MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2010 ROBERTJ.SAMUELSON


High-speed pork S


KLMNO


EZ RE


A21


Who should be America’s Next Great Pundit? 6Below are columns from our contest’s three finalists. Vote today for your favorite at www.washingtonpost.com/pundit.


omehow, it’s become fashionable to think that high-speed trains connecting major cities will help


“save the planet.” Theywon’t. They’re a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a respectable social cause. They would further burden already overburdened governments and drain dollars from worthier pro- grams—schools, defense, research. Let’s suppose that the Obama ad-


ministration gets its wish to build high-speed rail systems in 13 urban corridors. The administration has al- ready committed $10.5 billion, and that’s just a token down payment. California wants about $19 billion for an 800-mile track from Anaheim to San Francisco. Constructing all 13 cor- ridors could easily approach $200 billion.Most (or all) of thatwould have to come from government at some level.What would we get for this huge investment? Not much. Here’s what we wouldn’t


get: any meaningful reduction in traf- fic congestion, greenhouse gas emis- sions, air travel, oil consumption or imports. Nada, zip. If you can do fourth-grade math, you can under- stand why. High-speed inter-city trains (not


commuter lines) travel at up to 250 miles per hour and are most competi- tive with planes and cars over distanc- es of fewer than 500 miles. In a report on high-speed rail, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service exam- ined the 12 corridors of 500 miles or fewer with the most daily air traffic in 2007. Los Angeles to San Francisco led the list with 13,838 passengers; alto- gether, daily air passengers in these 12 corridors totaled 52,934. If all of them switched to trains, the total number of daily airline passengers, about 2 mil- lion, would drop only 2.5 percent. Any fuel savings would be less than that; even trains need energy. Indeed, inter-city trains — at what-


ever speed—target such a small part of total travel that the changes in oil use, congestion or greenhouse gases must be microscopic. Every day, about 140 million Americans go to work, with about 85 percent driving an average of 25 minutes (three-quarters drive alone; 10 percent carpool). Even as- suming 250,000 high-speed rail pas- sengers, there would be no visible effect on routine commuting, let alone personal driving. In the Northeast Corridor,with about 45million people, Amtrak’s daily ridership is 28,500. If its trains shut down tomorrow, no one except the affected passengers would notice. We are prisoners of economic geog-


raphy. Suburbanization after World War II made most rail travel impracti- cal. From1950 to 2000, the share of the metropolitan population living in cen- tral cities fell from 56 percent to 32 percent, reportUCLA economists Leah Platt Boustan and Allison Shertzer. Jobs moved, too. Trip origins and destinations are too dispersed to sup- portmost rail service. Only in places with greater popula-


tiondensities, such asEurope andAsia, is high-speed rail potentially attractive. Even there, most of the existing high- speed trains don’t earn “enough reve- nue to cover both their construction and operating costs,” the Congressio- nal Research Service report said. The major exceptions seemto be the Tokyo- Osaka and Paris-Lyon lines. President Obama calls high-speed


rail essential “infrastructure” when it’s actually old-fashioned “pork barrel.” The interesting question is why it retains its intellectual respectability. The answer, it seems, is willful igno- rance. People prefer fashionablemake- believe to distasteful realities. They imagine public benefits that don’t exist and ignore costs that do. Consider California. Its budget is a


shambles. To save money, it furloughs state workers. Still, it clings to its high-speed rail project. No one knows the cost. In 2009, the California High- Speed Rail Authority estimated $42.6 billion, up from$33.6 billion in 2008— a huge one-year increase. The CHSRA wants the federal government to pay almost half the cost. Even if it does and the state issues $9.95 billion in ap- proved bonds, a financing gap of per- haps $15 billion would remain. Somehow that is to be extracted


from cities, towns and investors. The CHSRA says the completed systemwill generate annual operating profits, $3 billion by 2030. If private investors concurred, they’d be clamoring to com- mit funds; they aren’t. All this would further mortgage


California’s futurewithmore debt and, conceivably, subsidies to keep the trains running. And for what? In 2030, high-speed rail trains would provide only about 4 percent of California’s inter-regional trips, the CHSRA proj- ects. The absurdity is apparent. High-


speed railwould subsidize a tiny group of travelers and do little else. If states want these projects, they should pay all costs because there are no meaningful national gains. The administration’s championing and subsidies — with money that worsens long-term budget deficits — represent shortsighted, thoughtless government at its worst. With governments everywhere pressed for funds, how can anyone justify a programwhosemain effectwill simply be tomakematters worse?


