That's what I wrote, semi-earnestly, in a June 2006 post about the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" I led up to it with this:
Had GM committed to the electric car, it might be on top of the world today. Instead, GM's boneheaded short-term business decisions have nearly bankrupted the company. And now, why in the world would anyone want to buy an GM vehicle, when you know they're passing off inferior, antiquated merchandise? Unless it can compete, and catch up technologically to where it already was ten years ago, GM deserves a quick and merciless death.
Two and a half years later, my feelings are a lot more ambivalent -- mainly because I don't want to see more people out of work in this freezing economic climate, unless they're the CEOs who steadily ran the American automobile industry into the ground over the last, oh, thirty years. (They learned nothing from the 1970s, when they found themselves making cars Americans didn't want and handed the market to Toyota, Honda, Mazda...?) As Thomas Friedman put it:
Over the years, Detroit bosses kept repeating: "We have to make the cars people want." That's why they're in trouble. Their job is to make the cars people don't know they want but will buy like crazy when they see them. I would have been happy with my Sony Walkman had Apple not invented the iPod. Now I can't live without my iPod. I didn't know I wanted it, but Apple did. Same with my Toyota hybrid.
That's exactly it. (You'll notice, too, that the big paradigm-changing movies are almost always the ones nobody wanted to make for years. Then, once they're successful, everybody wants to make them again and again. What do you think would be the reaction if the major studios started asking for government bailouts?)
Nicholas Kristof says that, although "there are plenty of sound arguments against a bailout" for GM and Chrysler, "there's a practical argument that trumps everything: when conditions are so fragile, we can't risk a staggering blow to the national economy."
Meanwhile, yet another New York Times op-ed columnist (though, I hope, not for much longer), William Kristol quotes a Washington Post column alleging "class bias" as the basis for another incoherent column headlined "Left and Right Piling On" (so as to appear "fair and balanced"):
What's more, in their disdain for the American auto companies, the left and right wings of the establishment agree. Of course, the particular foci of criticism are different -- the left berates the auto companies' management, the right the United Automobile Workers. But even on the left, while Democratic politicians still try to look out for the interests of the U.A.W., there's not really that much sympathy for the workers. The ascendant environmentalists disdain (to say the least) the internal combustion engine and everyone associated with it. Most of today's limousine liberals are embarrassed by their political alliance with the workers who built those limousines.
Yes, as with Iraq and everything else, Kristol just makes it up as he goes along. I expect his next column will be about how everyone in Hollywood is blaming the failure of "Speed Racer" on the gaffers. After all, they're the ones who decide what movies to make, how to make them, and what to spend on them, right?
Yeah, it is ridiculous that the Times has a token conservative on its editorial page. Why in the world would you want to be exposed to an opinion different from your own. I think I speak on behalf of all NYT readers: Please, keep the opinions uniformal, so we can always have our own opinions mimicked back to us. And that way we can always be right.
JE: I agree that Kristol is nothing but a token, but do you think he makes a good case for conservatism? A lot of conservatives think he's as much of a hack as, say, O'------ or A-- C------. He's phoned in his insubstantial NYT columns as if he doesn't even care if he makes sense or not -- which is why he's pissed off the non-Palin right so much. And rightly so. John Tierney, the Times' former libertarian/conservative columnist before Kristol, was terrific and I still follow him in the science section. You get right to the real issue, though: Why can't/won't the NYT hire a conservative writer with a brain? Putting Kristol and Brooks up against their other columnists is just pathetic -- even worse than weakling Colmes vs. bully-boy Hannity. (Maureen Dowd, though, is as intellectually weak as Kristol or Brooks.) Any suggestions for smart, ideologically conservative columnists? Do you think Gingrich would take the job?
I think you answered your own question with your hannity/colmes analogy --- the NYT doesn't want to challenge its readers and writers anymore than Hannity would want to challenge his audience. The same sickness which infects Hollywood, infects a lot of people, right or left, which is they don't want their pre-conceived, comfortable opinions to be challenged. That would require thinking. I agree, Kristol does not make a good case for conservatism, though I don't think that is why his selection ignited a paroxysm of protest from NYT readers --- they didn't want a conservative, period, even a token one. But the one thing conservatism has going for it right now is that there are at least a dozen brilliant, perceptive and intellectually honest conservative writers --- all on the blogosphere and all under 40. And frankly they are better off there then at a paper like the NYT where they would be constrained by editors and 800 word limits. The number of newspaper columnists I read regularly has dwindled to a number I can count on my hand. Blogs, and I feel the same way about film criticism, can offer so much more creative and nuanced analysis in so much more detail. The prestige a postion like Kristols at the NYT offers may last a few more years, but there will be a day soon when no one will want his job.
Bill "Always Wrong. Always." Kristol. It's not like he doesn't have enough outlets to spew his idiocy. In the fine tradition of conservative nepotism, Kristol was hired because his dad and the Time's editorial editor's dad (who was himself the former editor) were friends.
