Archive [June 2000]

On Thursday, May 11, we had a pathetic example of liberalism’s poison at work. That was the day the Ford Motor Company engaged in self-flagellation before its shareholders at Ford’s annual meeting — for the sin of successfully marketing its sport utility vehicles. For the crime of pleasing Ford customers. For the offense of meeting the demands of American drivers.

The company handed out a 98-page book, “Connecting With Society.” Right there red flags go up. Why should an automaker have to “connect” with society, anyway? They are in business to sell vehicles. That’s a superb connection with society. But noooo, these days satisfying your market is something you have to apologize for.

And apologize they did. The book Ford gave to shareholders is an exercise in the effects of liberal guilt. In its pages, the company accedes to accusation after accusation made by the enemies of American progress — conceding, for example, that SUVs burn more gas and emit more pollution than cars. Of course they do — they’re bigger than cars. Which is the whole point. Ford also admits SUVs can pose a danger to smaller vehicles in crashes. Oh, no! The laws of physics! And Ford regrets that “with a few exceptions, its products are not industry leaders in fuel economy.” Shame, shame, shame. The book even quotes the Sierra Club: “The gas-guzzling SUV is a rolling monument to environmental destruction.” I kid you not.

Now, I do not blame Ford for all this in the slightest. I love the Ford Motor Company, as I do all successful American bid-nesses. What they have done is completely rational. They see what’s happened to the tobacco companies, they look at Microsoft, the pharmaceutical companies, the insurance companies, the fast food companies, the firearms industry — all the enterprises that have been on the receiving end of liberal attacks. Liberal hate. Liberal intolerance. Liberal mean-spiritedness.

Ford understands that it, too, has a big fat target painted on its back. And not just Ford — all the SUV manufacturers do. But the fact is, the Sierra Club has been targeting Ford in particular for several years in an unrelenting campaign — because Ford dares to manufacture the eeeevil Explorer. (Dubbed by the Sierra Club “the Exploiter.” What Ford is doing now is simple self-protection. It’s smart business.

No, I blame liberals.

Here’s this from the Associated Press: “In a startling admission, Ford Motor Co. says that its high-profit business in sport utility vehicles doesn’t always jibe with its desire to be more environmentally responsible … The automaker’s SUVs were the major engine behind the company’s record profits of $7.2 billion last year; some models can carry profit margins of nearly $15,000.”

And there you have the root of the problem. This is what the left cannot stand. One word: profit.

Ford, clearly, is a business which must be punished. They are making too much money. There is nothing that can gin up liberal activism faster than that — news that a corporation or enterprise is making “record profits.” So now Ford is pressured to recite its failings like some poor captive in a Communist re-education camp. Which is why its “Connecting With Society” book dutifully catalogues “environmentally friendly” steps the company is taking to redeem itself, such as making its SUVs meet low-emission standards, and increasing the number of recyclable parts.

Do you think liberals will be satisfied? Of course not!

When I first began discussing what the Sierra Club and the environmentalist wackos had in mind for SUVs, many of you pooh-poohed my warnings. You said, “There you go, Rush, you reactionary. You don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.” Well, I hope you have the courage to admit it — I’ve been right every step of the way.

It was about two years ago when I noticed that the Sierra Club was making a move on the SUV. “It’s basically like a garbage truck which dumps into the sky,” said Daniel Becker, Director of the Sierra Club’s Global Warming and Energy Program. Becker called SUVs “the Joe Camel of the auto industry.” Right then, I knew there would be hell to pay tor the auto industry.

And I nailed it. Right on cue, liberals began going after SUVs with a vengeance. We heard how they supposedly roll over, that they pollute, that they make the world a dangerous place for our children, that they place other drivers at risk — because when people are in smaller cars, the SUV is a lethal weapon. The Sierra Club actually used the term “suburban assault vehicle.”

Liberals everywhere, mind-numbed robots that they are, all began repeating the anti-SUV talking points: SUVs are unsafe; they’re gas-guzzlers; it’s not fair that some should ride in relative safety while others who can’t afford SUVs are forced to ride in smaller cars, and are thus at greater risk in a collision. It quickly became a badge of liberal genuineness to hate SUVs. To despise them. To sneer at those who drive them.

The fact is, folks, we’ve found a recipe for safe driving; it’s called the SUV. If you’re in one, you’re safer than you would be otherwise. But as is typical with liberals, rather than try to encourage everybody to ride in a vehicle that’s known to be safer, libs want to take those in SUVs out of them and put them in smaller cars to make them more at risk. It’s not fair some should be more safe than others.

