True enough. Like a lot of political issues, I suppose it all depends on which proposition has more public support. If the public wants to militarize space, it'll surely happen. If militarizing space is opposed strongly enough, it won't happen. We just have to ask ourselves what sort of future we want, come to a wise consensus, and then lobby to make it happen.
What continues to irk me is the deliberate blindness by both parties to the inspirational value of the space program. Remember the outcry when they were going to decommission Hubble -- which actually saved it? The interest in the Mars rovers, in the Pluto flyby?
I continue to be appalled that the moon landings are further in the past to my nieces (24 years) than World War II is to me (18 years). We haven't really done anything but doddle about just barely outside the atmosphere for the last forty-five years. How is that supposed to engage citizen interest?
I think the public will is probably far ahead of where the political will is. And I don't buy the arguments about the expense -- NASA's budget for everything
is less than one half of one percent of the Federal budget. It's barely the cost of three new nuclear subs (and they're planning on buying 12), and unlike the subs, it generates ongoing return on investment.