The Enterprise Blog

Author Archive

Happy Gremlin Day!

By Ralph Kinney Bennett

April 1, 2010, 10:28 am

800px-amc_gremlin_miasHard to believe, but it’s been full 40 April Fools days since the introduction of an auto landmark of sorts—the AMC Gremlin.

Ah, the Gremlin! American Motors introduced its “different” compact on April 1, 1970. It quickly became a staple of stand-up comedy (“Hey Buddy, where’s the rest of your car?”) and a perverse beacon of hope to folks not sure what to do with their lives during the disco era (Gosh, I know I can do better than this. That’s it! I’ll become a car designer!”)

One of American Motors’ advertising lines when it introduced the Gremlin was “If you had to compete with GM, Ford, and Chrysler, what would you do?” Well, AMC’s answer was something less than expected. It wasn’t just that the car appeared to have had its rear end chopped off. It was that bias cut. Somehow that slashing slant from roof to rear bumper made the car appear incomplete rather than unique. It was a lesson in the vagaries of what makes a car a hit or a miss. The total profile was not that different from what was becoming an increasingly common hatchback look. But that difference was everything in eye appeal.

And the name! Why would you name a car after a World War II slang term for “an imaginary gnome or goblin” that causes things to go wrong in an aircraft? Gremlin was a byword for mechanical trouble.

AMC managed to sell 671,475 Gremlins between 1970 and 1978 and any survivors are, of course, “collector’s items,” like… oh, say, Beanie Babies. The rarest are the two-seaters—only 3,017 were built—and those special editions with genuine Levi’s blue jean upholstery. I know, it’s April Fool’s Day. But I’m not making any of this up.

Kenneth P. Green’s recently raised points about saving “climate science” from itself are certainly well taken. By all means, let us rescue good science from the politico-charlatans and at last find how much “there” is really there in regard to climate change.

It will be a formidable task. But before the rescue party sets out—everything in its season—there needs to be a time of staring; a time of drinking in the spectacle, the enormity, as Dr. Johnson might have put it, of what has happened.

I do not mean mere delight in discomfiture (although, I confess, that is fun that some science is “settled” on what is little more than a thumb-sucking term paper). I mean a sober appreciation of how shameless, how contemptuously self-righteous, how immune to scorn the Climategate perpetrators are. It’s not that they don’t get it; it’s just that they don’t care.

They don’t care what the unwashed, the unannointed in the religion of Earthism think. They do not appreciate how exquisitely they fit Goethe’s observation that “as soon as anyone belongs to a narrow creed in science, every unprejudiced and true perception is gone.” And most of all, they do not seem to understand the damage they have done to honest science in the public eye.

Ralph Bennett writes the Automobility column for American.com

I’ve been thinking about making an appointment with my old high school pal, Skip Shaffer (he’s an optometrist), but I already know what he’d tell me:

“Ralph, your eyes are glazed over.”

Yeah. Thanks.

It’s from reading all those articles in the press and on the Web about Toyota Motor Corp.’s “pedal problems.”

The auto maker’s “sudden acceleration” woes have been all over the media in reports ranging from mild wonderment that Toyota could have a quality problem to sinister-sounding “What-did-they-know-and-when-did-they-know it?” investigatory forays. The authoritative Automotive News carried things to a new height with its front page this week, featuring a glowering headline in giant type: “TOYOTA’S CRASH AND BURN.”

Toyota’s Crash and Burn? Can “Oh, the humanity!” be far behind?

Well, no. It’s already here, arriving on a cloud of lawyers. In U.S. District Court in Palm Beach County, Florida, where it often appears as if each citizen over age 70 is issued a white Toyota Camry sedan (with its turn signal permanently engaged), a public-spirited attorney filed suit against the automaker on behalf of consumers who, he says, “are scared, they’re frustrated, they want answers.” The answer, of course, is a class action lawsuit and a fat fee for him.

We already have the likes of Henry Waxman (D-NY), Bart Stupak (a Democrat from, oh, who would have guessed? Michigan), and other congressmen “demanding answers” and rushing to warm their hands at the conflagration that supposedly bids to destroy Toyota’s vaunted quality reputation. The Obama administration, no doubt hoping to refurbish its street cred with the United Auto Workers, has put Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on the scent.

Look, this is a serious recall—a real safety issue that has apparently cost some lives. But the market works. The message has been received and the consequences are unfolding. Toyota has reacted and is obviously trying to fix the problem. There is little evidence that it is being any more recalcitrant than any other corporation or large entity—including the government—whose initial reaction to some charge is a mixture of denial, doubt, and defense. Under ordinary circumstances, this whole affair would have cost the company millions, if not billions. But it is taking a much bigger hit because they are perceived as the New York Yankees of the automobile business. Let’s get the big guy!

Yes, by all means, let’s get to the bottom of the problem. But can’t we dispense with all the end-zone dancing?

Ralph Bennett writes the Automobility column for American.com.


The American Enterprise Institute takes no institutional positions on policy advocacy or political campaigns. The views expressed on The Enterprise Blog represent those of the individual writers.

AEI