Neil deGrasse Tyson, Ph.D. believes we should spend more time and money reaching for the stars.
Click

How Much is a New Planet Worth?
Tyson initially grabs our attention by asserting that a manned mission to Mars would “surely cost hundreds of billions of dollars — maybe even $ 1 trillion.” This is a surprising number since the whole 1960s Apollo Moon program cost ~$ 150 B in today’s dollars. To approach $ 1 T you would have to look at a multi-decade program of manned Mars missions, which is not currently in the cards. Zubrin has recently shown how we can fly to Mars by 2016 for far less than the Apollo program.

On the other hand, in 2009 I estimated — based on cost ratios of pre-Maslow MEPs to the major Maslow MEPs over the last 200 years — that the coming Maslow Window (expected by mid-decade) will feature a total MEP expenditure of between $ 1 and 3 T (current USD). But this could include a variety of projects such as manned Mars, lunar bases, and space-based solar power infrastructures.

Because of their large costs, importance to national prestige, and use of high technology, major space programs become political issues, and Tyson highlights what he sees as the end of “immunity to partisanship” of the space program after 2004 when the Shuttle Columbia was lost. It got worse when President Obama took office in 2009. Partly due to his space policies and other controversial issues, Obama is the most polarizing president on record according to Gallup; his rating of 68 (the difference between the percent of Democrats and Republicans who approve of his job performance) is the highest on record for a president’s 3rd year, as were his partisan gaps for his first and second years (65 and 68).

Tyson notes that in the end, Obama’s suggestions for manned Mars missions in the 2030s have not been taken seriously because

When a president promises something beyond his years in office, he is fundamentally unaccountable … The only thing guaranteed to happen on his (Obama’s) watch is the interruption of the United States’ access to space.

While Tyson’s focus on politics is understandable, it misses the real point: Economics is the fundamental problem.

Doesn’t anyone watch Animal Planet anymore?
The last time I checked, when the main waterhole is drying up, disputes become common and everyone tends to be edgy about everything.

The same is naturally happening with the economy today. Negative animal spirits call into question positive visions of the future like space.

Tyson naturally believes — and he is right — that a visionary U.S. space program is the solution to motivating youth and revitalizing the American education system, as well as stimulating innovation and the economy. And most importantly:

The United States will once again witness how space ambitions can shape the destiny of nations.

But he does not emphasize that the fundamental reason we have been trapped in Earth orbit for 40 years (since Apollo) is because of the lack of a JFK-style economic boom that created exuberance by increasing prosperity to virtually every group in society and dropping unemployment to nearly zero.

Two hundred years of macroeconomic and political patterns as well as current global trends suggest we’re on trajectory for the next 1960s-style golden age of prosperity, exploration, and technology… to begin by mid-decade.

The political realignment that began in 2008 is continuing and will determine its exact timing.

With America’s sons in the fields far away, with America’s future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world’s hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office–the Presidency of your country.

Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.

…President Lyndon Johnson on March 31, 1968 with reference to Vietnam.

In 1968 President Johnson took the moral high ground and, to reduce “partisan divisions”, declined to run for a 2nd term.
Click

Today in the Wall Street Journal (11/21/11) two veteran Democratic pollsters suggest Obama might do likewise because of his inability to develop a “bipartisan” economic and foreign policy and his low job approval numbers.

Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen assert that:

When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.

They conclude that Obama would have to run the “most negative campaign in history” to overcome his record while President, and, even if he won, it would be “almost impossible for him to govern”. As “patriots” and “Democrats” Caddell and Schoen call on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to bring this message to President Obama and to convince Hillary Clinton to run in 2012.

Last September, Dick Morris — President Clinton’s former pollster — came to a similar conclusion and felt there was a “good chance” Obama will not run in 2012.

This is especially intriguing in the context of the eerie parallels between the economic and political chronology of the late 1890s — events that eventually triggered the early 20th century Peary/Panama/T. Roosevelt Maslow Window — and our trajectory today.

For example:
1. Both Presidents Grover Cleveland and Obama were elected near major financial panics (1893 for Cleveland and 2008 for Obama) that were followed by great recessions. Click: Wave Election.

2. The 1890s panic and great recession are becoming more widely recognized for their similarities to the economic crisis that began in 2008. Click: Eerily Similar.

