Michael A. Smith: Weird coalitions on Uber debate

Veto overrides have been a rarity in the Legislature lately, but Gov. Sam Brownback got handed a big one last week.

Now law, House Substitute for Senate Bill 117 will require Uber and other ride-sharing services to abide by state regulations: All drivers submit to a background check from the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and carry both comprehensive and collision insurance.

The bill will add a few hundred dollars per year to each Uber driver’s cost of doing business – if the company ever re-enters the Kansas market, from which it just withdrew in protest.

Kansas Senate President Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, called Uber’s threats “pure political theater,” while Brownback retorted that “overregulation of businesses discourages investment and harms the open and free marketplace.”

This issue is creating weird political coalitions. Support for Uber unites uberconservative Brownback and 2008 Obama campaign director David Plouffe, who is Uber’s lead political consultant. Opponents include the conservative majority in the Legislature and socially liberal Kansas City, Mo., Mayor Sly James.

James denounced Uber’s aggressive politicking, then led a unanimous City Council decision that ride-sharing drivers are taxi drivers who must abide by city background checks. Compromise followed quickly: Uber will conduct its own checks, but supply the data to the city. As a result, Uber is staying in Kansas City, Mo. – for now.

Uber comes to the battle well-equipped, with high-profile lobbyist Plouffe joining former Brownback campaign manager Mark Dugan, advocating for the company from here to England, France, Germany and elsewhere.

This issue cuts across the conservative coalition, separating those who are drawn to conservatism for its emphasis on tradition, law enforcement and authority from those who are pulled into the movement by libertarian or free-market views. It is not hard to see why policymakers from the liberal James to the conservative Wagle are threatened by such policies, which replace their own authority with that of the free market, ruthless as it is.

Uber has been called “Ayn Rand’s favorite car service” by liberal gossip website Gawker, referring to a famously outspoken anti-government philosopher. For example, Uber charges up to four times its usual rates during times of natural or human disaster, such as the recent terrorist attacks in Sydney, Australia.

Rand would approve: The market knows best.

Liberals are also divided by this. Young millennials are known for their open-minded views about everything from marriage to consumer products. Uber seeks to capitalize on this by portraying its smartphone-based service as cool. Ultrahip Austin, Texas, welcomes its services while stodgy San Antonio rejects them, for example.

Yet traditional liberalism stands for more than being young. Granted, in many cities taxi companies have abused their monopoly status. Still, older liberals have to wonder: Has our society become too Uber-hip to support the antiquated idea that a unionized cabdriver should be able to raise a family, send the kids to college, and retire comfortably on his or her fares, even if it means higher costs for consumers? Today’s debate tells the tale.

This story was originally published May 8, 2015 at 7:05 PM with the headline "Michael A. Smith: Weird coalitions on Uber debate."