The Nuke-yoo-lar Topic of W's Legacy

I friend of mine recently e-mailed an op-ed piece from Charles Krauthammer at the Washington Post titled "History Will Judge." The link provided should take you right to it, and it's well worth the read. I feel sheepish that I hadn't read it or linked to it before, but there are only so many hours in the day for keeping up on the news.

I was happy to see that what was sent in e-mail actually matched the online column, with no edits one way or another. Sadly, I never trust what gets sent via e-mail any more. I don't even subscribe to the age-old Cold War tenet of "Trust but Verify." Whose motto was that? Better than "In God we trust. All others we monitor," which is a motto many spooks might recognize.

The reason why I feel compelled to discuss Krauthammer's column is because I'd been thinking about W's post-Presidency plans myself recently. Seriously. I've been trying to get my head around what W will do in retirement, since I can't picture him being invited to the public speaker lecture circuit any time soon. Which group would have him? Even the die-hardiest of the die-hard GOP faithful have distanced themselves from anything to do with Bush's administration.

I'm sure Bush will continue to have many friends in high places, certainly. He still has his defenders, and he still should have plenty of influence. On what, though? As Krauthammer points out, history will most likely be kinder to W as peoples' memories fade a bit. If no less than Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter can all get image rehabs after leaving office, then certainly Bush can, too.

One question for which we really won't have an answer for years to come will be how this very recent Wall Street implosion will affect W's legacy. Nixon (almost impeached), Ford (stagflation), and Carter (malaise) successfully rehabbed their legacies after leaving office; Hoover (Great Depression) did not. I'm not ready to commit to calling these banking problems and economic hard times anything close to another Great Depression. In 1929, over 300 banks had closed their doors even before the stock market crashed. In 1930, over 1,000 additional banks closed forever and the phrase "bank run" struck fears all across the U.S. We're not there yet, and the structural laws and oversight bodies put in place after 1929 should keep us out of another Great Depression. That's the whole idea, at least.

There's no doubt that Wall Street has had its worst week ever (WSJ article, subscription req'd.). I'd like to think that agricultural policies have changed enough so that we won't hit another Dust Bowl again. Unemployment remains relatively low -- last I checked, I think it was around 6%, although as part of the recent rate cut by the Fed, they said they think it will edge up to 7-7.5% by late 2009. Certainly that is still nowhere near the 25% unemployment hit during the Great Depression. Durable goods orders are down and inventories are up, which spell Recession for the economy, and most economists are predicting we're already in a Recession now (more WSJ).

The reason all of the economics issues is important for Bush is that they will have a far more lasting impact on his Presidential legacy than anything else he's done. This is also the key difference from the Krauthammer column, which was published before the Wall Street meltdown. W could be forgiven for promoting a "shoot first, ask questions later" foreign policy. He could be forgiven for domestic spying if it truly keeps us safe from another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. W could be forgiven for acting unilaterally when he felt compelled to do so, even though I think we all remember then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's briefing to the UN Security Council regarding the threat in Iraq. So what if Saddam's WMDs were a figment of his imagination and little more than a ruse to keep the Iranians from attacking? In 2003, everyone agreed they were a real problem. I even think W can be forgiven for his line about looking into Putin's soul back in 2001, as ridiculous as that seems now.

I think Bush will retire to his ranch in Crawford, TX (and everything is bigger in Texas, haven't you heard?), and perhaps have some measure of peace in the months following his departure from the White House. How long can he cut brush? How much mesquite is there in Texas? Would a following administration really put W on the road for sensitive diplomatic missions, as W's father and Bill Clinton have done together? Could you imagine W in France next year, cheering on THE GREAT COMEBACK by Lance Armstrong? It boggles the mind.

If nothing else, W in January becomes fair game for the SNL animation "The X Presidents" as part of their TV Funhouse lineup. So we at least have that to look forward to.

Are We the Car We Drive?

In the time of $4 per gallon gasoline, many people are seeking ways of reducing their fuel costs, period. People who have the option and can afford to move closer to public transportation are doing so, even in car-crazy LA. More and more people are bicycling to work, a mode of transportation I try to use whenever possible. Even Texans (who live in The Land of Big Trucks, and everything is bigger in Texas, haven't you heard?) are buying hybrids and even those golf-cart looking electric vehicles for short trips. People eagerly await the roll-out of the new Chevy Volt, signing up on even unofficial wait lists.

