George Will Is Confused By The Concept Of Trains

One way of looking at high-speed rail systems is that they are a means by which distant communities get connected, economic development and jobs are fostered, and workers with a diverse array of marketable skills can improve their mobility and thus their employment prospects. But another way of looking at high-speed rail is that it's some nonsense that came to a bunch of hippies as they tripped balls at a Canned Heat concert. That's my takeaway with George Will's latest grapple-with-the-real-world session, in which he attempts to figure out "Why liberals love trains." It's "Matrix" deep, yo:

To progressives, the best thing about railroads is that people riding them are not in automobiles, which are subversive of the deference on which progressivism depends. Automobiles go hither and yon, wherever and whenever the driver desires, without timetables. Automobiles encourage people to think they--unsupervised, untutored, and unscripted--are masters of their fates. The automobile encourages people in delusions of adequacy, which make them resistant to government by experts who know what choices people should make.

Time was, the progressive cry was "Workers of the world unite!" or "Power to the people!" Now it is less resonant: "All aboard!"

Yes. Because Karl Marx invented mass transit.

Anyway, Matt Yglesias does his best to contend with this bafflement:

Taken logically, this doesn't make very much sense. Intercity passenger rail is primarily an alternative to airplanes, and to intercity buses not to cars. If Amtrak disappeared tomorrow, people still wouldn't want to drive from Boston to Manhattan and end up paying through the nose for parking.

Up until now, I'd always imagined that Amtrak was my preferred conveyance to New York City because I could relax on the train in relative comfort, reading or napping, then hop on the subway to go visit my friend Megan in Astoria. Thanks to Will, I now know that the reason I prefer this to the alternative is not because I hate the long, grueling drive or the tolls or the traffic snarls or the terrifying mystery of Astoria's many parking regulations -- it's because I hate freedom itself. (None of this explains why conservatives, like Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood or Florida Rep. John Mica, like trains.)

Previously, I learned from Will that my affinity for blue jeans meant that I hated Fred Astaire, or something.

RELATED:
High Speed to Insolvency [George Will]
George Will Makes The Case For Heavy Automobile Subsidies [Matt Yglesias]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[Johnd139]

08:51 PM on 03/09/2011

Mr. Will is indeed showing his age.. Brilliant mind has taken wandering a bit

Now and then.

[builderman55]

11:28 AM on 03/09/2011

George Will nas problems with the concept of truth...

[Deruist]

10:53 AM on 03/07/2011

Cars, seriously? As the boomer population ages to, say, Will's age of 70 & up, does he see them buying new cars or driving for that much longer? His limo and taxi use are cost prohibitive to most of the US. High speed rail is a good solution.
Eisenhower's Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 creation of the interstates resulted in the economical boom with jobs in construction and trucking. It generated gas taxes to pay for itself with the states only paying 10%. It enabled growth in suburban communities. Now, with many interstates currently being considered for transition to toll roads, traveling by car is less attractive when compared to high speed rail. Rail will open new possibilities as the interstates did.

[jymfrancais]

10:06 AM on 03/07/2011

All i know Mr Will, it used to take me 3 h from Paris to my town, now the trip is 1 1/2 hour.Thats all, no political spin, hidden message, just time, and time is money right?..you love money don't you?

[templeofdoom]

01:22 AM on 03/07/2011

Put some guns and rockets on those trains and they'll get unanimous support.

[Kane]

10:05 PM on 03/06/2011

Before George Will was against high-speed rail, he was for it:

http://www.grist.org/article/2011-03-04-before-george-will-was-against-high-speed-rail-he-was-for-it

[Under Fed yet Fed Up]

08:11 PM on 03/06/2011

Americans seem to have a chemical addiction to new. A new high speed rail system is great. Maintaining a failing water, sewer, highway or rail system is too blasé.

We can't commit to take care of what we have. But we always want more.

So when cities have no drinking water or our stores have shelves that cannot bestocked due to failed bridges, at least we can get on a high speed train and get a drink of water or use a toilet in the next city.

High speed rail may truly be good for America. But we need to fix the essential things that are broken before we spend our childrens inheritance.

[jymfrancais]

10:09 AM on 03/07/2011

Why not both?..too much to handle, build a train and keep the rest in shape?..We talking about America, the number 1 economic power in the world, and you're thinking like a 3rd world country.

