It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
This is fantastic rhetoric in the service of a fundamentally anti-intellectual point.
Note first that it proves too much. Richard Nixon referenced this speech as he was resigning the presidency after Watergate. Was Nixon the "man in the arena" who deserved praise for "striving valiantly"? He thought so.
Not also that it assumes what it is trying to prove: that the critic does not have practical experience, that the cause of the criticized is "worthy", and that "daring greatly" is more important than daring correctly. But perhaps most importantly, it assumes that critique is epiphenomenal, that it will not have any effect on the course of events. But we know this isn't true.
In this case, many of those critiquing the project of manned planetary exploration are experts in the field. They are in the arena as much as those being critiqued.
In THIS case, a writer for the Atlantic with a bio of "Shannon Stirone is a freelance science writer based in the Bay Area" is criticizing. If we had an expert in planetary exploration doing the criticism, I think it would be a more interesting conversation, even if I feel that conversation would be FAR more nuanced than - "Mars bad. Elon Musk bad." Which is what I read here. If I agree with Elon's vision or not is immaterial - he's executing, I'm not, neither is the author. If I have a better idea, I should do it, or at least get it to a point of doable, then we can discuss if they are mutually exclusive or at cross purposes.
