This article originally appeared in The Detroit News July 31, 2024.

Fifty-five years ago Neil Armstrong stepped onto the moon.

“That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,” he said. Armstrong’s small step is celebrated in schools, museums and popular culture.

Going to the moon required Americans to change their mind about what was possible, but many were not up to the task.

Louis Anslow documents the opposition to the moon landing at the delightful website Pessimists Archive. According to a 1961 Gallup poll, only 33% of Americans supported the mission. Politicians denounced the idea. Barry Goldwater said it was “a terrible waste of money.” Former president Dwight D. Eisenhower said a race to the moon was “nuts.” Even astronomers were skeptical: 35% of the members of the American Astronomical Society thought the mission would offer little scientific value.

Change is hard and scary, so resistance to it is understandable.

We see the reluctance to embrace change in fiction as well. In her 1938 book “Anthem,” Ayn Rand tells the story of a future society that has fallen into a new Dark Age. The concept of the individual is forgotten; the words “I,” “me” and “my” are banned. Only the collective matters.

One man, Equality 7-2521, starts conducting scientific experiments in his spare time. He discovers how to generate electricity and fashions a crude lightbulb. He records his findings in a journal. “It is a sin to write this,” he says.

Equality 7-2521 takes his invention and journeys to the World Council of Scholars. He will give his discovery to the world and imagines the joy he will inspire.

Instead, the World Council of Scholars reacts with scorn and horror. How dare he conduct unauthorized experiments? Does he think he is wiser than the council? Has he considered how this discovery would disrupt the candle-making industry? The council chases Equality 7-2521 from society.

We do not banish our innovators today, of course. But too often people try to use the levers of government to hinder innovation — innovation that can promote a better standard of living. Our natural resistance to change is strong enough. When we combine this natural tendency with the power of the state, we deprive people of opportunity. Two examples:

Have you taken an Uber recently? Ridesharing apps such as Uber and Lyft came on the scene 15 years ago. It is easy to forget how controversial they were at first.

Taxi drivers, worried about their jobs, launched protests, strikes and lawsuits. Countries and cities worldwide tried to ban ridesharing and then pivoted to regulating it. Labor unions tried to unionize ridesharing drivers, and continue that effort. Airports feared that ridesharing would eat into parking revenue. The people have spoken, however. We keep ordering rides on our phones because it is often a convenient and superior service.

Next, consider Michigan’s K-12 government schools. The design of our education system makes new and innovative models more difficult, and it captures significant advantages for those who run it.

Public schools enjoy generous and guaranteed revenue. The Michigan Constitution prohibits the use of public dollars for private education. School districts have the power to trigger votes for more local funding. Ideas that would give families more flexibility, such as tuition tax credits or education savings accounts, provoke furious lobbying opposition from teachers unions and school administrators. All these regulations push most children into a single education system, which has underperformed for decades.

Innovation is a popular topic among Michigan policymakers. For example, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s Growing Michigan Together Council called for Michigan to become the “Innovation Hub of the Midwest.”

Perhaps the council can identify and eliminate laws that squash innovation.

That’s a small step we ought to take.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.