[socialtalker]

03:04 PM on 03/07/2011

what are you talking about??? WHY would you even say people that support HSR DONT support spending on the entire infrastructure system? where are you gettting this charge from? or are you just making cr@p up? well, let me venture to say that a lot of folks like myself want a revised mass transportation system that includes HSR, a new electrical grid, fixing the bridges and all the rest of it. so you cant make that charge, anymore unless you have a source figure that makes your case. now if you want a unpaid for program that is being pushed in this country irresponsibly, its the wars in the middle east, that more fits your argument.
2009 Grades
Aviation D Bridges C Dams D Drinking Water D- Energy D+ Hazardous Waste D Inland Waterways D- Levees D- Public Parks and Recreation C- Rail C- Roads D- Schools D Solid Waste C+ Transit D Wastewater D-
America's Infrastructure GPA: D
Estimated 5 Year Investment Need: $2.2 Trillion

[Angelus2007]

12:37 PM on 03/06/2011

I admit, I prefer to drive. I live in DC and will drive to NYC and it is still cheaper to park and pay gas and tolls than what it costs on Amtrak. If I couldn't or didn't want to drive I would fly, flights from DC to NYC are about the same cost as Amtrak, and faster, and car rental is right there if I need it. No car rental is easy to get to in manhattan.

[EliotRosewater]

07:26 PM on 03/06/2011

You are entitled to your preferences, but your claim that it's flying from DC to NYC is faster than taking Amtrack is only true if you are referring to actual time en route on the respective carriers. That amounts to 60-90 minutes by plane vs. about 3 hours by train. But if one is traveling downtown to downtown, the train is likely to get you from Point A to Point B as fast or faster than the plane. You don't have to spend time waiting in a security line at the train station, and you don't have to spend time getting to and from airports far away from downtown.

[EliotRosewater]

07:45 PM on 03/06/2011

My rule of thumb is to allow a minimum of 4 hours door-to-door for a 1-hour flight.

[Angelus2007]

11:46 PM on 03/06/2011

I usually leave from Reagan, and I get there about 45 minutes before the flight (if not checking bags, which I wouldn't to NYC), the security lines are never more than a few minutes. Plus I live in Virginia, so it would take me an extra 25 minutes on the Metro if I was to take Amtrak, so for me. If I fly into JFK I can take the monorail to the LIRR and be in Midtown pretty fast. Of course it all depends, plus I have encounter more train delays than flight delays. Especially around Philly, for some reason it seems to take a while sometimes to leave Philly.

[riverhouse]

08:51 PM on 03/05/2011

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Minimax]

04:43 PM on 03/05/2011

Until you've seen and experienced train travel in Europe you can't comment on trains.

[riverhouse]

08:49 PM on 03/05/2011

You are exactly right.

[osofar]

09:19 PM on 03/05/2011

Or China. I went 250 kph on a 55 minute high speed train ride, round trip, for $20.00. It was wonderful!

[chittom]

03:06 PM on 03/05/2011

I love it when conservatives "explain" liberals. They speak like liberals are some species of exotic bird no one's ever seen. They're so deep in the fog of certitude, it never occurs to them that they are exposing themselves as fools to the people they are talking about. The biggest offenders wouldn't care anyway though. They're just preaching to the converted.

[Panasit Ch]

02:58 PM on 03/05/2011

"Automobiles encourage people to think they--unsupervised, untutored, and unscripted--are masters of their fates."

Come to think of it, I really did feel like the master of my fate stuck in traffic at the exit from 495 to 270, where there was an HOV-2 lane, and none of the car uses it. Why? Because every single cars there has only ONE PERSON!!

Very liberating.

[reasonshouldrule]

09:32 PM on 03/04/2011

There was a time when George Will was more or less coherent, though he always had trouble providing reasoning and evidence to support his views.

Now, unfortunately, he seems to be heading toward dementia.

[Almondo]

06:32 PM on 03/04/2011

George Will is just another "I am not ever going to give up my 3mpg stretch limo idling at the curb with the AC on and the windows down so who needs trains?" GOBPer.

His willingness to attack progressives so openly only serves to prove that he is a regressive.

[Conjoe]

05:49 PM on 03/04/2011

Does George realize that if the high speed trains are built people will still be allowed to drive their cars around if they want to. I think they would only take the train if it was a more effective or efficient method for them to get were they are going. His discription of cars does however seem in line with the general conservative view of getting around, ie driving around hither and yon with absuolutely now direction or goal. Sort of like the Republicans Governors and Housemembers.

[Marq72]

06:11 AM on 03/07/2011

Yes, car drivers would actually benefit from having fewer cars on the road. Travelers would have more choices, not less. George's comments really don't make any sense.