According to Samuel Rezneck (Business Depressions and Financial Panics; 1968) the “unprecedented fiasco” began on May 5, 1893 and …

Spread to a nation-wide epidemic of some five hundred banks and nearly sixteen thousand business failures during the year … Recovery was slow, despite the recurring tendency, as during 1895, to grasp at “harbingers of widening prosperity,” only to be warned that, “the alleged era of prosperity is not in sight.”

Indeed, the second recession (double-dip) followed soon.

3. Cleveland’s and Obama’s presidential elections were each followed 2 years later by mid-term elections that featured significant political realignments favoring the other party. Click: Michael Barone.

4. Because of his inability to deal successfully with the great 1890s recession as well as union issues, Grover Cleveland was not renominated by his party for a second term. The fact that something similar may be happening to Obama today is extraordinary.

However, Obama’s political destiny (including possibly even his re-election) is obviously not as important as the game-changing signifcance of the societal drive for prosperity that we see around us today. Based on 200+ years of macroeconomic data and historical trends, it suggests the “Great Prosperity” can be expected to return by mid-decade.

Click
Should Columbus have waited for the 747 to be invented before he went to America?
Click

Back when I began to hear this need-new-propulsion talking point, I was surprised because it clearly isn’t true. As I mentioned in my decade space forecast in March, 2010:

4. We are the Beneficiaries of 60+ Years of Space Technology Development, and Are Capable of going to Mars, Developing the Moon, and/or Utilizing Space Resources in the Next Decade

We already have the basic technology to go to Mars and ISS can help resolve issues related to long duration human spaceflight before 2020. While advanced propulsion is always preferred on Mars missions, it is not required. Split mission concepts — where return propellants, consumables, and other cargo — are sent first to Mars orbit before the crew leaves Earth improve performance and safety for the crew vehicles. In situ resource utilization is an important technology that is needed to process propellants from water (or other substances) on Phobos and/or Mars. It needs to be developed but is hardly a showstopper.

Great explorations always involve significant risk. The risk must be identified, quantified, managed, and then accepted. In essence, you are ready to go exploring when you think you are.

Columbus and his descendants could have waited until the 747 was invented to make the trip to America — it would have been a lot safer and more comfortable — but they chose to go in 1492. There were many unknowns (a pre-mission cost/benefit analysis was difficult) and the crew suffered casualties, but the mission of exploration was a success and the world was changed.

In their 1963 EMPIRE study for NASA, German rocket scientist Krafft Ehricke and his staff at General Dynamics concluded that “Preliminary schedule analysis strongly indicates that a 1975 (manned) mission…to Mars is in the realm of realistic technological planning…” It was 6 years before the Moon landing, and Krafft Ehricke, Bill Strobl, and the other authors of the document calculated we were nearly ready to go to Mars. …

Zubrin concludes that VASIMR doesn’t hold water in the context of attempted mitigations of either cosmic radiation or zero-g effects en route to Mars. He concludes that the real cost of VASIMR goes beyond its R&D program,

its real cost … is the tens of billions that will be wasted as the human spaceflight program is kept mired in Earth orbit for the indefinite future, accomplishing nothing while waiting for the false vision to materialize …

For example, the presidency of John F. Kennedy is associated with one of the greatest periods of economic growth (the 1960s Apollo Maslow Window) in history. JFK’s ebullient mindset and actions set the tone for the most transformative decade of the last 100 years.

JFK, Vice President Johnson (left), and Jackie Kennedy watch the launch of the first American in space, Alan Shepard, in 1961.
Click

JFK, himself, saw his approval of manned spaceflight to the Moon in 1961 as

among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the Office of the Presidency.

JFK’s approach to Apollo provides insights into the coming decade, when a major economic boom is likely to trigger 1960s-style ebullience that historically causes civilization-altering technological spectaculars like Apollo to emerge.

Fortunately, John Logsdon’s excellent new book John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon (2010) offers a plethora of historical hints that suggest…

10 Lessons JFK and Apollo teach us about ebullience and the coming boom:

10. Apollo was an extraordinary decision by JFK that reflected the ebullience of the early 1960s.
The quintessential media figure of the time, Walter Cronkite, typified this mindset when he predicted that after Apollo 11, “everything else that has happened in our time is going to be an asterisk.”
Despite current conditions, do not be surprised to encounter — and even share — this exuberant mindset after 2015.