And yet, car manufacturers continue to resist one of the clearest means of increasing fuel efficiency in current-model cars: reducing the horsepower produced by the engine. The prescient Gregg Easterbrook (who is a visiting Brookings Fellow and contributing editor at The Atlantic Monthly, The New Republic and The Washington Monthly, in addition to writing several books, including the fascinating "The Progress Paradox") described this fuel mileage vs. horsepower battle in his two most recent Tuesday Morning Quarterback (TMQ) columns on ESPN.com, the archive of which is here. If you like to get insights into the game of football you can't find anywhere else, plus much more (he often delves into science fiction, TV and movies, and things related to Congress), his column is well worth the time it takes to wade through it. Plus, he posts pics of cheerleader babe professionalism. W00t!

Easterbrook already covered the issue better than I could replicate here, but it did get me thinking of reasons why automakers have all progressively expanded both the size and horsepower of their cars. The Honda Civic, for example, is now about the same size or larger as the Accord used to be, way back when. It's not just Detroit. For crying out loud, the 1979 Accord had a whopping 72 horsepower! 72!!! Which was up 4 hp from the previous year. The current Accord, with available 3.5L V6, puts out a max of 268 hp. So, it is easy to see why (some, not all) car manufacturers are protesting the rise in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

Speaking of which, there was a recent WSJ opinion piece that tried to link the CAFE standards to Detroit's poor showing in recent automobile sales. That's like saying NAFTA is the reason for agricultural subsidies in California. They might be tangentially related, but there's not a causal relationship there. The author of that opinion piece remarked how GM and Ford actually did quite well selling smaller, Euro-style vehicles in places like Europe and South America. So, why are they unable to sell such cars here in America?

My own hunch is that we, as Americans, still attach significant unspoken tags to the cars we drive. If we drive a Porsche, it means we have lots of money and are pricks. If we drive a Prius, obviously, we care more about the environment than we want to look cool. If we drive a big truck, then we're manly men! (Honh! Honh! More Power!!!) I think this explains why people drive big monster SUVs for ferrying around the kiddos much more so than just needing the space for hauling more stuff. If we just needed the space, then why don't people still buy wood-paneled station wagons? This also helps explain why my wife's brother, who lives in Austin, TX (The Land of Big Trucks, and everything is Bigger in Texas, haven't you heard?) not too long ago traded his BMW Mini for a Ford F-250, even though he doesn't have a 10,000 lb boat to haul on a regular basis. Why buy the F-250 if you have no boat?

For the longest time, Americans could get away with driving whatever they wanted because gas was so cheap. Having lived overseas in Europe and Japan, I wondered when America would be forced to pay as much (roughly $4 per gallon) as they were paying back in 1996. That time has now come, although I haven't been over there since we started paying $4 per gallon to see if their prices rose along with ours.

Maybe peoples' perceptions will change as everyone gets used to buying $4 gasoline. Maybe a guy who buys a Toyota Yaris will be seen as smart and more desirable for dating, rather than as a wimpy nerd. Seriously, have you ever seen a guy driving a Honda Fit? I haven't, even though the slogan (The Fit is GO!) is catchy. No guy would be caught dead driving a new VW Beetle, unless his truck was in the shop. Speaking of VW, their Cabriolets have always been known as a "chick car." End of discussion. Someone recently completed a study in which women listened to different vehicle sounds, and the ones they felt were most sexy belonged to the exotic supercars. I'm not making this up. So, the previous question about the Yaris is most likely an overwhelming NO.

I know we Americans often define ourselves by what we do, a topic that was used to great effect in the ***John Cusack movie reference alert!*** movie "Grosse Pointe Blank." If you've seen it, you know he played an assassin who goes back to his high school reunion and tried to relate to his classmates, who had settled into "normal" jobs like BMW dealer, radio DJ, realtor, and security guard. Are we what we do for a living? Are we the car we drive? Are we defined by our hobbies? Can we be known for the assistance we provide to others?

For now, I'll go back to driving my 1999 Mazda 626 and dreaming about that Acura TL I've always wanted. Best car for the money, I say. I just wish I could trade some of its 286 hp for better gas mileage.