unusual national focus on a single goal was able to overcome bureaucratic roadblocks and produce magnificent results. But determination and a nation focused on a common goal can only mask systemic problems in the short run. In the long run, government is simply wasteful and ineffective. No agency can hide for any considerable length of time from the systemic faults of centralized, top-down control. Eventually, the lack of competitive pressure will result in complacency. Innovation is slowly but surely replaced with an attitude aimed at maintaining the status quo. No matter the lofty goals behind an organization’s creation, soon it becomes that the only goal that matters is maintaining or expanding funding for the next fiscal year.

Believers in the power of government have long seen NASA as a model for what government can do. And I have to agree with them; it is a model. It’s just one which they fail to interpret correctly. Yes, NASA placed a man on the moon. It’s also squandered hundreds of billions of dollars since, with little more than a half completed space station and a crumbling shuttle fleet to show for it. It’s time to put this dying federal agency to rest, and unleash instead the creative power of the private sector.