Adam Roberts on TMIAHM (2)

Today I am going to continue my discussion of Adam Roberts’ review of Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

First, I would like to focus on the main theme of Moon, libertarianism. Roberts conclusion about Heinlein’s opinion of libertarianism is similar to mine: Heinlein clearly supports it, but in Moon he points out some of its flaws. At first, this conclusion seems a bit off-base—throughout the book, the narrator glorifies small government and personal liberties. However, I believe—as does Roberts—that Heinlein portrays it this way because the reader is supposed to realize that he is hinting that such a society is too to be true. This is similar to the approach he used in Starship Troopers: the narrator raves about the advantages of fascism and militarism, but Heinlein expects the reader to see through his false arguments. The same can be said of his approach to polygamy and group marriage in Moon: thought Heinlein believes in both, he pokes fun at certain aspects of group marriage by portraying it as too perfect.

In the first half of the book, Heinlein focuses on the libertarian revolution itself. Again, though the narrative voice glorifies the revolution, in reality it is far from romantic. The revolution is not libertarian at all—from start to finish two or three individuals control it. The revolution is carried out with much help from the almost omnipotent computer Mike, who is almost certainly too good to be true. Heinlein leaves out all the messy details of revolution—for the most part the revolution is bloodless and pain-free. In other words: Heinlein is showing us a caricature, a parody of real revolution.  The revolutionaries themselves are far less respectable under the microscope as well—at first they appear to be a merry bunch of romantic idealists, but a closer look reveals that they have more in common with terrorists.

Later on, this satirical theme is still present. The small gang of characters who organized the revolution creates a mock-up of a democracy while they silence all opposition. Anyone who attempts to interfere with their policies in Congress is dubbed a “yammerhead” and is silenced by their majority. They rig an election to re-elect themselves, while at the same time declaring their support for democracy. This is certainly not a libertarian government in any sense—it reeks of authoritarianism and oligarchy. Interestingly, Heinlein portrays the blatant authoritarian rule as benevolent—he shows how a group of super intelligent overachievers could rule society very efficiently. This odd contrast makes the overall message of the novel somewhat unclear. I agree with Robert’s analysis: Heinlein is taking “relocating the political dynamic [of libertarian revolution] to the twenty-first century.” It is a utopian satire, but Heinlein is not fundamentally opposed to the system he is criticizing.