That’s the way liberals always attempt to equalize things. They never seek to improve everybody’s lot in life; rather they seek to take those at the high end and lower their lot in life, so as to make things equitable for those beneath them. Liberalism never seeks to elevate; it only seeks to lower. In order to accomplish this, liberals target the achievers, the successful, the “haves” — and attempt to shackle them.

Well, now we have entered a new phase in the anti-SUV movement. I base that not only on the May 11 Ford statements, but also based on a telling column in The Los Angeles Times on May 8. (And don’t think the timing is coincidental, my friends. This is all the result of a concerted effort by the left, now that the groundwork has been laid over the past two years.) The column, by Shawn Hubler, is titled, “In SUV, THE ‘S’ SURE DOESN’T STAND FOR ‘SAFETY’”:

The SUV craze used to be amusing. When friends would talk about their sport utes, they’d say that word — utes — as it it were the height of sophisticated hilarity. When we got rid of ours, people would start smiling even before we joked that it was because of the way I looked trying to crawl out of it in high heels. Or because the gas bills were more than what the Forbes 500 spent on corporate jet fuel. Or because I found myself reflexively hunching every time I pulled into the parking garage doorway.

I never divulged the real reason, a reason that wasn’t remotely funny: the constant fear that the tank I was driving was going to hurt someone someday, no matter how carefully I drove. Something about it just didn’t feel like a regular car that a regular driver could handle. It handled like a big rig in the preschool parking lot.

Notice, now, this phrase: “no matter how carefully I drove.” So it was completely beyond her control that she might hurt somebody. It’s not your fault, you SUV drivers. It’s the tank you’re in — by itself — that causes the threat. So now this woman has given up her SUV because of the guilt she could no longer bear — which is clearly an attempt to spread that guilt throughout the SUV driving community. Hubler goes on:

At the time, that secret fear seemed silly. But the more that is known about SUVs, the more widespread has been the call to take their size and power — and handling issues — more seriously. The most recent terrible news peg: The mother and child buried Saturday in Pasadena because a sober 16-year-old, driving the speed limit, lost control of his black 1999 Ford Explorer and accidentally veered up onto the sidewalk, hitting them.

“Devastated,” is how Pasadena Police Sgt. George Wiley, the investigating officer, described all involved in the accident that sent the SUV careening into a throng of screaming pedestrians near the Chandler School last week. Eight people were injured, in addition to the two who died.

I suppose this wouldn’t have happened if he’d been driving the standard four-door family sedan, lost control, hit the curb and hit a couple of people. Is that what we’re to believe here, that something smaller than an SUV driving at the speed limit by a sober 16-year-old would not have hurt anybody? The piece continues:

The teenager — the son of a Pomona Superior Court commissioner — is said to be inconsolable. Though some pointed to the tragedy as an object lesson on teenage drivers, the boy had a new, strict “provisional” license, and was obeying its mandate not to carry teenage passengers.

“We’re not looking at speed or drugs or alcohol,” Wiley says. “While we are looking at other factors, it appears to have been an accident in the pure, Webster’s dictionary sense of the word. It was a ‘99 Explorer XLT and a 16-year-old with five months driving experience. It appears to have been the sort of inattention that happens every day to drivers, except that on this day, it had tragic results.”

Tragic, he says, because the sidewalk was crowded that day. But also because the kid whose mind wandered was driving the sort of vehicle that doesn’t get stopped by 9-and-a-half-inch curbs.

See? If he’d been in a small car, the curb would have stopped him!

The sort of vehicle that, until last year, carried labels warning that it might go out of control if turned too abruptly. The sort of vehicle that makes you wonder: Is it really in the public interest to keep treating these tanks like regular cars?

None of this, of course, makes the driver less responsible, but you don’t need high beams to see the growing concern about SUVs. Raise your hand it you bought your sport ute just to protect yourself (or your kid) from other sport utes. The average SUV is 800 pounds heavier than the average car on the highway, and high SUV hoods cause more injuries when they broadside autos. In a crash, SUVs are almost three times as likely as cars to kill the other guy.

One recent study found that people who drive SUVs believe consistently that they are driving more slowly than they actually are…”

You thought I was kidding. You thought I was making it up. They’re coming for your SUV, folks. This is just the next phase, a mother who used to drive one now claiming heightened sensitivity because of an accident that could have been stopped by a curb if the teenager had been driving a smaller vehicle.

Oh, being right! What a burden!

