I find it fascinating that liberals like Maureen Dowd and Jimmy Carter can infer racism as the motivation for Rep. Wilson's comment. First, what race are they talking about? In context, one must assume Negro (yes, that is the race; African-American is ancestry). Now how do Mr. Carter and Ms. Dowd assume a man who is of mixed racial ancestry is Negro or Black? Interestingly, they are relying on old Jim Crow and antebellum American (not just southern) criteria. Back in the heyday of Jim Crow Laws, a person was considered Negro if he/she was 1/8Th (in some instances 1/16Th) Negro or Black. In other words, even the most imperceptible physically appearing Negro person who had a great or great-great grandparent who was Negro, was considered to be a member of that race, despite the fact that they were perhaps 7/8Th, Caucasian. Clearly this was true racism; defining a person for the purposes of segregating them from others in the most narrow of biological terms. It was irrational and served only as a means to place artificial identification on people in order to disadvantage them in competitive society; keep them from competing for jobs, wealth, status, etc. The practice of segregating on the basis of a percentage of racial heritage/ancestry eventually was seen by the vast majority of Americans as fully inconsistent with the foundations of the country and had to be eliminated.
Barack Obama, racially, is half Negro and half Caucasian. Yet Mr. Carter and Ms Dowd attempt to read the intention of another person, Mr. Wilson, by identifying Mr. Obama on the basis of only half of his racial ancestry. Why couldn't Mr. Wilson be calling a 50% Caucasian president a "liar"? Mr Obama is as much of that race is he is Negro, isn't he? When the Irish of The President's maternal ancestry traced his genealogy back to Ireland, they called him and he claimed to be, "Irish". Mr. Obama, who's mother was Caucasian, was raised by his Caucasian maternal grandparents, and is Irish by heritage. However, Carter and Dowd see him only as Black or African-American. How else could they assume that Mr. Wilson's comments were anti-black? The President is as much "white" as he is "black", biologically. Yet they insist on defining him as Old Jim Crow would; he is 50% "Black", so he is "black". You see, a white Mr. Wilson cannot be segregated and marginalized out of political competition unless he can be contrasted against a black. Consequently, it is necessary to ignore that Mr. Obama is as much white as he is black. Mr. Obama must be defined in the Jim Crow narrow definition based on his racial content as black in order to impugn Mr. Wilson's opinions as being a result of his white race, which is necessarily prejudiced against Blacks. Never mind that Mr. Wilson could be 1/8Th Black, Irish or Native American. He must be white, so Mr Obama can be black. Jimmy Carter and Maureen Dowd are practicing Jim Crow segregation and race baiting just as much as Arkansas Governor Faubus did in the 1954 integration of Little Rock schools or George Wallace did standing in the doorway of the University of Alabama. The Governors were Jim Crow racists then and Carter and Dowd are Jim Crow racists now.
There was a man named Homer Plessy who was "black" and rode a "whites only" trolley car in New Orleans about the turn of the twentieth century. He was arrested because he was "negro". The NAACP assisted him and he challenged the legality of the law all the way to the supreme court. He lost and the case of Plessy vs Ferguson institutionalized Jim Crow by establishing the doctrine of "separate but equal". What most folks don't know is that Mr. Plessy was 7/8 Caucasian. After the court case, he continued to ride in the "White's only" section of New Orlean's trolleys, because very few could tell by looking at the man that his race wasn't "White". He self-identified himself as Negro, at the urging of the NAACP and a local citizen's group opposed to the law, in order to get arrested and test the law's constitutionality. Only when people apply arbitrary subjective criteria as a method of categorizing others (or themselves) in broad generalities can racism exist. Otherwise, people are just people. Unfortunately what Mr. Carter, Ms. Dowd and other liberals have done is define Mr. Obama narrowly and subjectively in Jim Crow racial terms so they can exploit, segregate and discriminate against Mr. Wilson and any who may agree with him on health care reform. Somewhere, Doctor King who had a dream that people in America would be judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin, is shaking his head in disbelief.
