Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary's Ride in a Great Big Truck: The Messages Sent
Yesterday Hillary Clinton's campaign staff found the biggest, most
extravagantly gas-sucking behemoth of a pickup truck they possibly could, to pose her in.
Now
this was a carefully planned photo op -- not only was the gas station
preselected, but so was the specific pump she was to use. The truck
she rode in did not belong to her workingman host, but to his boss --
supposedly the employee's own truck wasn't large enough to
accommodate her Secret Service escort, though I didn't see any
security people in the truck with them. (Maybe someone was crouching
down in the truck's spacious cab.)
What messages was her campaign trying to
convey?
The obvious, overt message was
that at nearly $4.00 a gallon, gas costs more than it should, and
that (like her redemptive husband before her) she feels our pain. She repeated her endorsement of John
McCain's 3-month "gas tax holiday" idea, even though it
has been slammed as a total giveaway to OPEC and the oil industry,
even by her own supporters (Krugman). As if, at $3.78 a gallon, gas
would feel like a bargain!
She told her working class
constituency, and by extension all Americans, that they should be
able to drive whatever the hell vehicle they want, regardless of
their impact on the economy, or the environment, or our national
security -- not to mention their own pocketbooks.
Senator Clinton's motorcade
consisted of a small fleet of identically large SUV's. By riding in what was
unmistakably the biggest vehicle in the parade, she demonstrated her
"testicular fortitude", as surely as if she had challenged
her pansy primary opponent to a demolition derby in his effete
Volvo. (Or, as I am sure the Secret Service saw it, the campaign had pasted a large "Candidate is Here" target on the vehicle, which as far as I know was not fully armored.)
What was proved by this stunt? Well,
now we know that it's been decades since Hilary Clinton pumped her
own gas, or her own coffee.
Now in real life, how many people here believe that Sen. Clinton has ever in her life regularly ridden in any sort of pickup, or that she really shares the values of the target market of such a truck? The whole exercise stands as a metaphor for her deeply dishonest campaign.
Comments (8)
If only all voters saw through the bullshit. But, there will be some who see it differently, and will perceive her stunt as a real connection to their family.
May 2, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, in principle we should be able to drive whatever kind of vehicle we want. To do that, we need to radically improve/essentially solve the energy and emissions issues. That means moving on to an efficient alternative to internal combustion engine in a way that doesn't overheat our atmosphere and overpollute our air. Al Gore lives in a big house and uses alternative means to heat it. I'm for everyone having a big house if they want.
We have 30 years more science and economics behind us since Carter told us to put on sweaters and turn down the thermostats. Back then we were still all concerned about food supply holding out with overpopulation, but somehow 30 years later our production has easily kept up (though our ocean management has not). In economics terms, we have to make sure any attempts at conservation don't preclude the innovation that gets us out of this mess. Gas at $4 or more is a good thing - it makes economic alternatives interesting and worth pursuing. Buying small cars only pushes the problem off to another day and makes people unable to carry as much, lowering their daily efficiency. (Expensive gas lowers efficiency as well for those who can't afford, but the economic pressure is greater than that of people driving small boxy cars).
Many of the people driving big pickups have work to do. They are not all greedy or uncaring, and it would be better not to make them the enemy because they're not. Next someone will be telling me I don't need all that CPU power in my computer and that I could get by with a sub-compact.
May 2, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your "in prinicpal" argument ignores the reality that one person's rights ends where they intrude on another's. In this case the right to carelessly drive gas-guzzling vehicles is intruding on the right of all of us to avoid catastrophic global warming. In the city where I live (Minneapolis-St. Paul) fully 1/3 of the vehicles on the road during commute hours are SUVs and pickups and less than 10% have more than one person in them. These are not working people who need such vehicle to commute. They are simply ordinary folks who like having a pickup or SUV for those occasional times it is useful.
And your observation that it has been 30 years since Carter addressed this matter - presciently if ineffectively - only highlights the fact that our government and our culture has done everything they can to ignore the issue. How have we used those 30 years to improve our energy strategy? Twice we've raised average gas-mileage requirements? Big deal. We barely use wind or solar power. The only investment in the critical area of battery technology (or other energy storage systems required in order to get off the oil band-wagon) has been private. Let the market work! Yeah, like hell. The market works to enrich those who control the market at the time, and those people are the oil, gas and auto industries. Waiting for them to solve the problem is like waiting for Cheney to release the proceedings of his meetings with the energy companies. You can wait, but it ain't gonna happen.
Hillary and her convoy of SUVs is really sad. She knows damn good and well that we have to do something about carbon-emissions but she is willing to pander to the big-vehicle lovers in order to get elected. I'm sure she' rationalizing it with personal plans for how she will address global-warming if elected, but it sure shows just how low on fuel is her integrity tank. She doesn't have much left.
May 2, 2008 5:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
What, you read the first line of my post and started typing?
May 2, 2008 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the point of my piece is to not just dismiss all these car owners as stupid selfish people, but to work with them in ways that create effective, non-demagogic solutions.
More "bitter" talk from progressives. Clinging to guns, religion and pickups.
May 2, 2008 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
First line
"Well, in principle we should be able to drive whatever kind of vehicle we want."
Middle line:
"Buying small cars only pushes the problem off to another day..."
Last Paragraph
"Many of the people driving big pickups have work to do. They are not all greedy or uncaring,..."
I think I read the whole thing. What I missed is that part about:
"work with them in ways that create effective, non-demagogic solutions."
Where was that? What work did you propose? You say "We have 30 years more science and economics behind us since Carter told us to put on sweaters and turn down the thermostats." Tell me, how much more of our energy do we derive from new technologies today than we did when Carter made that statement?
Your attitude seems to be "don't worry about it, technology will fix things. Let us go on doing what we want to do and technology will solve the problem."
Well, technology will certainly be required to solve the problem but it is not going to take place if the government doesn't start funding it. And the way to get the government to fund it is to demonstrate, by our insistence that we change how we live and use energy, as proof that there is political will among the general population to change our energy policies. If your attitude prevails the government will do nothing because they will see no support in the voter base for change.
May 2, 2008 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Driving smaller cars only pushes the problem off to another generation. It may be extremely important to do this, just like getting out of a burning house, but that doesn't mean it puts out the fire or that sitting on the sofa is an odd desire. There's nothing terribly different from this conversation and ones in the 1970's aside from the passage of 30 relatively fruitless years.
May 2, 2008 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
By your own logic, $4.00 gasoline is a good thing, because it will magically spur some radical technical innovation that will allow us to blow right past any energy consumption limits -- to overpopulate the planet geometrically, even as we all commute by Chinook helicopter or Harrier jump-jet, if that be our desire. I'm not quite so sanguine: I believe the Laws of Thermodynamics.
But let's say you're right -- that expensive gas today is our ticket to guilt-free energy-binging tomorrow. Three questions, then:
1. Gas has been at $4.00 a gallon in much of the world for years. So, great: Where do I go to buy my costs-nothing-to-run, 22-passenger Hover-Segway?
2. If $4.00 gas is good, logically wouldn't $16.00 gas be better?
3. If $4.00 gas is good, why is your candidate trying to artificially lower its price?
May 2, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment