Open Left

It's intended to be punitive (4.00 / 1)

I don't think people realize that some progressive goals can't be realized in this country without harnessing the dickish, authoritative power of government.  In order to get people to make the correct choices, you have to cut back on their options.

I'm all about making driving more annoying to push people into desiring more functional mass transit, which means I support the use of things like sobriety checkpoints and traffic enforcement cameras.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:57:23 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

OK (0.00 / 0)

Just checking.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 13:21:15 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

hm (4.00 / 1)

That's a dangerous game to play though -- it's a good way to get yourself voted right out of office.

If people don't feel like alternatives to driving are viable but they're forced to use them anyways, my guess is that they're going to be mad at YOU rather than suddenly becoming supportive of alternate modes of transportation.

For example, I could do my work commute via bus.  But that would mean:

1) Getting up a half-hour earlier
2) Getting home a half-hour later
3) Having to shift my schedule away from those of my coworkers.

I'd love to have an alternative that was as convenient and efficient as driving rush-hour traffic in Seattle.  Doesn't seem like that high of a bar to hurdle, does it?  But yet it still doesn't exist.  And what we've got now isn't even really that close.

---

by: ccarollo @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 14:24:06 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

Definitely a dangerous game (0.00 / 0)

It's why people think that the wonders of technology should create cars that magically get much better gas mileage that what we currently have, but strongly oppose something like a gas tax to discourage gas consumption.  It's why politicians favor building more roads to placate constituents who complain about traffic.  I argue that Democrats often seem weak more because they fear pissing voters off than because they are in the back pockets of corporations, so they tend to follow what look like risk-averse strategies that accomplish less but seem to have a much lower chance of being short-term epic fails.

I'm actually somewhat pessimistic about encouraging people to use mass transit in this country because I see the personal car as a sort of avatar of American individualism which people aren't willing to give up, which is why I suggested training younger people to live without cars by not giving them the option to drive when they turn sixteen.  I remember thinking it a bit ridiculous to meet people in college who didn't have driver's licenses (mostly from NYC and DC), but perhaps more people need to be in that boat.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 15:05:03 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]

yes (0.00 / 0)

There's a reason that the people you met who didn't have drivers licenses were from DC and NYC, and it wasn't because they had massive driving fees or were otherwise penalized from driving.

It was because public transportation was actually good, and more convenient than driving.  Which is exactly the point I'm making.

To be clear on my original point, though, I don't necessarily think that Democrats need to be risk-averse, they just need to be on top of messaging anything that feels punitive.  For example with a gas tax, you can point at lessening our dependence on foreign oil, on assessing the true costs of burning gas, on encouraging clean domestic energy production, etc.

The way you phrased it struck me as very "nanny state", which is a label conservatives love to pin on liberals.  We shouldn't be cowed by them, but we shouldn't play into their hands either.

---

by: ccarollo @ Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 15:49:10 PM CDT

[ Parent | ]