Jimmy Carter adds another dimension to his hypocrisy. He is a self-proclaimed Christian. Jimmy Carter's Bible instructs us not to judge another person's heart; that is, their intentions. The Gospel of Christ admonishes that people should be careful about plucking the dust from an other's eye as they may have a plank of wood in their own. In this way, Christians are taught to not judge, "lest ye be judged". A person can and will sin. When it happens to fellow Christians, it is our responsibility to support the person and confront the sin, but not judge the heart. Judgement of the heart, or a person's intentions, is reserved for God, alone. When this truth is violated, the person judging presumes to assume the authority of God. Mr. Carter knows this. Yet he judges Mr. Wilson's intentions without even discussing the matter with him, man to man. Brother Carter should be mindful of his Christian obligations.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Addiction
It is no coincidence that Eric Holder has announced the appointment of a prosecutor to pursue CIA interrogators, despite the fact that the cases in question have been previously reviewed by professional investigators and found to have no facts to warrant prosecution. This subject has routinely found its way to the administration's agenda each time the left wing of its support gets restless. And today they are restless because its looking less and less like Mr Obama is going to be able to deliver on his promise of government directed and managed health care. Each time the Obama-Biden ticket has been unable to match their liberal rhetoric with deeds, they pull out either Gitmo or so-called war crimes investigations to divert attention and remind the cannibalistic extreme left that only they can provide them with the sustenance they desire; the heads of conservatives and moderates who dared to consider defending America rather than negotiating with terrorists and enemies of the country.
The Boxers and Pelosis represent the voters and contributors that are still trying to either relive the 1970 anti-war marches or are the angry children of that movement that missed out on supporting Tom Hayden and the Chicago 7. They simply disdain any US history that either suggests or confirms that there is a time for war; a time to kill; a time to hate and a time to tear. They selectively read and quote from verse and philosophies that, contrary to all empirical and historical evidence of humanity, assert that mankind can make heaven on earth; that the lamb will lay down with the lion; if only we will turn away from our darker nature. Just this past week such irrational philosophy has been demonstrated to be completely flawed. Scotland's Minister of Justice, Kenny MacAskill, released the only man convicted of blowing up innocent men, women and children at 10,000 feet above the ground. The well-intended Mr. MacAskill felt compassion must be shown to this poor man who is dying of cancer, despite the fact that he has only served a few years of a life sentence. A sentence, by the way that couldn't consider the more appropriate act of execution for such a heinous crime. So, as Susan Cohen, mother of one of the victims of the Pan Am bombing said, the perpetrators of the crime are getting everything they want; freedom and a hero's tribute for the killer, while the victims and their families look on.
Appeasement is a disease of the intellect that has never worked. It is a lie told to make the victim feel responsible for the rage of the abuser. A lie that makes the abused the cause of their abuse. But the left insists that it should work. So, the current leadership of the Congress and Executive will continue to feed the disease, like providing an addict a drink or fix to a junkie, and keep them pacified, mollified, while they remain in power. CIA interrogation will now have a daily headline and sound bite to remind those intoxicated with the delusional dreams of Mr Ayers and seek a world free of American success that, only when the present leadership is supported, can their dreams come true. So ignore our failures; our glossed-over vague promises of only 10 months ago. Here, have a drink. Relax. Smoke a joint. Don't worry. We'll get those neo-con Dorothy's and their little dog too!
