High-Speed Rail: A Bad Idea But Not "Soviet"

High-speed rail might be a bad idea, but that doesn't mean it's the same as a Soviet policy.

Not so long ago, the American Right was distinguished by its moral clarity. Recall that in 2005, in the face of Democratic demands that the US “engage” with North Korea, George W. Bush replied that, no thanks, but he “hated” Kim Jong Il. (The North Korean dictator merits no other reaction from people of sound mind.) Or remember Bush envoy Karen Hughes’ visit to Saudi Arabia in the same year, in which she expressed her belief that Saudi women ought to enjoy the same rights as their American counterparts, and thereby invited the ire of many on the relativist Left. And while we often hear that Chinese people “don’t care about human rights or democracy and only want economic growth,” Bush gave the lie to this pernicious nonsense in 2008 by meeting with five dissidents prior to the Olympics.

But the Right’s recognition of simple distinctions – democracy is morally preferable to dictatorship, women’s rights should be universal, Bush isn’t Hitler – has eroded substantially in the two years since President Obama was inaugurated. And sadly, this moral rot is not confined to deranged lunatics on the street corner brandishing “Obama Is A Communist” placards – or to Michael Savage. (But I repeat myself.)

Consider, as a case in point, recent remarks by Republican Representative John Mica, the chairman of the House Transportation Committee. According to the Christian Science Monitor, in discussing the Obama Administration’s push for funding for high-speed rail, Representative Mica likened public funding for rail to the Soviet Union. This statement is illogical and misleading in the fullest: essentially all nations with rail networks receive some degree of public investment. There is nothing distinctly Soviet about the practice. (Note bene: I’m more with Michael Barone on high speed rail than Michael Stafford.) But I suspect Mica knows exactly what he’s saying when he compares public investment in rail to the Soviet Union instead of, say, Japan. He is attempting to conjure up the horrifying images that Americans associate with life under Communist dictatorship.

Note the moral dimension of Mica’s statement. It seems silly to have to point this out to a member of the United States Congress, but what made the Soviet Union distinctly evil was gulags, suppression of religion, starvation, obliteration of private enterprise, and the torture of dissidents -- not the public funding of rail networks.  Likewise, right-minded people despise Kim Jong Il’s regime because it turns citizens into slaves, not because it funds public television stations. Consider another possible application of Mica’s logic: Hitler and the Nazis built the German autobahn.  Eisenhower built the American interstate highway system. Therefore, Eisenhower was employing “Nazi-style” policies.

But Mica’s statement does not indicate mere illogic. It demonstrates a moral myopia no better that of the residents of Boulder, Santa Cruz, and North Hampton who brayed that they were living under a fascist dictatorship when Bush was president.