Stop the insanity T


BY LAUREN HOGAN


he last time I stood here, by this chain-link fence outside the Capitol building, I was clutching a useless


Purple Gate ticket, huddled around a stranger’s portable radio to hear President Obama deliver his inauguration address. “On this day,” he said, “we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.” People hugged and laughed and cried. I


thought they understood that when Obama said we will work together, he meant it. He meant working with people who disagree; working across aisles and faiths and color lines to find common ground, listen to new viewpoints and engage in real debate. Others thought so, too. More than


200,000 people attended the Rally to Re- store Sanity on Saturday, carrying signs that said “Compromise is not a dirty word” and “My fiance is a Republican and we love reasonable discourse.” No one took a stand against sanity. But


there were people in the crowd, in the papers and on TV who continue to rail against sanity, understood as civic — and civil — debate. When Sean Hannity says that Democrats in Congress should be tortured at Guantanamo Bay, or Rachel Maddow calls Bill Clinton the best Republi- can president ever, they are rewarded by their respective camps. It’smorefun to beanextremist. It’s easier


to preach to the choir. And it’s better for ratings. When CNN tried to be middle-of- the-road, it fell to third place, behind Fox News and MSNBC, whose own ratings improved when it moved to the left. Last week, someone told me that liberals


should never go on Fox News and that conservatives have no place atNPR. But I’m


E.J.DIONNEJR.


No final victories


not less of a liberal if I talk to Republi- cans. I’m not less Jewish because I married someone Catholic. We don’t give up who we are whenwereach out to someone else. There have been


many calls in the past week for the president to demon- strate renewed lead- ership. Many of them have been for compromise, biparti- sanship and, yes, sanity.Butsomehavebeen from Democrats who believe that compro- mise is the same as caving in. These are, of course, the same people who screamed about George W. Bush’s sycophants, mock Republican purity tests and vilify Republi- cans for refusing to come to the table. Republicans deserve blame for this —


GETTY IMAGES Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart at Saturday’s rally.


cannotprotect us,nordoesit entitleustodo as we please.” Peoplemay wish thatObamahaddone as


they’ve made it clear that they intend to use obstructionism as a solution to the nation’s problems. As John Boehner said last week about health care (though it may as well have been the Republican rallying cry): “We’re going to do everything—and Imean everything — we can do, to kill it, stop it, slow it down.” But Democrats, if they refuse to come to


the table, will deserve blame as well. If you want people to listen to you, you have to listen to them. This is not to say that everything isupfordebate—civil rights, for example, shouldn’t be subject to compro- mise ordependonthewhimof the majority. Yetmost of our real, hard problemswon’t be solved unilaterally. As I stood shivering outside on Jan. 20,


2009, Obama said of earlier generations: “They understood that our power alone


Rule of lawlessness D


BY NANCY GOLDSTEIN


emocracy is so inconvenient when you are trying to get something done —say,win an election or bag a trophy


for your administration. In their pursuit of these respective short-term goals, the Tea Party and the Obama administration have both undermined basic democratic tenets. Meaning that we, as a country, have lost something regardless ofwhowinsTuesday. Last Monday, one of Senate candidate