The Boxers and Pelosis represent the voters and contributors that are still trying to either relive the 1970 anti-war marches or are the angry children of that movement that missed out on supporting Tom Hayden and the Chicago 7. They simply disdain any US history that either suggests or confirms that there is a time for war; a time to kill; a time to hate and a time to tear. They selectively read and quote from verse and philosophies that, contrary to all empirical and historical evidence of humanity, assert that mankind can make heaven on earth; that the lamb will lay down with the lion; if only we will turn away from our darker nature. Just this past week such irrational philosophy has been demonstrated to be completely flawed. Scotland's Minister of Justice, Kenny MacAskill, released the only man convicted of blowing up innocent men, women and children at 10,000 feet above the ground. The well-intended Mr. MacAskill felt compassion must be shown to this poor man who is dying of cancer, despite the fact that he has only served a few years of a life sentence. A sentence, by the way that couldn't consider the more appropriate act of execution for such a heinous crime. So, as Susan Cohen, mother of one of the victims of the Pan Am bombing said, the perpetrators of the crime are getting everything they want; freedom and a hero's tribute for the killer, while the victims and their families look on.
Appeasement is a disease of the intellect that has never worked. It is a lie told to make the victim feel responsible for the rage of the abuser. A lie that makes the abused the cause of their abuse. But the left insists that it should work. So, the current leadership of the Congress and Executive will continue to feed the disease, like providing an addict a drink or fix to a junkie, and keep them pacified, mollified, while they remain in power. CIA interrogation will now have a daily headline and sound bite to remind those intoxicated with the delusional dreams of Mr Ayers and seek a world free of American success that, only when the present leadership is supported, can their dreams come true. So ignore our failures; our glossed-over vague promises of only 10 months ago. Here, have a drink. Relax. Smoke a joint. Don't worry. We'll get those neo-con Dorothy's and their little dog too!
Friday, June 5, 2009
A Wise Latino Woman
Just shuffling through Judge Sotomayor's responses to the questionnaire from the Senate Judiciary Committee. I must be one of the few that found it odd that her extensive list of awards and recognitions which she provided are almost exclusively recognizing her for either being a) a woman; b) of Puerto Rican decent; c) of Latino extraction; d) a lawyer of Latino decent; e) a female lawyer of Latino decent; f) an activist Latino female lawyer of Puerto Rican decent; g) all the above. Take a look for yourself. Apparently if she didn't have these identifying characteristics, she would simply be just another unrecognizable attorney. I couldn't see a single recognition that wasn't, at least in part, associated with her national heritage and/or gender. That seems terribly odd. Call me out of step, but shouldn't we expect a Supreme Court Judge to be recognized primarily for his or her knowledge of the body of law, not just how certain laws apply to certain persons with a certain gender or national heritage? I can't remember Justice Roberts having been recognized because he is a white male of European extraction. Maybe I missed that.
Senator Leahy decided not to ask Ms Sotomayor to describe her judicial philosophy in the questionnaire which was a sharp departure from his insistence on posing this question to the last two appointees. Does he think no one will ask her during the hearings? Or perhaps she has been to the Pelosi school of responding and is prepared to ignore the questions. The Senator's decision seems too clever by half. She will be asked, repeatedly, and her answers will be analyzed. Seems as if it would have been wiser to allow her the time to formulate a position in writing that would be thoughtful, reflective of her opinions and provide a framework or context to her many opinions that have been overturned. A decision to not provide such context can only mean one of two things. One, she doesn't have a coherent philosophy; or two, she does, but it is so far outside the mainstream that to see it writing would create substantial objections to her confirmation. No doubt the answer is number two and Mr Leahy and friends think they can patch a collage of leading questions together that will blur the strikingly odd outlines of the wise Latino lady's decisions and philosophies into a much less stark portrait of a compassionate female Horatio Alger American success story.
These judicial confirmation hearings have assumed a wag the dog component that would make William Jefferson Clinton envious.