It’s just so predictable. Shawn Hubler is making the case these vehicles are just too dangerous — to people who are not in them. They’re uncontrollable! We’ve got to do something! So this is the next phase — to get female drivers, the sensitive ones among us, the compassionate ones among us, the mothers, the former SUV owners, to see the light.

“But Rush,” you ask, “why do liberals want to get rid of SUVs?” Ladies and gentlemen, you’ve got to understand something here. This move on SUVs is just the latest opportunity to advance a general idea — that you shouldn’t have personal choice, that you don’t know what’s best for you, or for the society in which you live; that left to your own devices, you are accident prone. You could die, you might kill somebody else. You cannot be trusted.

It takes a higher authority, a much wiser and all-knowing central state, to plan the kind of vehicles we’re going to drive, the highways on which the vehicles are going to be driven, the speeds at which they’re going to travel, the height of their bumpers, where their center of gravity should be. That’s what underlies all this.

The theory is, we’re incompetent and incapable of making the correct judgments and choices that would allow us to lead lives of ultimate safety, righteousness and goodness. Only all-knowing, all-caring, all-compassionate liberals are capable of understanding the tough choices that must be made. And only these liberals are capable of making them for us.

The SUV is simply the latest opportunity to exercise this particular point of view. Why else would there be an actual organization in America called the Coalition for Vehicle Choice (www.vehiclechoice.org)? Why else would such an organization ever be formed? Because this choice is threatened.

Note their own statement of purpose:

“Goals: The Coalition for Vehicle Choice (CVC) is a non-profit organization created to preserve the freedom of Americans to choose motor vehicles that meet their needs and their freedom to travel. CVC includes individuals and groups from all walks of life who believe freedom of choice and mobility are important values that must be considered when society develops polices intended to protect the environment, encourage energy efficiency and promote traffic safely.”

They think you should be free to choose a vehicle that meets your needs! How ridiculous! But the fact is, ladies and gentlemen, liberals do not believe you should be free to do so. In fact, that’s why the Vehicle Choice people started up in the first place: “The CVC was formed in response to growing concern about … proposed solutions that would potentially limit the choice of motor vehicles and restrict the mobility of American motorists.”

They understand that the freedom for you to decide for yourself what kind of vehicle you want to drive is under assault. It is sad, but the following statement is not accepted by the environmentalist wackos: “The CVC also believes that part of the genius of America is its reliance on a competitive economy that provides consumers a large number of choices in the purchase and use of cars and trucks. The members of CVC believe Americans place a high value on their ability to choose from among a large number of cars and trucks to meet their many varied transportation needs.”

The Coalition for Vehicle Choice members understand that there actually are people who want to make the choice for you as to what kind of car you can and can’t drive.

What do you think the electric car is all about? Nobody wants the electric car. But that isn’t going to matter someday, if these libs get control of things. If people who actually believe we must get rid of the internal combustion engine in 25 years because it’s going to destroy the country — people like Algore — have the power, they’re going to find a way to implement their error. They’re going to force you and me and everybody else into cars we don’t want.

We’re not able, you see, to make the decisions that are best for the people, for the nation at large, for the earth. Left to our own devices, we will not do the right thing; we never will. Only liberals forcing us to do the right thing will see to it that the right thing is done. The anti-SUV movement is just the latest means to advance that premise.

We must talk about this in the context of eroding freedoms — for this is yet another example of liberals attempting to shackle you. But you must be vigilant, for many of these are not direct, obvious, blatant assaults. In fact, this one is very clever.

Liberals are very patient. They’ve already waged a two-year campaign to set the foundation: the objective is to attempt to convince you to give up this killer, this monster, this polluter of your own volition. Libs know that, if they simply march out there and try to pass a law that says you can’t own a sport utility vehicle, you’ll revolt. It is human nature to desire to do what you’re denied the opportunity to do, to desire to be what you’re denied the opportunity to be. Human nature is to rebel.

But if they can somehow play on your guilt — you’re putting your own children at risk; you’re putting the children of others that you don’t even know at risk; you’re wasting precious fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere for your kids; your kids run a greater risk of emphysema and lung cancer in the future because of your SUV — well, as a responsible parent, what are you to do? Get rid of your SUV! Then along comes a column written by an ostensibly responsible mother and parent who’s seen the light. It’s designed to influence you to see the light as well, so you willingly give up an automobile of your choosing.

Do not underestimate the grandiose schemes and the far-reaching planning and thinking of liberals. The American left will live your life for you — because you don’t have what it takes to live it properly on your own.

