Trofim Denisovich Lysenko may or may not have been a good scientist. (According to the agricultural scientists, he probably wasn’t.) But he was a good scientist in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, where ideological correctness, toeing the party line, was far more important than whether your conclusions were actually valid or not.

Lysenko was praised by Stalin for his “insights” on agriculture which, when applied, did little to help avert famines suffered during the late 1920s and early 1930s. When critics pointed out the flaws with Lysenko’s research, Lysenko denounced them, and Stalin often had them shot.

We’re not at that point in this country. The shooting, I mean. Aside from that, the House Republican caucus fully embraces what has come to be known as Lysenkoism – the “manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.” Oil companies fund “climate scientists” who say global warming is a “hoax” which leads to Republican legislators, who are also funded by the same oil companies, to dutifully pronounce in Congress that global warming is indeed a hoax. That view, which flies in the face of scientific evidence, has now become Republican Party orthodoxy. Mitt Romney risks his front-runner status and earns the wrath of the wingnut base when he says global warming is real.

Sadly, Lysenkoism isn’t limited to global warming. House Republicans are willing to distort any fact or evidence to suit their agenda – and when distortion isn’t possible, they’ll just denounce those who disprove the Republican party line.

For example, House Republicans have long railed against Amtrak. There’s no good reason to do; passenger rail is popular with many Republican voters and lots of House Republicans’ districts have successful passenger rail service. Amtrak is subsidized, sure, as is every other form of transportation in this country. The subsidies are small, and the rewards are considered by most Americans to be worthwhile.

But the House Republicans exhibit a Politburo-like loyalty to their party line. And when Amtrak comes out with an international peer review that shows their HSR plans are sensible, House Republicans react by dismissing the inconvenient evidence.

Sure, the Soviet metaphor isn’t necessary. For most House Republicans it’s a simple matter of ideological dogma that happens to be conveniently linked to massive campaign contributions from oil companies and others who have every reason to oppose high speed rail.

According to The Hill, the international peer review is positive:

“The positive feedback from our experienced colleagues around the world is encouraging and demonstrates that Amtrak’s high-speed rail plan is a proper response to meet the region’s need for increased transportation capacity and is a viable way forward,” Amtrak vice president Al Engel said in a statement.

The reviewers found that “Amtrak’s initial projections of ridership, revenues, and costs for this new system were appropriately conservative,” Engel added.

“We are pleased that many of the world leaders in high-speed rail have offered their ideas to help refine and improve our plans,” he said.

I wasn’t able to actually find the report or the statement on the Amtrak website, so I can’t actually comment on the substance. But the concept isn’t surprising. We’ve known for a long time that HSR is globally successful – as a 2010 report by CALPIRG showed. Most HSR systems around the world have high ridership and most are profitable. That includes, of course, the Acela. In other words, Amtrak’s plans to expand its offerings on the Northeast Corridor are plausible.

For Republicans, all that is merely inconvenience:

The chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has frequently referred to Amtrak as a “Soviet-style operation”…

“By focusing on projects that make sense, leveraging private-sector investment and opening the door to public-private partnerships, we can do more with less and finally take our nation in a new direction,” Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), who chairs the House Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, wrote last week in an op-ed in The Hill.

“It’s time for passenger rail to enjoy the same success deregulation brought to the freight rail, commercial truck and airline industries,” Shuster said.

Airline deregulation a success? Hahahahaha. Here’s what a former American Airlines CEO had to say about deregulation:

The consequences have been very adverse. Our airlines, once world leaders, are now laggards in every category, including fleet age, service quality and international reputation. Fewer and fewer flights are on time. Airport congestion has become a staple of late-night comedy shows. An ever higher percentage of bags are lost or misplaced. Last-minute seats are harder and harder to find. Passenger complaints have skyrocketed. Airline service, by any standard, has become unacceptable.

Meanwhile, the financial health of the industry, and of the individual carriers, has become ever more precarious. Most have been through the bankruptcy process at least once, and some have passed through on multiple occasions.

He’s not alone – there’s a large body of research indicating that airline deregulation has failed. Yet for House Republicans to continue to cite it as a success story – in order to ignore yet more evidence that HSR is a good idea – shows their commitment to American Lysenkoism.

I don’t expect them to stop anytime soon. As long as Republicans control the House, do not expect any forward movement on high speed rail. True, we didn’t get much from Democrats either. The goal must instead be to elect politicians who are not owned by the oil industry. Only then will the Lysenkoism end and the common sense begin.