Senator Leahy decided not to ask Ms Sotomayor to describe her judicial philosophy in the questionnaire which was a sharp departure from his insistence on posing this question to the last two appointees. Does he think no one will ask her during the hearings? Or perhaps she has been to the Pelosi school of responding and is prepared to ignore the questions. The Senator's decision seems too clever by half. She will be asked, repeatedly, and her answers will be analyzed. Seems as if it would have been wiser to allow her the time to formulate a position in writing that would be thoughtful, reflective of her opinions and provide a framework or context to her many opinions that have been overturned. A decision to not provide such context can only mean one of two things. One, she doesn't have a coherent philosophy; or two, she does, but it is so far outside the mainstream that to see it writing would create substantial objections to her confirmation. No doubt the answer is number two and Mr Leahy and friends think they can patch a collage of leading questions together that will blur the strikingly odd outlines of the wise Latino lady's decisions and philosophies into a much less stark portrait of a compassionate female Horatio Alger American success story.
These judicial confirmation hearings have assumed a wag the dog component that would make William Jefferson Clinton envious.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Government Motors
It is fascinating that we, the people, are investing over $50 Billion to own a failed corporation, but seem to have no notion or interest in why it failed. Oh, there are plenty of sages that enjoy pointing at declining sales and profits over the last decades and declaring, simplistically, that GM stopped making "cars that people want". As if one day, this company that was the largest and most profitable in the world, just woke up in 1985 and said: "let's stop being successful."
The Wall Street Journal had an op-ed recently that continued down this logic path with bit more depth by referencing Elmer Johnson's (former general counsel of GM), observations about GM's resistive culture. It is resistive and resilient. But no one, including Mr Johnson or Roger Smith or Michael Moore or Rick Wagoner or Barack Obama has ever taken the time to understand why it is the way it is. This seems important to know if you are going to invest billions and hope to recover the investment. I mean, we do want our money back, with interest, don't we?
No. General Motors didn't wake up one fine morning and decide it should begin its decline. So, what happened? To understand, it's necessary to know some arcane US history that is a combination of economics, social science, and politics. Back in the late 1950's, when there were really only 3 automobile manufacturers, GM, Ford and Chrysler, GM was more than dominant. It towered over the industry. It set styles, industry rules and, most importantly, prices. Ford had been a rival and had ruled the roost leading up to WWII, but it stayed a privately held company well into the '50's. By the end of that decade, they were in full decline. The US had its first recession since the war in '58 and, Ford which had been forced to go public to raise money and stave off bankruptcy in 1956, had wasted millions on the failed Edsel and had little left for future products. In 1960, the king, GM, went from dominant to untouchable.
It's rarely mentioned today, except in trade talks, but in the middle of the last century, monopoly and anti-trust were part of the political and social lexicon. DuPont had been named in several major anti-trust law suits brought by the federal government, including one involving that company and GM where they were told they could keep ownership of 63 million share of stock, but couldn't vote the shares. DuPont had been a major shareholder in GM since the 1920's. Another significant suit involving DuPont dealt with DuPont having a monopoly of the manufacturer of synthetic fabrics. They lost and were required to create a competitor by building a manufacturing plant, equip it, staff it and then sell it for $1 to the newly formed competing corporation. Obviously, businesses in the US were frightened and wary of any accusation of monopolistic or anti-trust behaviors.
GM was long on the government's radar for anti-trust activities. Dealers in Indiana successfully sued the company for anti-trust policies involving GMAC back in the early '30's. The War interrupted the case, so it wasn't resolved through a consent decree until 1952.
Now in 1960, the talk in the business world was about a declining Ford and a GM that appears poised to monopolize the car business. Dealers were concerned and went about getting strong franchise laws enacted in their states specifically aimed at GM. Ford and Chrysler naturally felt vulnerable and anywhere that they had assembly plants or significant employment, representatives were hearing concerns. It didn't take long for the Senate Banking Committee to open hearings on GM and its threat to monopolize the car industry.