Rand Paul’s goons stomped the hell out of a womanwho dared to showup at a Paul rally with a satiric sign. NextMonday, President Obama, inhisquest toprovehis administra- tion’swar on terrorismis succeedingwhere the last administration failed, will go to court to defend his right to continue target- ed killings outside of war zones without deference to due process or judicial review. The administration wants to keep Anwar al-Aulaqi, an American citizen residing in Yemen, on a “kill list” without having to explain to any judicial body the criteria and procedures for putting him on the list or defend why it has the right to assassinate himwithout due process. “Why” may seem self-evident to anyone


tuned to the news since last Friday, when airline security found two suspicious pack- ages originating fromYemen, bound for the United States. But it is not. The administra- tion has brought no charges against Aulaqi, nor has it provided evidence that links him to these packages other than his residency intheir country of origin. Still, the fundamental question here con-


he pleased over the past twoyears, knowing that 2010 would bring a transition away from Democratic congressional control. But he set an example that lived up to his own rhetoric. He wanted to work together, to create buy-in through bipartisanship. Politically, Obama shouldn’t have reached out to Republicans last summer on health care, but the effort was principled and consistent, and I respect him for trying. Now, trying won’t be enough. After Tues-


day, we can do one of two things. We can retreat into the safety of our own echo chambers, as Stephen Colbert did on Satur- day, hiding half-naked in his “fear bunker,” and assuring ourselves that nothing will get done.Orwecancomeout into the open, like Colbert clothed in the cape of Captain America, to talk to one another and try to solve some problems. Each party can make its own choice—I hope they choose the one that makes the country just a little more sane.


The writer lives inWashington and works for the National Black Child Development Institute.


I bristol, pa.


twas just four years ago that the Democratic Party began its comeback in what now seems


like another country. The economic collapse was not


in anyone’s imagination, but the nation’s politicalmood was sour. A substantial majority was fed up with George W. Bush, weary of the Iraq war and ready to vote for Democratic congressional candi- dateswho pledged themselves to “a newdirection,” a nebulous but use- ful slogan. Democratic constituencies were


united as never before. Young vot- erswere flocking the party’sway— those under 30 would cast 60 per- cent of their ballots forDemocratic House candidates — and so were moderates and independents. The tidal wave that two years


laterwould carry Barack Obama to the presidency began rising in places not usually associated with insurrection, the vast suburban and exurban areas around the old cities of the Midwest and North- east. In 2006, that wave produced an


upset in Pennsylvania’s Bucks County by a Democrat named Pat- rick Murphy. Then only 33, he be- came the first Iraq vet to serve in Congress.Murphy defeatedRepub- lican incumbent Michael Fitzpat- rick by 1,518 votes out of some 250,000 cast. Murphy went on to become one


of the firstmembers of Congress to endorse Obama in the 2008 Demo- craticprimaries,andhewonreelec- tion with ease, earning 57 percent of the ballots and a margin that topped 50,000 votes. In an earlier era, most incum-


cerns judicial oversight. Can a president ever claim that he is a law unto himself, accountable to no one, and make life-and- death decisions behind closed doors, with no due process? The answer in a democracy must be no, especiallywhen fear urges us to err: executivepoweruncheckedby any form of judicial oversight is a recipe for despo- tism. Sandwiched between these events—one


a paragon of mob rule, the other a bid for uncheckedexecutivepower—is anElection Day that will bring no one change we can believe in. Tough times and election cycles intensify


the desire for heroes and villains, good and evil — for simple story lines, quick resolu- tions and vengeance. And actors all along the political spectrumhave eagerly fed that desire,atapricethatoncelookedreasonable but is turning out to be too high. Nothing good can come to a democracy whose al- leged defenders are seeing democracy’s founding concepts as nuisances — mere obstacles to be overcome or sidestepped. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell fe-


rociously defends her electorate from“gov- ernment interference,” which she has fa- mouslylocatedintheFirstAmendment.She thinks it stinks that church-state separation forbidspublic schoolboards fromgiving the green light to teaching creationism: Why can’tmajorityrulebethelawof theland?For Paul’sminions, free speechis the right of the mob to silence dissent by force. Clearlywhat the Tea Party reallywants to


“Take America Back” from is silly concepts such as equal protection, or the minority’s right to be free fromthewill of themajority.


