Like Yglesias, I really have to wonder what gets into the minds of the editors of the Washington Post’s op-ed page. This item, from writer Matthew DeBord, emphasizes the virtues of the Hummer tank truck, and its 10 miles-to-the-gallon fuel efficiency.
When General Motors announced that it would subject its Hummer division to what in the automotive business is known as a “review,” you could hear the tree huggers, the unreconstructed hippies, the postmodern Greens, Al Gore’s organic peanut gallery, every single customer at the Pasadena Whole Foods and the United Prius Owners of America shove aside their alfalfa sprouts and commence clapping. […]
GM desperately needs an obnoxious, attention-grabbing brand to keep from turning into a dreary shadow of its former self. And America needs the Hummer to remind us of what has always made our automobiles stand out, from the tailfin 1950s to the muscle car 1960s and ’70s: swagger. Americans don’t just drive their cars — they proclaim something about themselves by driving them.
It takes a certain kind of man — it’s almost always the owner of a Y chromosome — to take a gander at the Hummer, in all its broad, burly, paramilitary gas-guzzling glory, and see himself behind the wheel, striking fear and loathing in the hearts of ecologically sensitive motorists. Oprah does not drive a Hummer. But Arnold Schwarzenegger has been a proud owner. As has Sylvester Stallone. The Hummer appeals to large men of even larger ego, men who aren’t worried about their carbon footprint and believe that obstacles in life are meant not just to be surmounted but squashed flat. They like owning the beast because, when it bears down on lesser rides on the freeway, those lesser rides — even the Teutonic triple threat of Porsche/BMW/Mercedes — get out of the way. Every once in while, you see a little guy clambering out of a Hummer, painfully in need of a ladder, and you realize that it can also be viewed as a $57,000 ticket to enlarged self-esteem.
So, the Hummer is “obnoxious,” which necessarily makes it a good thing. Responsible people abhor the ridiculousness of the “vehicle,” which also necessarily makes it a good thing. Regular ol’ Americans “fear” a “paramilitary” vehicle on U.S. streets, which, again, necessarily makes it a good thing.
Yglesias asked, “What kind of value do the Post’s editors think this kind of thing is adding to the public conversation?” I’m wondering the same thing.
DeBord, as part of his defense of the beleaguered monstrosity, described the Hummer as a “ridiculously over-capable ride” that “exceeds the requirements of most customers.” But, because it’s “cool,” DeBord said, the vehicle has endured.
Just go to an auto show. People love to climb into Hummers and take in the sights from the driver’s platform.
That may very well be true. But, I imagine, if the Pentagon brought a literal tank into the auto show, I assume people would love to climb into that, too, indulging anyone who played with G.I. Joe action figures as a kid. That does not, however, mean consumers should stop by their local car dealer to work out the financing on a brand new M1 Abrams.
The problem for GM is that, despite a decade of profits on the truck side of its business, it now sees its future primarily in passenger cars. The company management is betting that cheap gas will never come back and that promoting the virtues of a brand that averages less than 15 miles per gallon probably isn’t worth the cost.
Remember, this is meant to sound like criticism.
GM has hinted that, alternatively, it may convert the gas hog to hybrid status. But that would be like putting Rottweilers on a diet of celery and watermelon (“Let sip the dogs of war!”). The whole point of the Hummer is that it chugs fuel, and chugs it proudly, devoid of any sort of neurotic preoccupation with gloomy prophecies of Peak Oil or gas at 10 bucks a gallon.
At this point, it’s hard to know whether this op-ed is a parody or not.
For American life to work, the illusion of endless abundance must be maintained. Sure, we must adapt to a future of less-abundant natural resources. Our vehicles will need to become radically more efficient. But we require vestiges of the old dream to sustain our national optimism, which in turn nourishes our national character.
This is what GM owes us, and what the company owes itself — a ridiculous machine crammed with emotional content, the sort of contraption that Detroit has always done well but increasingly seems to have decided it is incapable of ever doing well again. What GM must remember is that, as much as competitors have altered they way we think about what we drive, it’s depressing to contemplate a future filled with dreary transportation appliances. Here and there, the grandiose legacy of a country in love with freedom of movement must be celebrated, even as we figure out new and more efficient ways to get around. Now, more than ever, we need Hummer, in all its defiant, obnoxious, thoroughly American glory.
So, Hummers are good for us, precisely because they’re bad for us.
I’m sure the Post has published more insufferable nonsense, but nothing recent comes to mind.
