by 2nd trick op
I've never made apologies for characterizing myself as a conservative, mostly on economic rather than social issues, but the natural broadening of horizons that come with advancing age has also turned me into more of a pragmatist. I can understand why entrepreneurship alone isn't always a guarantee of economic success, why the rail industry usually accepts and co-operates with a unionized labor force because the high concentration of capital can guarantee both generous pay scales and a well-disciplined work force, and why the entire transportation sector cannot escape a high degree of public-sector coopertion and oversight.
And I'm not particularly enthused with Rush Limbaugh. While his arguments can demonstrate themselves to be quite logical once the bluster is removed, he represents a "rough edge" which, for better or worse, did galvanize and strengthen a segment of the conservative coalition more given to simple, rough answers, simply beacuse their role as small enetrepreneurs and businessmen draws them much closer to the street than the educational, philanthropic and entertainment sectors who form a large component of the liberal/progressive opposition. In doing so, some of his followers have ceded a portion of the "high ground" of civility (although nobody seemed to worry about this back in 2008, when the opposition was the target).
But to get to the point, I paid one of my visits to the "ditto-heads' paradise" (which average about 15 minutes, once or twice a week) and found Marc Steyn filling in for Limbaugh and skewering the State of the Union address earlier this week. And just as the Obama coalition attempted to use High Speed rail as its centerpiece two winters ago, every few minutes Steyn would return to the High Speed rail projects as a crowning example of the unworkability of a large-scale, high-cost, and above all, centrally managed and co-ordinated boondoggle.
And the regrettable fact is, that for that portion of the economy that lives outside the urban areas and works at jobs which either require travel to less-accessible locations, or at non-traditional hours, or requires the transport of tools or goods, that assesment is correct, and those groups are often at the center of the conservative/Tea Party revolt.
The younger and more enthusiastic at this site can ballyhoo foreign HSR success stories as much as they wish; the fact remains that much of this growth is sustained by class-struggle-rooted tax structures designed to penalize automobile ownership. The praise of the repressive Chinese regime isn't likely to win too many friends outside the left side of the aisle either.
But I'm not offering this post as a conservative rant. The fact remains that long-term difficultes with the extraction and development of easily-handled fossil fuel will continue to push the price higher (and with the current price within about $.20 of that in the spring of 2008, I wouldn't be too suprised if both George Soros and those oh-so-socially-conscious folks at the helm of the endowments for Harvard, Yale et al are positioning themselves to ride the next speculative wave). Or that those trends will argue for further concentration of our population within the urban corridors where mass transit is a more feasible alternative.
And finally, it should be recognized that current trends within California, if nowhere else, woud seem to favor the establisment of a serious HSR pilot project within the Central Valley, where the start-up cost would be relatively low. Getting that system over both the legal and physical obstacles at either end is likely to take at least another generation. But this is the only market, and political environment, of which I can concieve where the extremes are so far apart that a centrist's sense of pragmatism might be allowed to rule.
Most of the younger and/or more recent followers of this forum aren't going to like most of what I've posted; some of the most conservative on the othr side of the fence are likely to dismiss it just as readily. But the dispute isn't so much about "civility" as it is the search for something that works (and admittedly, the nature of politics is going to make the path to that first step both much more roundabout and much more expensive). But otherwise, the cycle will simply repeat itself.
And I'm not particularly enthused with Rush Limbaugh. While his arguments can demonstrate themselves to be quite logical once the bluster is removed, he represents a "rough edge" which, for better or worse, did galvanize and strengthen a segment of the conservative coalition more given to simple, rough answers, simply beacuse their role as small enetrepreneurs and businessmen draws them much closer to the street than the educational, philanthropic and entertainment sectors who form a large component of the liberal/progressive opposition. In doing so, some of his followers have ceded a portion of the "high ground" of civility (although nobody seemed to worry about this back in 2008, when the opposition was the target).
But to get to the point, I paid one of my visits to the "ditto-heads' paradise" (which average about 15 minutes, once or twice a week) and found Marc Steyn filling in for Limbaugh and skewering the State of the Union address earlier this week. And just as the Obama coalition attempted to use High Speed rail as its centerpiece two winters ago, every few minutes Steyn would return to the High Speed rail projects as a crowning example of the unworkability of a large-scale, high-cost, and above all, centrally managed and co-ordinated boondoggle.
And the regrettable fact is, that for that portion of the economy that lives outside the urban areas and works at jobs which either require travel to less-accessible locations, or at non-traditional hours, or requires the transport of tools or goods, that assesment is correct, and those groups are often at the center of the conservative/Tea Party revolt.
The younger and more enthusiastic at this site can ballyhoo foreign HSR success stories as much as they wish; the fact remains that much of this growth is sustained by class-struggle-rooted tax structures designed to penalize automobile ownership. The praise of the repressive Chinese regime isn't likely to win too many friends outside the left side of the aisle either.
But I'm not offering this post as a conservative rant. The fact remains that long-term difficultes with the extraction and development of easily-handled fossil fuel will continue to push the price higher (and with the current price within about $.20 of that in the spring of 2008, I wouldn't be too suprised if both George Soros and those oh-so-socially-conscious folks at the helm of the endowments for Harvard, Yale et al are positioning themselves to ride the next speculative wave). Or that those trends will argue for further concentration of our population within the urban corridors where mass transit is a more feasible alternative.
And finally, it should be recognized that current trends within California, if nowhere else, woud seem to favor the establisment of a serious HSR pilot project within the Central Valley, where the start-up cost would be relatively low. Getting that system over both the legal and physical obstacles at either end is likely to take at least another generation. But this is the only market, and political environment, of which I can concieve where the extremes are so far apart that a centrist's sense of pragmatism might be allowed to rule.
Most of the younger and/or more recent followers of this forum aren't going to like most of what I've posted; some of the most conservative on the othr side of the fence are likely to dismiss it just as readily. But the dispute isn't so much about "civility" as it is the search for something that works (and admittedly, the nature of politics is going to make the path to that first step both much more roundabout and much more expensive). But otherwise, the cycle will simply repeat itself.
Last edited by 2nd trick op on Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What a revoltin' development this is! (William Bendix)