9. In 1961 the Soviets were ahead in space and there were significant technical issues facing NASA, yet JFK chose the Moon.
The Soviets launched 2 successful manned missions into orbit — including the first human into space (Yuri Gargarin) on April 12, 1961 — before the U.S. sent John Glenn into orbit on February 20, 1962. (Alan Shepard had become the 2nd human — and 1st American — in space with his suborbital flight on May 5, 1961.) And the Soviets added another first in June, 1963 when they launched the first woman (Valentina Tereshkova) into space. But in 1961 JFK was very concerned about the Soviet’s lead in rocket thrust. It was not until 2 1/2 years later (shortly after JFK’s death) that the U.S. Saturn 1 launch vehicle finally took the lead in that key category.
Despite great uncertainties, JFK’s ebullience provided an especially positive view of the future and the U.S.’s ability to prevail.

8. The future cost of Apollo was uncertain when JFK made his decision in 1961, but the 1960s boom initially made it nonessential.
Americans were so ebullient about space and Apollo that NASA’s first 5 years were characterized by “seemingly unlimited growth.” Amazingly, it wasn’t until January, 1963 that the New York Times initially suggested that:

Whether the $ 20 B (or $ 40 B) race to the Moon is justified …we do not think the matter has been sufficiently explained or sufficiently debated.

Notice that the Times didn’t know the cost either, even in 1963!
You’re immersed in peak ebullience when cost is not a central issue.

7. Ebullience is not limited to space; 1963 to 1966 was “The Perfect Storm” for social programs.
During this period President Lyndon B. Johnson was the author of many ebullient statements, including:

End poverty, conquer bigotry, heal the sick, teach all the young … We can do it all…

By 1966 “Even in the White House that kind of talk had begun to ring hollow…” when 385,000 Americans were fighting in Vietnam (Mackenzie and Weisbrot, 2008).
Ebullience is always a heady experience, but not always positive. And it usually ends sooner than expected. (It cost LBJ his presidency.)

6. Although by 1963 Congress had second thoughts, the American public supported Apollo through 1969.
Click

Roger Launius (2003) documents public support for Apollo in the 1960s. The top curve is ebullient; notice those who “approve of Apollo” fluctuate between 60% and 80%. In the middle, those who think “Apollo is worth the cost” are below 40% except for only 2 years: 1965 (45%) and 1969 (53%), the year of Apollo 11. Bringing cost into the question always confuses ebullient people, however the middle curve may appear more negative than it is. Other polls show that Americans traditionally wildly overestimate the cost of NASA; many think it consumes ~20% of the entire federal budget. Given a more realistic picture of NASA budgets, it’s likely the cost curve would ascend.
The ebullience driving 1960s space and social spending was strong for a total of 8 years, but it collapsed due to the war and costs.

5. In 1961 when he made the big decision, JFK was not certain the Soviets were racing to the Moon.
The U.S. had endured “the shock of the century” in 1957 when the Soviets launched Sputnik. This triggered the Space Age and the formation of NASA one year later. However, when JFK as president experienced the launch of the first human into space (Cosmonaut Yuri Gargarin) on April 12, 1961, he knew it was serious geopolitcal business. (Less than one week after Gargarin, the U.S. launched the unsuccessful Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.) Given the Soviet threat and the ebullient reception for NASA, JFK concluded that the U.S. could not tolerate being #2 in space. In reality, Khrushchev didn’t approve a Soviet race to the Moon until August, 1964, and he lost power later that year.
The 1960s were the most recent example of an international “Critical State,” where ebullience is high, and positive things (e.g., Peace Corps, Apollo) and negative things (e.g., Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis) can happen rapidly, seemingly without warning.

4. JFK considered several options, but ultimately believed that the Soviet space challenge required an ebullient response.
JFK was not particularly interested in space when he became president, and he initially considered a variety of alternatives to a Moon race. However, his idealism and ebullience were triggered by the Space Science Board report, chaired by Lloyd Berkner (McDougall, 1985),

Man’s exploration of the Moon and planets is potentially the greatest inspirational venture of this century and one in which the whole world can share; inherent here are great and fundamental philosophical and spiritual values which find a response in man’s questing spirit and his intellectual self-realization.

Indeed, as JFK told his science advisor Jerome Wiesner,

If you had a scientific spectacular on this earth that would be more useful — say desalting the ocean –or something that is just as dramatic and convincing as space, then we would do it.

Ultimately space won out because it was more ebullient, dramatic, convincing. Being #1 in space strongly reinforced America’s national power.

