Trump vs. the Zampolits

Guest Post by Eric Peters

If the Clovers are in a panic, it is probably time to get happy. And they are very panicky, indeed. About (cue Emperor Palpatine voice) a great many things. One of which is the prospect that Darth Trump – as they view him – might actually dial back the regulatory apparat that has given us cars designed by federal bureaucrats who function very much as Soviet-era political officers did – looking over the shoulder of field commanders (engineers, in this case) and second-guessing if not dictating their every move.

Trump may be agreeable to the idea that cars ought to be designed by engineers – responding to the wants and needs of the people who buy them.

Not bureaucrats, not self-appointed “advocates” such as the recently departed Clarence Ditlow.ninnies

Wouldn’t that be something?

We’ve become so used to Washington Motors that it’s almost reflexive to accept that it’s the rightful job of a small gaggle of bureaucrat/political officers in agencies such as the EPA and NHTSA to tell us what features we’ll have in our cars – whether we want ’em or not, need ’em or not.

Which we’re compelled to pay for, too.

Bu why should this be so? By what right do these bureaucrat Zampolits dictate vehicle design parameters?

Especially with regard to “safety.”

What comes out of a car’s tailpipe may cause harm to someone else. If so, then a morally defensible argument can be made that such emissions must be limited or reduced so that they do not cause harm.datsun-ad

But driving a lightweight car without air bags harms no one. At most, the driver – the owner – of the car might suffer injury (or greater injury) if he crashes. But if he does not crash, he isn’t injured and even if he is injured, that is his concern – not a DC Zampolit’s.

Assuming, that is, you reject the nauseating idea that it is the right and proper business of the government to parent grown adults.

Trump appears to grok the quaint American idea (well, it used to be the American idea) that grown-ups have the right, in a free society, to not be led around by the nose by other adults, for their “safety.”

This is sound morality – and economics.

“Safety” – which can be defined by such things as a given car’s ability to protect the occupants in the event of a crash, the crash-avoidance technologies it offers, etc. – is a value. One of the many idiocies purveyed by the DC Zampolits is the idea that people must be forced to buy things of value to them.volvo-ad

Well, what about Volvo?

The company (now in trouble, incidentally; comments as to why follow below) built itself into a global presence on just that.

Safety.

Without forcing people to buy in.

Volvo emphasized big, heavy cars that could handle barrel rolls and kissing oak trees head-on at 40 MPH better than just about anything else on the road. Volvo was the first to offer three-point (lap and shoulder) seat belts, too.

Which people who valued such things freely bought.

It is risible to believe – and this is the bedrock premise of the regulatory Zampolits – that absent the state’s forcing them to, people would not buy cars like Volvos or seat belts.

They inarguable fact is, they did.regulation-images

The problem – the thing the Zampolits do not want discussed – is that not everyone values things equally. Some people value other things more. Like lower cost, or lighter weight or higher fuel efficiency.

Why is this – free choice, freely expressed – verboten?

Back when we still had a mostly market-driven car business, you could choose to buy a Volvo 240… or a VW Beetle or Datsun B210. The Volvo was a tank and so exceptionally “safe” in terms of its ability to protect the occupants from injury in the event of a crash.

The Beetle and B210 and cars like them were smaller and lighter – and if you wrecked, you’d probably not be as likely to walk away from it uninjured as would have been the case if you’d been driving the slab-sided Volvo. But in exchange for that greater potential risk, you enjoyed the actual benefit  – to you, as defined by you – of a lighter, more fuel-efficient and more fun to drive car.

You had the choice – and so did everyone else.

This is intolerable to the Zampolits.

They insist everyone drive a (de facto) Volvo. That no one be allowed (consider the effrontery) to drive something not “safe” – as they define it. Thus, all new cars are Volvos. Federal regulations have made them so. There is no longer the option to choose a not-Volvo, something that emphasizes other values.

Which is why Volvo is struggling now, incidentally. When every car company is forced to sell “safety,” it is no longer much of a selling point. Porsche would be having a hard time, too, if the federal Zampolits upchucked mandates that decreed every new car be capable of accelerating from zero to 60 in less than 5 seconds.

Maybe they ought to – at least we’d have some fun, then.

In addition to being tyrants, the Zampolits are also killjoys – but that’s another rant.

Getting back to Trump.trump-pic

He ought to call a press conference and announce that, henceforth, it will no longer be the role of federal Zampolits to decree vehicle “safety” standards. This will not mean the green light for the car companies to build defective cars; that would be causing harm and causing harm is the sole legitimate reason for the government to weigh in.

It will simply mean that – as it once was – buyers (market demand) will determine how cars are designed, the features they offer. Engineers will design accordingly. Some cars will emphasize their superior crashworthiness, or technology that makes a crash less likely. Those buyers who value such things highly will be able to vote with their dollars, accordingly.

But other people – who value different things – will no longer be “nudged” (another exceptionally obnoxious term favored by Zampolits) to the Zampolits’ way of thinking. Car companies would be free once more to cater to the needs and wants of everyone – not just the Zampolits.

