“Defining Success” - The Antiplanner’s Das Kapital - Part 1
by Leroy W. Demery, Jr.
Just today, as I checked emails and blogs, I came across the latest opus magnum from the self-styled “Antiplanner” (aka Randal O’Toole): “Defining Success: The Case against Rail Transit.” This post, the first in a series of responses, is essentially an “introduction” to same.
O’Toole’s latest screed was published by the Cato Institute as its “Policy Analysis” No. 663. The Cato Institute is headquartered in Washington, DC; its website is here. O’Toole’s paper may be downloaded from here (PDF format).
The Cato Institute describes its mission as follows:
The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.
Hmmm ... sounds like one of them there libertarian “crib clubs” (excuse me, “think tanks”). Note, however, that Cato appears to prefer the term “market liberalism” to “libertarianism” (here, scroll down to “How to Label Cato.”)
----------
Full Disclosure Part 1: This moment, in “realtime” (or, as I like to say, “SBB Time”) is 1915 (7:15 pm), Pacific Daylight Time, Wednesday, March 24, 2010. The date of O’Toole’s latest “effort” is today - that is, March 24, 2010. Without question, the denizens of various anti-transit, anti-urban “crib clubs” (er, "think tanks") are working quadruple-overtime, grinding out propaganda, citing, quoting, praising and expounding upon the “Antiplanner’s” latest version of “Das Kapital.” At this very moment. Literally.
(How can I be so certain? Very simply: it’s happened so many times before; there’s no reason to believe that things will be any different “this time around.”)
----------
O’Toole’s latest is an “impressive” work; it leaves the reader virtually agog in so many ways, e.g.:
Such abundant truthiness ...
Such insightful truthiness ...
Such pithy truthiness ...
Such profound truthiness ...
Such pungent truthiness ... (“... so worthy of a true thinker (see here) ...”)
The operative word (... in case you didn’t noticed ...) is “truthiness:”
The quality of stating what one wishes or feels to be true instead of what is actually true (Merriam-Webster Online, here).
----------
Full Disclosure Part 2: I believe that Randal O’Toole simply does not wish to be taken seriously - as evidenced by “Defining Success.” It would appear that fact-checking, review of analysis and so forth is now beneath him. Perhaps all those online accolades - from “crib clubs” (pardon mois, “think tanks”), e.g. “adjunct scholar;” “senior fellow,” ad nauseum, have gone to his head. He appears not the least concerned with other, um, “accolades,” e.g. pseudo-expert, faux intellectual, shameless self-promotor. Oh, yes, “professional contrarian,” the person that all the reporters call when a “contrary” viewpoint or opinion is needed for the sake of “balance.”
----------
“Defining Success” is all about truthiness - and nothing else. No “science” here, but plenty of pseudo-science, in the Romantic tradition. No surprises there - the self-styled Antiplanner is also a self-confessed railway enthusiast (see here); the “railfans” I’ve known tend to be people whose interests and perspectives fit neatly under the heading of Romanticism.
“Randal O’Toole” and “Romanticism” might seem an unlikely juxtaposition, but consider the following capsule definition:
Romanticism emphasized the individual, the subjective, the irrational, the imaginative, the personal, the spontaneous, the emotional, the visionary, and the transcendental (Brittanica Encyclopedia Online. http://www.britannica.com/).
Now consider the following discussion of “Emotional Anti-Rail Transit Campaigns” by Vukan R. Vuchic, Professor of Transportation, University of Pennsylvania:
Particularly intense in most U.S. cities is the controversy concerning rail transit, which exerts a strong emotional pull on much of the population. One group - known as ‘rail enthusiasts’ - admit that they are emotionally attracted to this technology and call themselves ‘rail fans’ (short for ‘fanatics’). Rail technology, however, can trigger the opposite emotions. In Great Britain, for example, the mission of an association called the “Railway Conversion League” was to eliminate intercity railways by paving them and turning them into highways. In the United States, many of these anti-rail fans claim that they have scientific proof that rail transit is inferior to other modes - that it is inefficient and should not be built in any city. Thus, while the professionals may debate under what conditions buses should operate on busways, or whether [light rail transit] or regional rail would operate most favorably, or whether a line in Los Angeles or Vancouver should be a metro or an LRT, anti-rail fans claim categorically that rail transit is inferior to highway modes under all conditions and should never be built.
(Vuchic, Vukan R. 1999, 214-15.)
As the son of a man who did not have electricity in his house until he was in college, I find it remarkable that the “anti-rail fans” described by Vuchic are sending and re-sending “Defining Success,” snippets thereof and comments thereto, hither and yon, throughout the blogosphere. At this very moment. Literally.
