I told Jim when I sent him the draft copy for my latest column that it might generate some vigorous discussion. Good soul that he is, my editor replied that while the writing was good, the conclusions were off base. This pleased the contrarian in me no-end.
In part it’s because I take issue with the Conservative Transportation Alternative, which made a minor splash a few days ago. What a great idea — bold, daring, and with graphs, too! It can’t be bad, right?
But is this really a conservative document? Many of the folks (some of whom I know and respect) who signed on to it are conservatives, even libertarians. The title says it is conservative. And here and there are strains of conservative orthodoxy (Barnie Day’s “dog whistles”). But the conclusions they reach (or at least those the paper’s writer reaches) strike me as not conservative at all, but more along the lines of a central planner — one who seems to think that homes breed people and roads create cars…who thinks that controls are essential, because individuals simply cannot be trusted to make their own decisions…and who ultimately believes that these same people are an increasing inconvenience to both bureaucrats and their budgets.
Is that conservative? Eh…no.
Now bring on the brickbats.