The hearings lasted months and were a lead story many nights on the evening news. GM was still trying to avoid the resentment that Charlie Wilson's misquote of "As GM goes, so goes the country", generated. Clearly the hearings were more than troubling. The concept that was being tossed around Washington was to force GM to spin off Chevrolet into a completely independent company. Everyone in GM was worried. GM was seen by the feds as a recurring actor in anti-trust activities. It had essentially been found guilty in the Indiana case. DuPont's interest was seen as further evidence of how a single big corporation could control industry. And trust-busting was still a term that voters liked. GM executives were paraded before the committee and probed more and more to admit to monopolistic activities. As the prospect of a Chevy spin off began to look more likely, GM used its political contacts, still big in Washington, to cut a deal. GM would not allow itself to control more than 60% of domestic auto sales, if the fed would allow the company to remain intact.
The deal was essentially a consent decree, without the formality and legal documentation. Some said it was self-regulating. Whatever its form, it was an agreement in fact that immediately became one of the core tenants of General Motors operating behaviors. The Board of Directors, executive committee and the operational executives immediately began making decisions through the filter of how might an action, recommendation or innovation change GM's market share too positively. Think about this for a second. A corporation that is supposed to be dedicated to increasing profit through expansion of sales, is afraid to be too successful.
As counter-intuitive as this notion sounds now, it made perfect sense to those who thought they were simply protecting the company. Consequently, the idea that the company might fail or make poor decisions soon disappeared. Executives were certain that anything they considered doing would be successful. The only problem was to make certain it wasn't too successful. So if DeLorean and the guys from Pontiac came up with the concept of taking a compact Tempest and stuffing a 389 cubic inch engine in it and creating the GTO, that was OK, but production would have to be limited so the market share limitation wouldn't be exceeded. Each such initiative would be evaluated similarly. Production schedules were tweaked to allocate sales percentages between the divisions that would keep dealers happy, market share controlled and profits stable; thus the heyday of GM, the mid sixties.
Then the obvious weakness in this notion of limiting market share began to surface. How is this self-regulation culture applied when the decisions and considerations have to deal with challenges that had never been experienced before? In 1968, the fed began to regulate car emissions. Now muscle cars had to deal with something called a positive crankcase valve (PCV), which took exhaust gases, recirculated them into the combustion chamber and re burned them. It diluted horsepower, but it created a cleaner exhaust. A small bump in the road, but it was just the start of a wave of consumer and fed regulations that challenged the physics of automobile manufacturing. In just six years, auto manufacturers had to make a bumper that could withstand a 5 mph collision without damaging the bumper; invent a system that required seat belts to be fastened before you could crank you engine; and reduce tailpipe emissions. Increasingly, as these requirements were layered on (and often scraped by subsequent regulators) GM problem solvers considered the solutions through the prism of their solutions will, of course, work and market share was taken for granted.
But 1974 presented a challenge no one had considered. Something called OPEC cut oil shipments to the US because of its support for Israel. Now in addition to increasing regulation on safety and emissions, a thing called cafe was invented. Vehicles had to be reinvented. Responses included front wheel drive, elimination of cast iron frames and use of plastics all were introduced to save weight and improve gas mileage. But all of these were applied with the now ingrained culture that GM's solutions will be successful, regardless. Styling took a backseat (pun intended). Fit and finish were of less concern. Positive consumer reactions to changes were taken for granted, and by the eighties, GM was producing cookie cutter front wheel drive products that allowed Ford to ridicule GM products in ads by comparing Cadillacs with look-a-like Chevy's.
The rest is better known. By the mid eighties, GM had become a company that lost touch with its market and displayed an arrogance that made it a target for everyone from Ralph Nader to Desmond Tutu. The company was staffed by a management and administration that, for 25 years, had trained itself to expect success, not consider failure and negotiate internal debates from a point of view that the pie is fixed and we all that is needed for everyone to cooperate to make certain no other part of GM gets bigger.
Today, GM has become Government Motors and again the experience teaches managers that failure can't happen. The UAW's clout with democrats is too significant; their political dollars and organization too important to be driven out of existence. GM will be even more insulated from its market with a Board of Directors created by Congress, the president, Canada and the UAW. Decisions will be filtered through a matrix of not what will beat Toyota or Honda, but how can we keep this plant open; which union local will get to manufacture this car; how will layoffs impact the election of the next congress; will the Sierra Club allow production of trucks, etc.