----------
Full Disclosure Part 3: I believe that, in spite of his carefully-cultivated public image (and his own self-image, whatever that might be), Randal O’Toole is nothing more than a “railfan” with reference to the past - and a Romantic “anti-rail fan” ideologist with reference to the present and future.
----------
The greatest of the high Romantic ideologists of the mid-nineteenth century was - no surprises - Marx (... that’s Karl, not Groucho ...). O’Toole and Marx might seem a juxtaposition even less likely than that above, but consider:
The function of [Das Kapital] in the world of Marxist Socialism is to sit on the shelf, looking heavy and impressive, and to be pointed to as evidence that somewhere in all those hundreds of pages there must be some deep intellectual proof of anything that any given Marxist may happen to feel at any given moment. (Randall 1964, 35-36.)
In similar fashion, the function of “Defining Success: The Case against Rail Transit” - after an initial frisson of excitement among “true believers” - will thereafter be to lend to support to such “true believers.” Such individuals may be counted on to point to “Defining Success” as “proof.” They may also be counted upon to ignore, or deny, the fact that O’Toole’s pseudo-analysis shall soon resemble the cyberspace version of confetti. To borrow a line from Gertrude Stein (1937, 289): “There is no there there” - but “true believers” will not be discouraged.
“Ideology,” wrote President Barack Obama, “overrides whatever facts call theory into question” (Obama 2006, 57-58). In previous posts (see here, and here), we have outlined how this leads to the “structural dishonesty” characteristic of those libertarian “crib clubs” (um, “think tanks”). A key component of this is bad faith - personal and institutional. Unlike the legal term, “bad faith” as used here refers to mauvaise foi, described by Sartre as virtual deception of self. In other words, an individual chooses to ignore facts, options and choices that are, for some reason, convenient to ignore. Certain organizations tend to develop institutional mauvaise foi because of their nature, structure, and lack of controls designed to insure good faith. Deception becomes a virtual “mission statement” - and this, as Sartre explains, can occur even with an organization composed of wholly honest people (here).
One more thing. In his blog, the self-styled “Antiplanner” includes the following advice: “Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author.”
If you are reading this, Mr. O’Toole, perhaps you might wish to consider my personal view of these concepts: Absent anything from a very short list of “four-letter words” - perhaps but not necessarily including “liar” - anyone who complains about “ad hominem attacks” or “name-calling” is, at best, 1.) crying wolf, and 2.) resorting to a well-worn high-school debating tactic used by the likes of ... um ... Randal O'Toole and Wendell Cox. This is my personal view. Extreme? Perhaps. Not surprising? Certainly; I am, after all, a proud graduate of the (in)famous Crenshaw High School in Los Angeles.
(An example of this tactic, used to cast criticism of his “work” as “ad hominem attacks:” Cox, in a story published on June 1, 2003 by the North County Times [San Diego County, CA.] said, “They can't refute me so they try to discredit me personally. There's a real campaign to destroy me. I recognize that.”)
However, I do not question O’Toole’s earnestness, nor that of his “faithful ally,” Cox. Several years ago, the latter complained about people “questioning [his] motives” (sic). Michael D. Setty, my colleague on this blog and in transit advocacy, is now utterly convinced that Cox absolutely does believe the “analyses” he produces. Mike Setty is also convinced that Toole believes his own “analyses” - in both cases, exactly as described by Sartre. I concur fully.
Of course, I do not seriously expect O’Toole to read this series, much less to respond - mauvaise foi and all that.
We shall continue this series in subsequent posts.
References
Obama, Barack H. 2006. The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. New York: Crown/Three Rivers Press.
Randall, Francis B. “Introduction: Marx the Romantic.” In: The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, translated by Samuel Moore, edited by Joseph Katz, pp. 8-41. New York: Washington Square Press, 1964.
Stein, Gertrude. 1937. Everybody’s Autobiography. New York: Random House.
Vuchic, Vukan R. 1999. Transportation for Livable Cities. New Brunswick (NJ), US: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
For Further Reading
Bradbury, Norman. 2007. “Road-Rail Myths Exposed” (review of Gibbins, E. A. “Railway Conversion - The Impractical Dream”). Railwatch, January 2007.
Edwardson, Peter. “Tracks to Tarmac? Is rail-to-road conversion an unheralded idea whose time has come?” http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/railconv.html (The author writes, “This site should not be seen as simply "pro-car", as I am strongly in favour of greater investment in improved public transport provision. This particularly applies to railways and light rail systems, as I feel buses, while they have a role to play, are inherently limited and are always going to be seen as a second-best option,” see here; scroll down to “Public Transport.”)