Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

Photo courtesy of here.

As we enter campaign season and consider the issue of amending the City’s charter so all passenger rail expenditures go to a public vote, it is important we engage the proper discussion surrounding what this move would mean for our City.  Pro-rail advocates must avoid the pitfalls designed by COAST to trip up counterarguments.  These pitfalls have been created to characterize pro-rail advocates as opposed to giving the people a voice in the direction of their community.  But this strikes me as a straw man argument designed to sidetrack other motives that may be at play here—motives that authorize a very different public conversation.

Reasoning Strategies

I think the difference here has to do with inductive reasoning versus deductive reasoning.  Wikipedia provides a simple set of examples to understand the difference. 

Basically, inductive reasoning is where one takes a particular observation and then tries to reason inductively the nature of some basic principles.  For example, one might feel a piece of ice, notice it’s cold, and then inductively reason that all ice is cold.  In this example, someone took an observation, and then reasoned backwards for underlying principles as a way to characterize what’s happening.  However, this strategy does not always work:  just because one picture hangs from a wall by a nail does not mean all pictures do the same.

With deductive reasoning, on the other hand, one starts with an underlying premise, and then moves through premises and conclusions which follow logically.  Generally, deductive reasoning is considered more philosophically sound.  (If men are mortal and The Dean is a man, then The Dean is mortal.)

How does this relate to passenger rail?

Supporters of the NAACP/COAST petition have made particular observations, and then tried to reason a basic principle from them.  They see that the petition gives voters a “choice,” and then conclude anyone opposing their move must be against giving people a choice.  This is inductive reasoning.  From a logical perspective, it is highly questionable.  I think it a straw man argument.  By creating this logically fallible system of inductive reasoning, they want to characterize anyone who opposes the charter amendment as opposing voter choice.  That is backwards thinking, and not necessarily true or logical. 

We deserve to have sensible and logical discussions, particularly as the campaign actualizes to something very real and powerful.

If we wish to reason deductively, we should establish some starting principles, and then see what logically follows.  There are plenty of public statements made by COAST that create a clear set of basic principles—and these can logically lead to a very different conversation than one simply about “voter choice.”  After all, if the two options provided by the petition constitute a false dilemma, then we really have not been given a choice at all.

Documenting some basic principles regarding COAST

Consider other organizations with whom COAST works closely.  Here is an excerpt from a COAST newsletter distributed this week about the attempt to ban red-light cameras in Toledo:

Toledo volunteers gather to plan final month of campaign

Volunteers from throughout Toledo, along with COAST organizers from Cincinnati and Americans for Prosperity of Ohio organizers will convene Wednesday, July 8 at 6:30 PM in Toledo.

Americans for Prosperity were involved in a recent event at the beginning of June with Americans for Tax Reform.  This is where COAST met with the likes of Grover Norquist, about whom they speak quite favorably.  Norquist is known for starting no new taxes pledges with politicians, and for saying he wanted to destroy government.

Interestingly, COAST also issues no new taxes pledges.  This is because COAST is about cutting government, and they have an anti-transit history.

In fact, a guy named Michael Valentine recently gave $10,000 to COAST.  Valentine appears to be a local Republican supporter who makes his money selling radar systems for car drivers.  Who would have an interest against transit and things like red light cameras if not a guy selling radar detectors to car drivers?

These facts substantiate some underlying principles that birth a radically different set of circumstances if we’re talking about deductive, and not inductive, reasoning.

1.  COAST is anti-transit.
2.  COAST receives contributions from people with interests in the car business.
3.  COAST subscribes to an anti-government philosophy that tries to deconstruct government.

If these three things serve as a starting point, then we might conclude their political action would fall in line with their underlying principles.  What we see with the NAACP/COAST anti-passenger rail petition is that it is anti-transit (and therefore pro-car), and it is designed to interfere in the regular workflow of government (and therefore working to deconstruct it).

The trouble with choices

A crazed killer might give victims a choice—death by strangling or drowning.  But naturally we would not commend such a killer for offering choices—particularly if the outcomes of these alleged choices are undesirable. 

So just because the anti-rail petition gives people choices, that does not mean that the nature of these choices is productive. 

For example, what would we expect the City to do if putting any expenditure on the ballot for a public vote?  Should they ask the voters for a blank check?  Imagine the field day opponents would have with that one!  Who wants to give City Hall a blank check? 

Should they put a dollar amount on the ballot?  What if the real expenditures go a few dollars over that amount?  What then?  Another vote?  Or a lawsuit against the City with a big payout for someone like Christopher Finney?

The alleged “choices” built into this ballot are not good choices—like death by strangling and drowning are both bad choices.

Conclusion

Rail advocates need to make sure they don’t allow NAACP/COAST activists to define the discussion as being about “voter choice.”  Voter choice is a meaningless concept when the design of the choices is inherently undesirable.  Instead, they need to emphasize the nature of right-winged organizations like COAST, showing how this petition drive advances interests that ultimately have nothing to do with empowering the people of Cincinnati.  The “voter choice” mantra is a straw-man argument meant to obfuscate other agendas.

Thank you for reading (and printing from) The Cincinnati Beacon.