It is no less frightening or dangerous that


President Obama is undermining the bal- ance between democracy and presidential power in the name of national security. As a constitutional law professor, he ran against hispredecessor’s recordofpreventivedeten- tion, military commissions and extraordi- nary rendition. As president, he has held tight to every scrap of executive power the Cheney gang claimed for President George W.Bush. People do strange things when they are


scared, want to win elections or are desper- ate for results. Shove past the minority. Revert to force. Set theConstitutionaside— just this one time — in the name of the greater good. But when political figures, whether by exhortationor example, encour- age a frightened, frustrated public to think of fundamental constitutional or govern- mental principles as impediments rather than the foundation of our democracy, their victories are built on earth that they have dug out frombeneath our feet. Americans vote regularly these days via


reality TV shows, where viewers determine the winners and losers. Devotees enjoy watchinggoodandevilplayout—andfeelas though their vote counts. But politics is too important to be run like “American Idol” or “Survivor.” In the short term, politicians can motivate their base by creating scapegoats and strawmen. Butwe, as a country, cannot in the long term live by democratic princi- ples, or solve our problems, by voting incon- venient people and principles off the island.


Thewriter is a communications professional in Brooklyn.


ness, they are famously difficult to under- stand (though this hasn’t stopped many an expert from trying). After each election, analysts pore over the results in search of a unifiedmessage.Obviously “AmericaRejects the President” and “AWin for Change”make better headlines than “Diverse Constituen- ciesAcross the Country Continue to Support Distinct Candidates for Different Reasons.” Of course,what’s sexy isn’t always true, even if it sells. Electoral messages are always murky. If


The muddled message on Tuesday A


BY CONORWILLIAMS


merican voters are mysterious crea- tures. Often dismissed for their indif- ference, ignorance and shortsighted-


with the pharmaceutical lobby? For shame! Within a few weeks, the president appeared to transform from liberal lion to corporate stooge. Soon he seemed to be backing down on financial regulatory reform, climate change, the base at Guantanamo and every- thing else. The clamor on the left grewloud- er:Whathappenedto our audacioushopes? Other members of the Democrats’ 2008


democratic politics are a game of musical chairs, then campaigns are the moments when the music stops. Self-interest and dis- tortion dominate (even more than usual), hiding even the clearestmandates beneath a sea of rhetoric. Politicians dive for seats, toppling honesty and decency on their way. Without the benefit of hindsight, it is nearly impossible to uncover a straightforward message in these scrambles. Our public de- bates occur only in the intervening periods. Political leaders get up from their chairs to reposition and contribute to the tunes of Americanpublicdiscourse. Two years on, the message of the 2008


elections is becoming intelligible. Many in theObama administration believed that vot- ershadgiventhemamandateforprogressive policies. They accordingly emphasized health-care reform instead of changes to economic policy (or so it seemed to the public), which has hamstrung them since. ProgressiveAmericans cheered the choice— until thecompromisesstartedarriving.Deals


electoral coalitionwere disappointed for dif- ferent reasons. These were independents frustrated with the Bush administration’s widespread governing incompetence. They were seeking change — but primarily a change back to intelligent, functioning gov- ernment (and not necessarily a more pro- gressive one).With an economy teetering on the brink between recovery and further re- cession, they expected effective federal re- sponses thatnever fully arrived.These voters alsowantedsubstantial improvements inthe way Washington conducts business. Now they are tiredofwaiting for change tobelieve in.


Ultimately, therewasno singlemessage in


the 2008 elections. Neither a radically pro- gressive agenda nor a moderate set of com- promises would have satisfied the diverse crowd of voters who backed Barack Obama. Some supporters were bound to be disap- pointed. Of course, no coalition is ever per- fectly harmonious, and the compromises re- quired for democratic governing usually leave some supporters dissatisfied. In this case, however, the Democrats egregiously misreadtheirmandate. In Tuesday’s elections,many progressives


will stay home andmany independents will abandon the Democrats entirely. This will meanareturntopower forRepublicans,who are largely committed to preventing public institutions from addressing the nation’s