Remember what put Ralph Nader on the map? It was a book about the Chevrolet Corvair, called Unsafe At Any Speed. It essentially argued that the Corvair was too small and flimsy to be safe. Nader was later proved wrong, by the way. But the public was convinced to be frightened of the small car. Now look what has happened. The left has done a 180 — now they are making precisely the opposite argument about what kinds of cars people should and shouldn’t drive. Now Americans shouldn’t drive big, sturdy cars because they put at risk people driving small cars — who are driving, if you will, the Corvairs of the day.

The aim, my friends — and it is essential to understand this — has nothing to do with vehicles, and everything to do with power and control. They want it, and will use every means they can to get it.

Folks, it really is nothing more complicated than this: the natural human yearnings are despised by liberals. The yearning to be free is despised.

Why else do they cheer the idea of sending Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba? Why do they want big government? Why do they want regulations and laws on virtually every aspect of life?

It’s simple: They don’t trust freedom. They don’t trust you using freedom. They don’t trust freedom in your hands. The excellent quality of SUVs gives them a great target and an effective way to make this point. Note how they’re doing it now: on the basis of safety. This is a new twist. When they first started the anti-SUV movement, it was focused totally on air pollution and gas-guzzling: “the Joe Camel of the auto industry.”

But that didn’t take hold. It didn’t, as hoped, cause collective guilt among SUV owners. So next they attack the safety record — of the cars that are victims of SUVs. Yes, we have victim cars now. We get all these statistics — if you’re in an accident and you’re in an SUV, you’re fine. But if you’re not in an SUV, if you’re not a winner of life’s lottery and can’t afford to drive an SUV, you’ll probably die.

The purpose of that is to begin inflicting subtle guilt on SUV drivers: “Maybe it isn’t fair that I have one of these.”

Now, this may work with a few people, but overall it’s going to backfire. The liberals haven’t figured this out yet, but nobody’s going to tell Americans what they can and can’t drive. Why do you think people are buying SUVs? Don’t tell me it’s to be fashionable. Don’t tell me it’s to be hip and cool. The main reason is that parents know their kids are safer in them. But here comes the anti-SUV crowd trying to spread guilt on the very basis of safety, on the basis that they’re endangering others. But the SUV is the epitome of driving safety. It’s not the other way around.

It’s just classic liberalism. If you’ve never understood liberalism before, use this SUV campaign as your education — because it illustrates, as well as anything can, the liberal mindset on freedom, choice, the ability of people to lead their own lives. Liberals just don’t think you can.

What guides liberals is their convoluted notion of equality and sameness, that if we do anything in society that protects some, and if we ostensibly place others at greater risk, then those who are safer and protected are guilty. But to me, the whole notion that there are people who are trying to get you out of your SUV either by force or by the use of guilt is depressing enough. What other aspect of your life will they someday decide for you?

Some people are more talented than others, some people have more ambition than others, some people are smarter than others. There’s no way we’re all going to be equal and there’s no way we’re ever going to eliminate accidents.

The thing that’s missed is the incredible safety record that’s being built. When you look at the number of passenger miles being flown, the number of passenger miles being driven, the number of vehicles on the road compared to the number of injuries and deaths, it’s really minute compared to the volume of traffic that’s out there, both on the ground and in the air. There are actually reasons to be pleased and optimistic about the progress we’re making as a society. But these liberals want to create panic and doom, so that you will eventually give up control of another area of your life. That’s how I see it, and I’m right.

Liberals want you to see virtue in being less safe. Smaller vehicles weigh less, burn less gasoline. People who are buying smaller cars, they’re the ones at risk. It’s noble, don’t you see? They’re the ones obeying the laws of nature! They’re the ones at risk, because they’re the ones who care about pollution and fossil fuels and damage to the atmosphere, and the good of society. It’s these inconsiderate gas-burning, bloated tank drivers who barrel down the road without concern for anybody else — they’re the ones who are the problem. They’re just so arrogant!

Ah, there’s the rub. Liberals despise those who are confident, prosperous, enjoying life. It’s just so — well, it’s so American.

Amen.

“Rush, why are making such a big deal out of this?” Well, ladies and gentlemen, for one thing, it’s something I’ve been warning you about for two years, and it’s an opportunity to say: See, I told you so. You pooh-poohed it; you thought I was being an alarmist. And I was right.

But it’s also a great opportunity to inform and educate those of you who don’t quite believe or understand the liberal mindset and its objectives, which are all wrapped up right in this SUV story.

This is a battle about freedom of choice, freedom of association, freedom to live your life as unencumbered as you can — despite the efforts that others will make to limit that freedom of choice. They will continually attempt to hold you back, to control you, to shackle you. They will try. But your freedom is stronger than their chains.