Daniel Larison at the American Conservative would be my pick
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/
Kristol's a hack. He doesn't use his column to actually promote conservative thought, he uses it consistently to try and steer conversations toward the problems with "liberals." The fact his column comes out on the same day as one of the Times's best opinion people--Krugman--makes for a hilarious juxtoposition.
Let's not talk like Kristol is George Will or William F. Buckley here. He's not a dumb man, but that means he's also not dumb enough to honestly tell the American people what his opinions are in the New York Times. What he serves up there is just shallow, manipulative junk, and calling it out as such isn't a plea to purge the NYT of conservatives, just of bad writing.
There is lots of other low-hanging fruit to be picked on the subject of automakers' health v. the USA's, but I must write in defense of "Engine" Charlie Wilson.
In 1952 he resigned as GM prez to become Secretary of Defense, and answered at a hearing, "I [have always] thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors and vice versa".
Now if a liberal's liberal like me can get that quote right, our host should appreciate the difference.
Personally, it would be refreshing to have a voice like Andrew Sullivan working at the NYT; however, I doubt he would leave "The Daily Dish". I have always found him to be intellectual, conservative, honest, and passionate for the cause. As a liberal, I have always been fascinated by his support of conservative, Catholic principles while representing a progressive social agenda.
And in your not-so-humble opinion, the UAW does not share any of the blame for killing a perfectly viable company? Let's be honest here. In 1967 (the year I was born), the Big Three were producing cars which even today, and even by the sought-after European brands, would be considered as marvels of engineering and design. It's unfair to lay the blame solely at the feet of management. The truth is, government put their grubby little paws on this wonderful business at the behest of bloodsucking union leaders, making meaningful changes all but impossible in an ultra-competitive market (take your pick...Toyota, Honda, Audi, BMW, and so on). As important as it is to treat your employees well (happy workers make productive workers), mediocrity leads to death. America is facing an excruciating choice; save millions of jobs now and avoid short-term pain, or completely overhaul Detroit and take the huge risk of making it into a future superpower that it once was. There aren't any good options here...Thank you, UAW!!!
Oh, and by the way...If you want to be taken seriously, don't quote Thomas Friedman. This is a man who is famous for such insightful observations as, "Countries that have McDonalds don't go to war with each other". He's a coward and a loser.
I have sympathy for auto workers, and I have a lot of sympathy for the support companies. But the treatment of, i.e., the electric car is inexcusable. If all the money that were spent on the auto bailout were spent on starting up a new auto company committed to cars relevant to our age, then we might have something here.
I like Sullivan, too, although he has a few hang-ups that do seem a bit odd. (His insistence on finding evidence for Bristol Palin is the biggest one off the top of my head.) He's useful, too, when I'm trying to convince my fiscal conservative parents that there are real (and conservative) arguments for Obama.
As a car guy from the age of five (and I'm 50 now) I get more than a little fed up with what most people have to say about this subject. At the current state of electric motor versus combustion engine technology, the combustion engine is still more cost/energy efficient. As soon as someone finds a way to change that, no manufacturer, foreign or domestic, will resist that change. If you don't know from the business end of a torque wrench, you probably don't know enough about auto design to discuss this subject. It takes five to six years from the time pencil touches paper in auto design to the point a vehicle is ready for production; a lot can happen in five years. The electric car(s) in question here was not much better than a bunch of running concept cars - forget what they look like at the auto show, because many of those concepts are not road ready. Had GM allowed these vehicles to be purchased, I'm certain that any problems would have resulted in lawsuit after lawsuit - and now that GM is preparing a VIABLE electric car (the Chevy VOLT), it's time for the loudmouths in Hollywood, politics, etc., to step up and let their checkbooks do the talking. I could go on, but this little note could be a book if I went deeper into the subject.
Re: Michael Reese
The problem, Mike, is that your opinion is so short-sighted. You want other people to come up with more cost/energy efficient automobiles... let me get this straight, you think someone else should create the innovative car for GM? This is why GM is going to fall flat on its face regardless of any bailout, they are no longer competitive because they are just plain stupid. You want to survive in business... innovate. You want to sink... keep the status quo. I'm sick of GM, I'm sick of the overpaid, under skilled United Autoworkers that offer basically nothing but shrinkage to the bottom line of American productivity. Wake up guys, the need for unions is long gone and does nothing but stifle american competitiveness in the world market.
We need unions as much as I don't care for them today more than ever. It's the unions that first got us decent pay, hours, benefits but I agree the UAW got a carried away and GM along with the other big 2 and btw I'm a "car guy" I'm 52 and I remember being taught that always look at the date the care was finished and make sure it's not on a Monday because all the workers are hung over. Plus they were/are told to make cars that fall apart so they can rake in the big bucks in repairs. This of course backfired but even 30 of backfiring didn't change the way they did biz. We need to turn the clock back a century and start over rebuilding this country. First though we need to show the world we are serious and start to imprison and investigate white collar crime with the seriousness they put into busting a teenage kind who stands conveniently on the corner for them to fetch and boost their numbers.