Government interference did not cause GM's failure. GM management's response to government interference did. But ignoring how GM came to failure only invites future failure. The same $50+billion could have been provided as loans conditioned with cultural changes had the problem been understood. Then we would have had an independent GM that had a chance to be a competitor. Now we have the prospect of producing Yugo's for the good of the people.
The Wall Street Journal had an op-ed recently that continued down this logic path with bit more depth by referencing Elmer Johnson's (former general counsel of GM), observations about GM's resistive culture. It is resistive and resilient. But no one, including Mr Johnson or Roger Smith or Michael Moore or Rick Wagoner or Barack Obama has ever taken the time to understand why it is the way it is. This seems important to know if you are going to invest billions and hope to recover the investment. I mean, we do want our money back, with interest, don't we?
No. General Motors didn't wake up one fine morning and decide it should begin its decline. So, what happened? To understand, it's necessary to know some arcane US history that is a combination of economics, social science, and politics. Back in the late 1950's, when there were really only 3 automobile manufacturers, GM, Ford and Chrysler, GM was more than dominant. It towered over the industry. It set styles, industry rules and, most importantly, prices. Ford had been a rival and had ruled the roost leading up to WWII, but it stayed a privately held company well into the '50's. By the end of that decade, they were in full decline. The US had its first recession since the war in '58 and, Ford which had been forced to go public to raise money and stave off bankruptcy in 1956, had wasted millions on the failed Edsel and had little left for future products. In 1960, the king, GM, went from dominant to untouchable.
It's rarely mentioned today, except in trade talks, but in the middle of the last century, monopoly and anti-trust were part of the political and social lexicon. DuPont had been named in several major anti-trust law suits brought by the federal government, including one involving that company and GM where they were told they could keep ownership of 63 million share of stock, but couldn't vote the shares. DuPont had been a major shareholder in GM since the 1920's. Another significant suit involving DuPont dealt with DuPont having a monopoly of the manufacturer of synthetic fabrics. They lost and were required to create a competitor by building a manufacturing plant, equip it, staff it and then sell it for $1 to the newly formed competing corporation. Obviously, businesses in the US were frightened and wary of any accusation of monopolistic or anti-trust behaviors.
GM was long on the government's radar for anti-trust activities. Dealers in Indiana successfully sued the company for anti-trust policies involving GMAC back in the early '30's. The War interrupted the case, so it wasn't resolved through a consent decree until 1952.
Now in 1960, the talk in the business world was about a declining Ford and a GM that appears poised to monopolize the car business. Dealers were concerned and went about getting strong franchise laws enacted in their states specifically aimed at GM. Ford and Chrysler naturally felt vulnerable and anywhere that they had assembly plants or significant employment, representatives were hearing concerns. It didn't take long for the Senate Banking Committee to open hearings on GM and its threat to monopolize the car industry.
The hearings lasted months and were a lead story many nights on the evening news. GM was still trying to avoid the resentment that Charlie Wilson's misquote of "As GM goes, so goes the country", generated. Clearly the hearings were more than troubling. The concept that was being tossed around Washington was to force GM to spin off Chevrolet into a completely independent company. Everyone in GM was worried. GM was seen by the feds as a recurring actor in anti-trust activities. It had essentially been found guilty in the Indiana case. DuPont's interest was seen as further evidence of how a single big corporation could control industry. And trust-busting was still a term that voters liked. GM executives were paraded before the committee and probed more and more to admit to monopolistic activities. As the prospect of a Chevy spin off began to look more likely, GM used its political contacts, still big in Washington, to cut a deal. GM would not allow itself to control more than 60% of domestic auto sales, if the fed would allow the company to remain intact.
