Old axioms unsuitable for new needs

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By
Saul Landau                                                            Read Spanish Version

“Wandering between two worlds,
one dead, the other powerless to be born.”–Matthew Arnold

The
time for Obama and his “change” phrases will soon get tested. As
candidate, he wisely refrained from spelling out the specifics of
policies the country needed or what he actually planned to do about
failed foreign policy and a badly wounded economy — aside from his
less than radical health care package.

Three
days after the election, unemployment rose and foreclosures
continued, and one of the pillars of global economy, General Motors,
pleaded with Congress for bailout money. Ford and Chrysler joined the
begging parade. GM executives announced the company was losing $2
billion a week and only Congress (the taxpayers) could save the
company that had extracted unimaginable hundreds of billions in
profits over the years from the very same source — including mammoth
salaries and perks for the top honchos.

The
auto CEOs met with Congressional leaders and behaved as if everyone
knew they deserved the money. When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
questioned these pompous failures about the accountability of the
funds they requested, she also promised these czar-like auto chiefs
that Congress would monitor the spending of the bailout funds — if
it decided to vote for them.

She
and her Senate counterpart, ironically, shared the basic assumption
of the dim witted auto moguls. “A healthy automobile manufacturing
sector is essential to the restoration of financial market stability,
the overall health of our economy and the livelihood of the
automobile work force,” wrote Pelosi and Senate majority leader
Harry Reid to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. (NY
Times,
November 8, 2008)

Did
Pelosi and Reid know that in the early 1920s, General Motors brass
bribed the Los Angeles City Council not to finance public
transportation so that the motor car industry could thrive in the
entertainment capital? Did they recall that in the early 1950s, GM
CEO Charles Wilson boasted, “What’s good for General Motors is
good for the country?”

At
the time, liberals feigned outrage at such a callous remark. But
Wilson’s statement contained a painful truth: this large
corporation had become a means and end of U.S. policy. Automobiles,
after all, required glass, rubber, metals, chemicals, cloth for
upholstery, plastic and other ingredients. Factories large and small
throughout the country furnished these goods. Auto dealers, new and
used, repair shops, and car washes serviced those who used this basic
American product. Cars became so quintessentially American that
Chevrolet (GM) took its place alongside apple pie and baseball.

Who
could question the centrality of auto manufacturing to the soundness
of the economy? In those days, the big 3 automakers controlled
production and sales — long before VW, Toyota and other foreign
manufacturers began to compete with better products and prices. But
in recent years, the auto bosses have behaved like the Wall Street
idiots and other titans who directed the U.S. economy straight into
the toilet. They made stupid decisions, rewarded themselves with high
salaries, bonuses, perks and stock options and sneered at critics who
warned that by continuing to emphasize SUVs and Hummers and not try
to make a car for the times, they would lose their traditional
markets. Eventually, even the stupidest Americans learned that
“buying American” meant owning a gas guzzling, road destroying,
environment polluting collage of heavy metal and cheap plastic.
Furthermore, it would break down far more rapidly than the much
demeaned but
more
gas efficient and environmentally friendly cars.

“Can
you imagine these jerks coming to Congress, not to plead their case
and admitting they were terrible managers, but
we
shouldn’t worry because they’ll do better in the future?” an
irate House Member confided to me. “These multimillionaire losers
walked in here with a sense of total entitlement! As if they had
earned our infinite respect because they led GM, Ford and Chrysler. I
hope someone gives them the news. They’re not number one any more.”

By
2008, much of the U.S. auto-related industry had already fled to
cheaper labor markets and the foreign competitors (like Toyota)
assembled cars in the United States. But beyond that, think of what
the letter signed by Pelosi and Reid assumed axiomatically. As the
environment deteriorates, why not question the continued manufacture
of autos and not propose a switch to mass transit and more
sustainable vehicles?

In
the global warming age, to juxtapose the words “automobile” and
“health” as they do in their letter seems incongruous — even if
thirty years from now someone designs a car that runs on nitrogen.

The
Founding Fathers created two Houses so Members of one (Senate) could
think long term. Unfortunately, the contemporary Solons have absorbed
the truncated future orientation of the immediate gratification
society and six years seems to be the longest any of them dare peek
ahead.

No
one in power has faced the obvious environmental challenge. Al Gore,
now out of competitive politics, delivers periodic sermons on the
subject. His essays vibrate with sincerity, but remain vague when it
comes to dictating the harsh measures needed to deal with the
critical situation he portrays.

If
Congress thinks bailing out the undeserving car manufacturing tycoons
will help restore economic equilibrium, then they might also fund
experiments designed to make pigs fly. Even with some accountability
built into a Congressional auto bailout — not that likely —
steering money to antiquated and damaging technology appears
logically counterproductive.

Perhaps
President Obama in January will begin to challenge this and other
antediluvian assumptions?

In
foreign policy, the elite still stride confidently with that “We’re
Number 1” step. This supposition derives from the 20^th
Century, when the United States possessed the world’s most
formidable economy and, much of the world assumed, a powerful
military loathe going to war again with an enemy that could fight
back.

The
world now knows that U.S. superior will, technology and fighting
ability has resulted in lost wars (except against tiny Grenada and
impotent Panama) and squandered resources, including lives. After the
invasion of Iraq, the
world also learned that partnership with the U.S. means subservience
to the President’s Oedipal whims or just plain hubris.

After
January 20, President Obama will have to define the role of the
United States in the world just as he will weigh in
on how
the government directs the U.S economy — not a return to Wilson’s
1953 “What’s best for GM.”

The
United States no longer leads a free world. Indeed, the very meaning
of the words “free world” in 2008 should confound all mavens of
international affairs.

If
Obama opts for another try at a New Deal, he will try to direct money
away from bailing out the Wall Street and automobile company losers
and into desperately needed public works. He will need many times
more the investment made under FDR in the 1930s, for restoration of
water and sewage treatment plants, reparations to roads, dikes and
bridges, the refurbishing of education and health foundations and
public transportation. The environment’s health must also become
the parchment on which the new policies are written.

An
honest and intelligent new President will subject to scrutiny the
axioms that now underlie language relating to the U.S. role in the
world. Isn’t it time to forget the silliness of the “we’re
number one” axiom — a meaningless concept in an age of deep
environmental threat and interlinked economies? The practical meaning
of #1 means ever higher defense budgets that produce weapons that
don’t defend the country.

Look
how quickly the mavens of free market economics abandoned their
prized dogmas. Those who demanded bailouts of Wall Street and now the
car industry had steadfastly demanded deregulation so the invisible
hand of the market could govern their business dealings. As soon as
business got really bad, they came like indignant beggars to demand
government help for financial and manufacturing business they had run
into the ground.

Instead
of simply taking over the financial and manufacturing areas, the
government seems intent on lending taxpayer money to these arrogant
airheads — because liberals in Congress want to forestall more huge
job losses. But cars had their century — the 20^th.
This century’s environment has sent dire warning signs about
continuing to employ technology that relies on fossil fuels and
causes insane highway congestion, noise pollution and death.

Because
people — including the most powerful — don’t question axioms,
Obama will face a Herculean task.
He seems up to it!

Saul
Landau is an Institute for Policy Studies fellow. His films are
available on DVD through
http://roundworldproductions.com/Site/Films_by_Saul_Landau_on_DVD.html.