What they ignore are the possibilities for tourism. Much like Europe, the U.S. could attract young travelers interested in exploring America. This paradigm shift in travel could be a landmark for cross-cultural opportunities as well as economic influx.

Also, as college students many of us want to travel, but can’t afford it. High-speed rail could be a viable option for those in America who long to know their country.

Yes, the prices will not be cheap, but they will be cheaper than traveling in any other fashion at present.

We also cannot ignore the job creation that will result from the implementation of high-speed rail. This is the most obvious of the benefits. But enough of the benefits … I want to address some of the more ridiculous arguments I’ve heard against it.

In a February edition of Newsweek, George Will — who at one time taught political philosophy at James Madison College — wrote an opinion editorial entitled “Why Liberals Love Trains.”

He wrote “To progressives, the best thing about railroads is that people riding them are not in automobiles, which are subversive of the deference on which progressivism depends. Automobiles go hither and yon, wherever and whenever the driver desires, without timetables.”

Somehow a man as intelligent as Will made what I call a “Fox News analogy” by using automobiles as a metaphor for Libertarian ideology and then contrasting it to high-speed rail as a rigid regulated system essentially deemed “progressive.”

This is absolutely absurd.

First, Will seems to be trying to compare progressivism and federalism to fascism; his equivocated argument makes no distinctions and is incredibly vague.

Instead of formulating a legitimate argument, he attempted to appeal to an ideology that, at present, is very popular.

The problem with equivocal appeal is essentially it is dogma; it is ignorance wearing the mask of knowledge. His argument is propaganda and nothing more.

There are a good amount of reasons for implementing high-speed rail. There are some solid economic arguments against it. I personally see more good than bad coming from it. What really matters is that we recognize the political game being played around this issue.

Will’s argument is a great example of this political game. It’s simple, in this game two dominant ideologies are pitted against each other on every issue while logical and pervasive similarities are ignored in the race to either political polarity.

Hopefully, in the years to come, we can transcend this political game and look at issues with open minds; and instead of adamant dogma becoming argument we will have more intellectual dialectic.
This and only this, will lead to political progress in the U.S.

Eoin Nordman is a State News guest columnist and a political science freshman. Reach him at nordmane@msu.edu.