3. JFK saw the Moon as potentially an opportunity to collaborate with the Soviets.
JFK proposed that the U.S. and Soviet Union go to the Moon together. The first time was privately during his June, 1961 Vienna summit meeting, shortly after JFK’s announcement of the U.S. Moon program. Khrushchev declined because of military security relating to their ICBMs. The second time was a very public speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 20, 1963. JFK was assassinated 2 months later.
Over the last 200 years, the twice-per-century “critical states” have always featured major booms and peak ebullience, but there’s been more international competition than cooperation, including during Apollo. Given the success of the International Space Station, this is likely to change during the 2015 Maslow Window.

2. “If we can put a man on the Moon …”
The Apollo Program gave birth to an ebullient, famous cliche and set a standard of excellence against which all other challenging endeavors continue to be measured. JFK made the Moon commitment openly in front of a joint session of Congress on May 25, 1961, more than eight years before the first astronauts landed on the Moon in 1969. All things considered, Apollo was one of the most ebullient, amazingly successful, peacetime projects in the history of the U.S..
As we approach the 2015 Maslow Window, we expect a new JFK-style leader to emerge and encourage the next quantum leap in human expansion.

1. Camelot-style ebullience — the driver of the Apollo Moon program — was triggered by the 1960s Kennedy economic boom.
The last 200+ years of economic and technology history are supportive of JFK’s experience: A major boom triggers widespread affluence-induced ebullience. However, it’s the ebullience that actually drives the “golden age” by catapulting many in society to higher levels in Maslow’s hierarchy. Elevated Maslow states, and their momentraily expanded worldviews, make great explorations and huge technology projects seem not only intriguing, but almost irresistible. However, when the Vietnam War eroded ebullience by 1966, the 1960s “Maslow Window” began to close.
When the next JFK-style boom occurs (expected by 2015), a transformative pulse of Apollo-style exploration will follow.

Growth during the coming year will be subpar at best, leaving high or rising levels of unemployment and underemployment.

Feldstein’s scrutiny of the numbers reveals that, because most of the anemic 1.8% first quarter growth for 2011 went into business inventories, “the actual quarterly increase was just 0.15%.” And the Obama administration’s “stimulus” package created a “bigger deficit without economic growth.” The situation will continue,

until someone enacts a plan to bring deficits under control without raising taxes.

What’s the solution to an increasingly imperiled recovery?
Click

Allan Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon emphasizes the generational implications of low growth.

After one generation, a one percentage point difference in growth rate becomes a 25% difference in per-capita income.

In contrast to the booming global ecnomy, Federal Reserve officials today (WSJ, 6/23/11) admitted that…

The U.S. economy is settling into a disappointingly weak recovery this year and next, and … they have done all they are prepared to do to spur growth for now.

Plus, the Congressional Budget Office today added to concerns about sinking home prices, falling comsumer confidence, and a “misery idex” at a 28-year high, by warning that if growth in the $ 14.2 T national debt is left unchecked, the U.S. could face a European-style “sudden fiscal crisis.”

Despite deepening concerns about our imperiled recovery, there is a growing recognition from diverse sources that rapid economic growth in the U.S. is possible just around the corner.

Prominent examples include:
1) Standard Chartered Bank documents that we’ve entered a new growth “super-cycle” of the type that culminated in the 1960s Boom associated with President John F. Kennedy,

2) Stanford economist John B. Taylor recently indicated that a 5% national economic growth goal is not some “pie-in-thesky number” and makes a “great deal of sense”,
and
3) William Halal, president of TechCast — an online think tank of 100 global experts — forecasts a “new economic boom in 2015“.

TechCast data show emerging technology frontiers are likely to lead the world out of global recession. Green Business, Climate Control, Alternative Energy, E-Commerce, and other sectors are likely to start the next economic upcycle about 2015.

Plus, based on long-term GDP growth trends since the 19th century, 21stCenturyWaves.com recently projected that a major, JFK-style economic boom — featuring 5% annual growth — is likely by 2015.

How will this transition occur?

It appears the U.S. is reliving key elements of its economic history of one century ago. The financial Panic of 1893 triggered the great 1890s recession, which featured 10+% unemployment and a double-dip. It’s reminiscent of our current trajectory — minus the double-dip, at least for now — since 2008.

The deep 1890s contraction soon resulted in a political realignment that ignited a major JFK-style boom. This spectacular 5% expansion surged through the first decade of the 20th century and triggered the stunning Peary/Panama/T. Roosevelt Maslow Window.

