It’s cheaper to own a car than to use mass transit. When you take all the costs into account (and even ignoring the convenience factor) it’s not really surprising at all:
Anti-car people will argue that the high cost of living in New York City or San Francisco is some kind of anomaly, and that proper government action could magically create low cost of living dense urban areas. I am doubtful. Government regulations usually drive up costs rather than reduce costs (with the exception of regulations carefully thought out to prevent value transference). In fact, the rent control laws in New York City, which liberals think are making housing more affordable, are actually contributing to the high cost of living here. I’ve previously suggested two reasons why dense cities are so expensive: (1) dense cities create transportational and space inefficiencies; and (2) dense cities attract liberal voters who elect liberal politicians who enact dumb laws which increase the cost of living. Maybe there is some third or fourth reason as well. Until someone can demonstrate a place where it’s reasonable to be carless and it doesn’t cost a fortune to live there, one has to assume that such places are inherently economically inefficient.
The arguments against cars and sprawl are aesthetic (and elitist), not economic.
Now, before this turns into a two-hundred comment post with people yelling about not giving up their core principles, let me be clear. I do not advocate that the party pull left or advertise itself as “Democrat-light.” But I do advocate prioritizing the issues that form the foundation of our marketing campaign..
I’m sure “Transformers 2″ has a romantic subtext between Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox. I’m sure that there are at least two minutes in the film of them making kissy face and being sappy. Yet, the trailer is all about giant robots trashing everything in sight. In fact, almost every shot is a giant explosion, or a giant robot. That’s smart marketing. It’s a summer popcorn movie. Give the people what they want. If there is a great romance or moments of rip-roaring comedy, that’s a pleasant surprise. But, if I don’t see a forklift turn into a robot and crush an Apache helicopter, I will be disappointed.
Did the Democrats put nationalizing the banks, firing corporate CEOs, and practically making out with Hugo Chavez in their trailer? Did their poster include Obama’s embarrassing world apology tour? I think not.
Yet, we allow the media to frame the discussions and the debates. Why, for example, did most of our pundits take the bait on the Perez Hilton thing and let the media frame the arguments as an example of the gay marriage issue being debated in the public forum? That incident was about how the left stifles free speech. It was about how women are second-class citizens in the Democratic party. Every discussion of Ms. California should have been an opportunity to bring up the media’s treatment of Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. But it wasn’t. Instead, we allowed the Democrats to cut our trailer and replace the robot on the key art with a photo of Shia LaBeouf.
The problem is that many Republicans remain fair-weather federalists. They have to start arguing that the federal government has no business in either your wallet or your bedroom.
Despite the claims of MADD, the federally imposed minimum legal drinking age of 21 doesn’t save lives. But it does restrict the freedom of adults, and erodes federalism. In fact, that 1984 act (under Reagan) is one of the reasons that I don’t miss Elizabeth Dole.