bentswiththat sortofmargincould rest easy. But these are not your grandfather’s political cycles, and Murphy knows it. Over a late din- ner at the Original Golden Eagle Dinerhere—he satdownonly after working the crowd, thanking old friends for their support, and urg- ing theRepublicans present to split their tickets, getting in the fact that his wife is a Republican — the infectiously energetic incumbent engaged in a bit of good-natured bragging about his humility. If Murphy survives this year’s


rematch against Fitzpatrick, which he fully expects to do, he will trace his triumph to what he did the day after his landslide two years ago. In an earlymorning’s pouring rain, he stood outside the Cornwells Heights train station shaking hands andthanking commuters for reelecting him. Murphy knew he wouldnothave it easy thenext time around, and hewas right. No one in politics, Murphy be-


lieves, should ever count on a victo- ry being final, and Democrats who thought thatObamawouldusher in hisparty’sNewJerusalemwere just plain wrong. “People were talking about a permanent majority — it was arrogant,” he says. “People want to know you’re fighting for themwhen they’re hurting.” If enough incumbentDemocrats


like Murphy survive on Tuesday through sheer energy and prepara- tion(andI confess it’shardnot tobe swayed by his jaunty optimism), they will contain the damage of a difficult night. The party believes it is gaining


problems. This means that it’s their turn to misread theirmandate.When Americans go to the polls (or don’t) Tuesday, are they univocally demanding the Republican Par- ty’s brand of reduced government? Are they eager tolose theirhealthcoveragebecauseof preexisting conditions? Are they hoping for drastic tax reductions for the wealthy and even more growth in budget deficits? Per- haps most pressing: Do Americans want continued Republican obstructionism in Congress? Polls showprecisely the opposite. Though


voters are frustrated with the government, most still expect it to address the serious problems facing theUnited States. Very few Americanswant thegovernment tosit idlyby whilethecountrysuffers.AWashingtonPost- Kaiser-Harvard poll lastmonth showed that 49 percent of American adults would rather have more government services and higher taxes, while 47 percent would prefer fewer services and lower taxes. The poll also showed that majorities of Americans still want the federal government to be more involvedinreforminghealthcare andeduca- tion. How skeptical are Americans about government’s effectiveness after all? While reducing government’s size is a pri-


orityfor somevoters, this isonlyonestrainin the national chorus. Once again, the nation won’t be speaking with one voice, so the messagewill bemixed.Democrats still stand to lose groundTuesday, but this isno ringing endorsement of a conservative fiscal agenda. If the economy doesn’t improve, conserva- tives’ hands-off approach to federal policy won’t play well for long. Don’t forget, the music starts againonWednesday.


Thewriter isworking onadoctorate ingovernment atGeorgetownUniversity.


traction by warning voters to be wary of Republicans supported by undisclosed money from mysteri- ous special interests that will be looking for post-election payback. Its “made in America” campaign against outsourcing has shored up someDemocrats likeMurphy inthe old industrial states. And Tea Party extremism may be frightening the base out of indifference. But this Tuesdaywill still be very


different from that glorious eve- ning for Democrats four years ago, andmuch of the post-election anal- ysis will focus on ideology, on whether Obama moved “too far left” and embraced too much “big government.” All thiswilloverlookhowmoder-


ate Obama’s programactually is. It will also pretend that an anxiety rooted in legitimate worry about the country’s long-term economic future is the result of doctrine rath- er than experience. Nathan Dasch- le, the executive director of the DemocraticGovernorsAssociation, argues that if theRepublicans do as well as is expected, 2010 would be the third election in a rowinwhich voters cast ballots for change, the very quest for a “new direction” that propelled Democrats such as Murphy into office four years ago. The classicmiddle-ground voter


who will swing this election — moderate, independent, suburban — has always been suspicious of dogmatic promises that certain big ideas would give birth to a utopian age. This voter is looking for sim- pler andmore realistic things: a bit more security, a bit more income, and renewed confidence that the future will be better than the past. Suchvoters stillhaven’t foundwhat they’re looking for. ejdionne@washpost.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60