The importance of a growing, healthy economy will become the defining issue of 2012. As happened a century ago, the party that can best model prosperity will win.

Are we headed for a new Camelot-style golden age of prosperity, exploration, and technology, or just a “new normal”?
Click

Of course I was unaware of Govenor Pawlenty’s economic plan, but a 5% goal is historically realistic as we approach the long-awaited, transformative Maslow Window.

This weekend, in his blog “Economics One”, Stanford economics professor John B. Taylor expressed support for Pawlenty’s proposal.

I think the goal makes a great deal of sense. It would focus policymakers like a laser beam on the great benefits that come from higher growth and on the pro-growth policies needed to achieve it. As with any goal, if you take it seriously, you’ll choose policies that work toward that goal and reject those that don’t.

In fact, according to Harvard economics professor Benjamin Friedman, rapid economic growth is a moral imperative.

Periods of economic expansion in America and elsewhere, during which most citizens had reason to be optimistic, have also witnessed greater openness, tolerance, and democracy. To repeat: such advances occur for many reasons. But the effect of economic growth versus stagnation is an important and often central part of the story.

But not everyone gets it.

For example, the Washington Post (6/9/11; R. Marcus) suffers from a short-term perspective.

Yes — very occasionally. Once in the past 30 years, with GDP growth of 7.2 percent in 1984. Pawlenty conveniently cherry-picks years (1983 to 1987, 1996 to 1999) that come close to his 5 percent target — but those periods followed stretches of economic slowdown. It’s certainly never grown at a 5 percent clip for 10 years straight …

Wrong twice. We are recovering from an “economic slowdown” so, as the Post implies, we should expect a burst in growth relatively soon. And we’ve previously had decade-long stretches at or above 5% — they’re called Maslow Windows.

For example, during the 1960s Apollo Maslow Window the U.S. grew at 5% for nearly the entire decade, stimulated by JFK’s famous tax cuts. And for 9 years during the Peary/Panama/T. Roosevelt Maslow Window — following the financial Panic of 1893 — growth was 5%. Plus for 12 years (1844 to 1856) during the mid-19th century Maslow Window — following the financial Panic of 1837 — mean annual growth was 5.8%.

A sustained, 1960s-style ~5% boom is the hallmark of Maslow Windows over the last 200 years. That’s one key reason a near-term, JFK-style boom is expected.

Looking at recent trends in productivity, employment, and demographics, Taylor’s back-of-the-envelope calculation projects about 2% employment growth and 2.7% productivity growth. Their sum suggests 5% annual growth sustained over a near-term decade is very doable.

If you’re searching for a metaphor for the U.S. economy right now, think of an athlete who is recovering from serious injury and must navigate a difficult obstacle course. She’s getting into better shape but there are hazards along the way…

In a similar vein, J.P. Morgan recently downgraded their GDP growth forecast for 2011 to only 1.4%, and Macroeconomic Advisors likewise slashed their previous forecast (of 4%) for 2011 to 1.7%.

Stanford economist John B. Taylor believes this simple chart holds the secret to future prosperity.
Click

Former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, Robert Reich (RobertReich.org; 8/17/10) recognizes the value of economic growth and its long wave influences, including the “Great Prosperity” which culminated in the 1960s Apollo Maslow Window.

Faster growth greases the way toward more equal oportunity and a wider distribution of gains. The wealthy more easily accept a smaller share … the middle class more willingly pays taxes to support public improvements like a cleaner environment and stronger safety nets. It’s a virtuous cycle. We had one during the Great Prosperity that lasted from 1947 to the early 1970s.

On the other hand,

Slower growth had the reverse effect … It’s a vicious cycle. We’ve been in one most of the last thirty years.

See also: “Prosperity: A Technological and a Moral Imperative.”

Our recovery from decades of slower economic growth to another “Great Prosperity” — expected to begin near 2015 — is essential to the new international Space Age. The Great Boom of 2015 is expected to trigger widespread JFK-style ebullience that will drive the new Apollo-style golden age of human expansion into the cosmos.

See also: “State of the Wave — 10 Space Trends for 2011″

Here’s Blinder’s prioriitized (low to high concern) list of “the four biggest obstacles to recovery”:
1) The Japanese disaster, 2) The European debt crisis, 3) The U.S. budget deficit, and 4) The oil market.

