The bridge to nowhere or business as usual?

The bridge to nowhere makes fascinating politics, because it’s a symbol and also a symptom.

Symbol because John McCain used the infamous bridge proposed for Ketchikan, Alaska, as exhibit A in his attack on earmarks and pork-barrel projects.

Symptom because projects like the bridge are a cornerstone of rural life.

The facts are pretty clear: Sarah Palin, as a candidate and a governor, supported the bridge. She pushed Alaska’s congressional delegation to hoover up as much Federal pork as possible.

That’s what small-town politicians do.

Urban politicos do the same, but in the cities and suburbs there’s also a lot of private-sector investment.

Increasingly, small towns like Ketchikan, Alaska (and Wasilla) look to only one place for their capital dollars, for everything from business start-ups to infrastructure projects: taxpayers.

Here in the North Country, state and federal taxpayers shell out for hundreds of projects that are arguably just as frivolous as Ketchikan’s bridge.

Is it really the government’s job to finance tourist trains, carousels, and convention centers? The answer, so far, has been a resounding Yes.

Palin’s denial of her role in the bridge to nowhere echoes a common tension in small towns: disdain for Washington, concealing a secret addiction to state and Federal goodies.

I interview local politicians all the time who demand lower taxes and insist that they are firm fiscal conservatives.

But they regularly demand far more state and federal money than their community pays in taxes.

In the end, Palin’s bold statements — “thanks but no thanks” and “if we want a bridge we’ll build it ourselves” — are really part of a much larger myth that small town America cherishes.

Alaskans — just like Adirondackers — see themselves as independent, bootstrapping communities.

But it turns out both places rely on government hand-outs (and jobs and investment) to a much greater degree than their more urban neighbors.