The deal was essentially a consent decree, without the formality and legal documentation. Some said it was self-regulating. Whatever its form, it was an agreement in fact that immediately became one of the core tenants of General Motors operating behaviors. The Board of Directors, executive committee and the operational executives immediately began making decisions through the filter of how might an action, recommendation or innovation change GM's market share too positively. Think about this for a second. A corporation that is supposed to be dedicated to increasing profit through expansion of sales, is afraid to be too successful.
As counter-intuitive as this notion sounds now, it made perfect sense to those who thought they were simply protecting the company. Consequently, the idea that the company might fail or make poor decisions soon disappeared. Executives were certain that anything they considered doing would be successful. The only problem was to make certain it wasn't too successful. So if DeLorean and the guys from Pontiac came up with the concept of taking a compact Tempest and stuffing a 389 cubic inch engine in it and creating the GTO, that was OK, but production would have to be limited so the market share limitation wouldn't be exceeded. Each such initiative would be evaluated similarly. Production schedules were tweaked to allocate sales percentages between the divisions that would keep dealers happy, market share controlled and profits stable; thus the heyday of GM, the mid sixties.
Then the obvious weakness in this notion of limiting market share began to surface. How is this self-regulation culture applied when the decisions and considerations have to deal with challenges that had never been experienced before? In 1968, the fed began to regulate car emissions. Now muscle cars had to deal with something called a positive crankcase valve (PCV), which took exhaust gases, recirculated them into the combustion chamber and re burned them. It diluted horsepower, but it created a cleaner exhaust. A small bump in the road, but it was just the start of a wave of consumer and fed regulations that challenged the physics of automobile manufacturing. In just six years, auto manufacturers had to make a bumper that could withstand a 5 mph collision without damaging the bumper; invent a system that required seat belts to be fastened before you could crank you engine; and reduce tailpipe emissions. Increasingly, as these requirements were layered on (and often scraped by subsequent regulators) GM problem solvers considered the solutions through the prism of their solutions will, of course, work and market share was taken for granted.
But 1974 presented a challenge no one had considered. Something called OPEC cut oil shipments to the US because of its support for Israel. Now in addition to increasing regulation on safety and emissions, a thing called cafe was invented. Vehicles had to be reinvented. Responses included front wheel drive, elimination of cast iron frames and use of plastics all were introduced to save weight and improve gas mileage. But all of these were applied with the now ingrained culture that GM's solutions will be successful, regardless. Styling took a backseat (pun intended). Fit and finish were of less concern. Positive consumer reactions to changes were taken for granted, and by the eighties, GM was producing cookie cutter front wheel drive products that allowed Ford to ridicule GM products in ads by comparing Cadillacs with look-a-like Chevy's.
The rest is better known. By the mid eighties, GM had become a company that lost touch with its market and displayed an arrogance that made it a target for everyone from Ralph Nader to Desmond Tutu. The company was staffed by a management and administration that, for 25 years, had trained itself to expect success, not consider failure and negotiate internal debates from a point of view that the pie is fixed and we all that is needed for everyone to cooperate to make certain no other part of GM gets bigger.
Today, GM has become Government Motors and again the experience teaches managers that failure can't happen. The UAW's clout with democrats is too significant; their political dollars and organization too important to be driven out of existence. GM will be even more insulated from its market with a Board of Directors created by Congress, the president, Canada and the UAW. Decisions will be filtered through a matrix of not what will beat Toyota or Honda, but how can we keep this plant open; which union local will get to manufacture this car; how will layoffs impact the election of the next congress; will the Sierra Club allow production of trucks, etc.
Government interference did not cause GM's failure. GM management's response to government interference did. But ignoring how GM came to failure only invites future failure. The same $50+billion could have been provided as loans conditioned with cultural changes had the problem been understood. Then we would have had an independent GM that had a chance to be a competitor. Now we have the prospect of producing Yugo's for the good of the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)