Although Japan’s nuclear situation has recently been compared to Chernobyl, Blinder believes that in “well-ordered economies” like Japan, the effects will be “short-term.” And while the EU members have “bickered, dithered, and delayed,” a financial collapse in Europe is “unlikely.”
Although gold closed at a record high above $ 1500 per ounce this week — indicating a general lack of confidence in governments — Blinder amazingly sees only a 5% chance that the deficit will remain a serious problem for the recovery.

Blinder is most concerned about oil price shocks (such as in summer, 2008) to the U.S. economy; e.g., economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal in February said oil would have to exceed $ 125 a barrel “to threaten the U.S. economy.” Today oil is $ 112 and rising.

Blinder estimates a 40% probability that any of these events will become a serious obstacle to the recovery — which he confesses leaves him “uneasy.”

In the midst of these economic and political fireworks, Stanford economist John B. Taylor proposes a “fact-based” debate on the economy (WSJ, 4/22/11). His chart (see above) shows annual government spending as a percent of GDP over the last decade (since 2000) and projected through the next (to 2021). The top two curves are the White House budget plans of February 14 and April 13, and the House (Ryan) plan of April 5.

According to Taylor,

When I show people this chart they ask why Washington is even having the debate. They say: If government agencies and programs functioned with 19% to 20% of GDP in 2007, why is it so hard for them to function with that percentage in 2021, when GDP will be substantially higher and with many opportunities for reforms and increased efficiencies? And if GDP and employment grow more quickly, as they would if private investment increased as a result of lower government spending and debt, then that 19% to 20% share of GDP could provide much more in the way of public goods.

Taylor’s chart highlights the political choice the American people are faced with: The Obama plan with higher government spending (~22% of GDP) requiring “substantial tax increases.” or the House vision with faster economic growth, spending near 2007 levels, and no increase in taxes.

This political situation is eerily reminiscent of the Great 1890s Recession that followed the financial Panic of 1893, and the challenges of President Grover Cleveland. As they always have over the last 200+ years, during an approach to a Maslow Window and recovery from a great recession, the people a century ago voted for prosperity.

Even ~5 years out from the next anticipated Kennedy-style Boom, prosperity is an easy political call to make. What’s hard is identifying which party — Republicans or Democrats — will be most effective in packaging it.

That’s because over the last 200+ years, no Maslow Window has ever been delayed or diminished in any observable way by any economic downturn or military conflict.

Human nature and the laws of economics — which drive economic and political cycles and the Maslow hierarchy — have proven to be very formidible in limiting modern human society to only 2 transformative decades per century. This is because they’ve been ignored by policy-makers and the electorate for so long.

President John F. Kennedy (right, in 1963 at Cape Canaveral, FL) is the ebullient model for a 21st century “space president” — in 2012 or 2016 — who will lead the U.S. and the world into the large-scale utilization and colonization of space.
Click .

I liked the miniseries.

Although it had little directly to do with space — e.g., there is a fleeting image of an Atlas missile lifting off during the credits (!) — the historical insights provided into related events (e.g., Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis) and the Kennedy’s personal challenges are compelling, although not particularly revealing if you know their family history.

The authors of “Camelot” — the fondly remembered zeitgeist of the 1960s — the Kennedy’s have been called America’s “Royal Family” as well as the “Beatles of the political arena”. And although JFK’s presidency lasted only 1000 days, his legacy has influenced generations.

Here at 21stCenturyWaves.com we’re huge admirers of JFK for his visionary leadership of the Apollo program during the 1960s Space Age. In the context of human exploration, JFK is truly the mid-20th century equivalent of Thomas Jefferson (for Lewis and Clark), and in terms of technology, he’s nothing less than the Theodore Roosevelt (for the Panama Canal) of his generation.

But the question is: Who will be the new JFK — the 21st century “Space President” who will lead global expansion into the cosmos? Long wave timing suggests this individual will be elected either in 2012 or 2016 so he or she should be visible now.

In late 2008, because of her close family association with JFK and his legacy, contributing editor Carol Lane and I suggested Caroline Kennedy might be perfect. Her political timing would have worked too, but she decided not to run for Hillary’s Senate seat.

Earlier in 2008, managing editor Rachel Nishimura and I speculated that — due to his charisma and youth — Barack Obama might be the next JFK-style Space President. But because of the economy and Obama’s space policy, that seems increasingly unlikely — although it still is possible.