Think about it. Why – in a free country – should you be prohibited from buying a basic, $6,000 car not equipped with air bags, or other such, but which meets your needs for low-cost, A to B transportation?  Such cars are not hypothetical. They are available. The Renault Kwid, for example. kwid

Just not here. Because the Zampolits disapprove.

Well, screw them. It is none of their business what other people choose to buy or drive, provided what they buy and drive doesn’t hurt someone else.

Trump got elected because millions of people are dying for someone to tell the Zampolits to go to hell.

Or at least, go away.

If he delivers, he’ll go far.

And more important, we will too.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
10 Comments
starfcker
starfcker
November 20, 2016 8:48 pm

Stucky, he’s mocking us.

Alter Boyz
Alter Boyz
November 20, 2016 8:56 pm

Unreadable gibberish in my opinion.

Two down 1 Kunstler 2 Peters. Many more to go.

Thank you.

Chubby Bubbles
Chubby Bubbles
November 20, 2016 9:58 pm

I want a Fiat Panda: tiny cheap 4×4 for tooling around on dirt roads

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Panda
The Panda is like a pair of jeans, that simple, practical, no frills piece of clothing. I tried to bring into this car the spirit of military machinery, especially helicopters, that means light, rational, built-for-purpose vehicles.

unit472
unit472
November 21, 2016 4:28 am

I’m dissatisfied with my 2 year old mid size car. It is too small. The problem is there is no alternative except for an SUV or very high end luxury car. All midsize cars are the same size. Doesn’t matter if you go low end or high end. The only difference is the engine displacement, upholstery and gadgets. I can’t get in one without my head hitting the roof and I’m only 5’10”.

Why can’t I have a bench style front seat? My pickup truck will let me seat three abreast if I lift up the enormous table between the driver’s and passenger seat though there is no seatbelt for the middle passenger. A bench front seat used to be standard on US passenger cars. Boys could put their arms around their girls as they drove around on Saturday nights. Not anymore.

Auto designers once could make their cars beautiful, fanciful creations with fins, oodles of chrome and faux exhaust ports. Now they are all confined to a procrustean bed of CAFE standards. Its gotten to the point that I walked out to a parking lot and got into the wrong car! I didn’t recognize my error until I noticed there receipts in the dash cubby hole that were not mine. It wasn’t even the same make auto just the same color but it was indistinguishable from my vehicle.

Anonymous
Anonymous
November 21, 2016 8:02 am

“By what right do these bureaucrat Zampolits dictate vehicle design parameters?”

The Commerce clause of the Constitution as well as the authority to build roads and regulate activity on them.

I take it you haven’t read it?

Whether or not the regulations we have should or should not be in place is a different subject than the right the government has to make them.

Stucky
Stucky
November 21, 2016 9:08 am

“All midsize cars are the same size.” ——— unit472

I have to disagree …. INTERIOR configurations vary greatly even within midsize cars.

My seester has a Chrysler 300M. I literally have to sit sideways in the front seat to keep my knees from hitting the dashboard. And the damn seats are narrow also …. it’s the only explanation I have why my ass hangs over the side. Really.

We have a Hyundai Sonata 2.0 It’s tight but my knees don’t hit the dashboard (even behind the wheel), and my head doesn’t hit the roof. I’m 6’7″, so I think you’d have plenty of room in that car. Mazda’s are another car that have Cadillac-size room in the front.

unit472
unit472
  Stucky
November 21, 2016 9:47 am

Actually I speak of a Mazda 6 that is too hard to get in without your head rubbing against the roof line. I have to sit on the seat sideways then bring my legs in. I can no longer step into the car and sit down. Once in it is spacious enough but it is the getting in that is unacceptable.

I tried a mid range Lexus sedan and a Jaguar F and they are no different. You just get a larger motor, heated seats ( I live in Florida) and nicer upholstery for the extra $10-20k. I suspect CAFE standards are what is forcing automakers to keep their cars in a standard shape/size.

Stucky
Stucky
November 21, 2016 9:14 am

When auto companies are left to their own devices ($$$$$) they give us exploding gas tanks … just to save five bucks.

EP places waaaaay to much faith in the “free market” preventing such shenanigans from Big Car Company who’s only motive is to “provide value to shareholders” — ie, make a fucken buck — and not to do what’s best for hoomans.

Don’t get me wrong. I despise the EPA and I wish like hell Trump would disband that criminal cartel. At a minimum he should remove their teeth — the ability to impose fines and punishments.

Somewhere there must be a middle ground between the total freedom EP wants and the totalitarianism the EPA wants.

daddysteve
daddysteve
  Stucky
November 21, 2016 11:30 pm

Some CEO’s in prison might also prevent exploding gas tanks. Who do we vote for to get that?

Suzanna
Suzanna
November 21, 2016 1:37 pm

Not to be a dickette, but who will be affording imported
cars? Rich Richie maybe.
My Rav 4 (gift from son) is too darn small. I loved my Camry
sedan…second son drives her now. I still have my Suburban.
Too darn large.