Over the last 200+ years, one thing becomes clear,

As we approach a Maslow Window (such as the one expected in 2015), the leader who can best manifest prosperity and model ebullience wins. In the early 1800s it was Jefferson, in the mid-1840s it was James Polk (of all people), in the early 20th century it was Theodore Roosevelt, and in the 1960s John F. Kennedy. It appears that long-term economic circumstances do more to determine our leaders than the reverse.

History shows that someone who strongly “models ebullience” and “manifests prosperity” will soon emerge on the political scene. For example, take Donald Trump; his business success and financial resources are reminiscent of JFK’s father (e.g., both are billionaires in 2011 dollars), and Trump’s charisma and media presence are obvious.

However unlike JFK in 1960, Trump has no political or military experience. Whether or not Trump can achieve political support for 2012, it’s likely that someone with his ebullient characteristics will lead the U.S. and the world into the next Space Age.

British historian Simon Sebag Montefiore sees current Arab uprisings as reminiscent of the watershed European revolutions of 1848.
See

21stCenturyWaves.com has previously identified the decade just prior to (or early during) Maslow Windows, over the last 200+ years, to be dangerous times of international conflicts, wars, and upheavals. The classic example is the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis early in the Apollo Maslow Window that could have led to a major nuclear exchange. Indeed, recent conflicts with North Korea and Iran suggest that the world system is approaching a “critical state.”
See: “Near-Term Wars Threaten the New Space Age“.

The question is: Do the Arab uprisings of today — and their historical parallels — support that pattern?

According to Montefiore, there is something to be said for spontaneity.

Leaderless revolutions without organization have a magically spontaneous momentum that is harder to crush … This time, headless spontaneity has been aided by Facebook, which certainly accelerates the mobilization of crowds — and the transmission of Western culture…

Montefiore believes that for today’s Arab uprisings, “technology’s effect is exaggerated…” For example, in the stunning European revolutions of 1848,

uprisings spread from Sicily to Paris, Berlin, Vienna and Budapest in mere weeks without telephones, let alone Twitter. They spread through the exuberance of momentum and the rigid isolation of repressive rulers.

As Montefiore surveys uprisings over the last 200 years, the revolution of 1848 is

the revolution that most resembles today’s.

Like the Cuban Missile Crisis, the watershed European revolutions of 1848, began early in their Maslow Window, suggesting both were influenced by the ebullience of the approaching critical state. Although the United States was not directly involved, it was certainly affected by this mid-19th century zeitgeist. Indeed, against all odds, a smaller-than-life man — President James A. Polk — achieved the impossible by “engineering the triumph of Manifest Destiny” (NY Times) in only 4 short years.
See: “How the West Was Won — The Expansionist Effects of Ebullience”.

Interestingly, Dr. Lawrence Beale — a 77-year old African American, retired pastor, college counselor, and college administrator — sees parallels between current Arab uprisings and the U.S. civil rights movement during the last Maslow Window.

The Middle East and North Africa seems to be taking a page from the history of the civil rights movement in America during the 1950s and 1960s when black Americans demonstrated in the streets to gain the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

At least some of the freedom-fighters are directly inspired by U.S. history. According to Dr. Beale,

Middle Easterners, North Africans, and now Chinese have taken to the streets in largely peaceful demonstrations crying out for human rights—the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. On CBN Tuesday, a woman was asked by a reporter, “What do you want.” She responded, “We want freedom.” When she was pressed by the reporter about what she meant, she cited one part of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but could not remember the rest. So she concluded, “We have been taught that freedom is not a right.” But she continued to insist that she wanted freedom.

Dr. Beale concludes that, “Like the civil rights movement, the demonstrators are unsettling their nations.”

Maslow Windows are identified by economic, technological, and political patterns over the last 200+ years. Parallels between the European revolutions of 1848 and the current Arab uprisings — as identified by historian Montefiore — and parallels between the American civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s and current Arab uprisings — as identified by Dr. Beale — support 21stCenturyWaves.com’s expectation that similar civilization-altering events are likely to occur just prior to or early in Maslow Windows of the future.

Therefore, the current Arab uprisings offer further empirical support for the arrival of another 1960s-style transformative decade — including an Apollo-style, international Space Age — by 2015.

Iran plans some serious, potentially weapon-related uranium enrichment activities at its plant in Natanz.
Click

The Threat
Reports suggest Iran has its own uranium mines and is within one (U.S. sources) to 3 years (Israeli intelligence) of developing its own nuclear devices. And Iran has apparently obtained (from North Korea) “powerful missiles able to reach European capitals,” (Wall Street Journal, 11/29/10). It’s a situation Obama will have to deal with.

Brookings’ Suzanne Maloney concurs that continued failures — exacerbated by Wikileaks revelations — of international talks with Iran to limit its nuclear development would mean that “military action could be on the table.”

Serious Conflicts Are Expected
Current tensions with Iran, North Korea, and even potentially Venezuela are similar to the dangerous conflicts that have routinely occurred either just prior to, or early in Maslow Windows over the last 200 years. The classic example is 1962′s Cuban Missile Crisis that could have triggered a nuclear war but was rapidly brought under control. And in fact, it intensified the U.S.- Soviet race to the Moon.
(See: “Korea, Iran, and the Venezuela Missile Crisis: Self-Organizing Toward a Critical State?”)

Indeed, no Maslow Window of the last 200 years has ever been delayed or diminished in any observable way by an early or pre-Maslow Window military conflict.
(See: “Near-Term Wars Threaten the New Space Age”)

And, although the Iran nuclear situation is potentially very threatening, there is every historical reason to believe that it too will eventually be resolved without a major war.

However, it’s possible in the next year or two that this empirically-based scenario could be wrong. For example, if the U.S. decided to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and the attack failed, it might trigger a larger conflict and be a political catastrophe.

The Political Context
Several commentators have explored the political dimensions of a U.S. attack on Iran. For example, last February Middle East expert Daniel Pipes asserted that the only way for Obama to reverse negative public perceptions of himself is to “give orders for the U.S. military to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapon capacity.” This “dramatic gesture” is militarily doable and has enjoyed strong public support at the ~60% level since 2009.

Pipes has received significant support for his idea, including Elliott Abrams (Council of Foreign Relations) who predicts that Obama will bomb Iranian nukes and reap political benefits (8/17/10).

The Obama who had struck Iran and destroyed its nuclear program would be a far stronger candidate, and perhaps an unbeatable one.

Likeswise, George Friedman of Stratfor sees potential political benefits for Obama from an Iranian military option (10/26/10),

…given the domestic gridlock that appears to be in the offing, a shift to a foreign policy emphasis makes sense, Obama needs to be seen as an effective commander in chief and Iran is the logical target.

And David Broder (Washington Post) also links military success in Iran with political success for Obama (10/31/10).

The nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world … If he can confront this threat and contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.

And Since the Election…
Obviously, the recent historic, wave election has not strengthened Obama politically. For example, the frequently quoted University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato refers to Obama now as “OTB”: One Term Barack (11/11/10).

President Barack Obama is down for the count, will have an early lame duck presidency, and will be out of the White House in two years … If President Obama is smart, he will try to salvage his term in the White House by announcing now that he will not undertake a hopeless campaign for reelection, and instead form a bipartisan national unity government to try to hold the nation together…

Sabato’s article indicates that Obama will not have an easy re-election in 2012. And I suspect that Pipes et al. would see Obama’s political weakness as strengthening their expectations for an attack.

So What Will Obama Do?
There are four basic reasons that I believe Obama will not attack Iran.
1. Military — Any U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities must succeed. A failure might lead to a larger war and would be politically catastrophic for Obama (similar to Jimmy Carter’s Iran hostage crisis). And the military pros (e.g., Adm. Mike Mullen) publicly regard an attack as an unattractive “last option” potentially afflicted with “unintended consequences” — although that could be said of almost any military action.
2. Politics — In a best case scenario, Obama would lose the support of his liberal base and others in the Democratic Party, although he might gain many Independents and some Republicans. It would be viewed by his base as worse than extending the Bush tax cuts. Unlike Pipes et al., I’m not convinced Obama would gain more support than he’d lose.
3. Ideology — Obama campaigned as an anti-war (in Iraq) candidate. His subsequent experiences in both Iraq and Afghanistan, his rhetorical attempts to draw closer to the Muslim world, and his general approach to the domestic War on Terror, together argue against his being inclined toward an attack on Iran.
4. History — Over the last 200 years major wars do not occur just before or early in a Maslow Window. (Long-term historical patterns show that a major war is unlikely until the 2020s.) Because even a successful attack by the U.S. on Iranian nuclear facilities could trigger a larger war, it appears to be an unlikely scenario.