Smack dab on my twitter screen (don’t ask) was this gem from Walter Olsen :

GM-Chrysler merger = idea that pair of boozers can fix drinking problem by getting married to each other

Funny in its own right, it’s painful in its truth.  As someone who spends a decent amount of time at classic car shows, The harsh truth is that the major American carmakers haven’t come up with anything that grabs the heart and mind since 1969.  Apologies to the hippy hoppers, but the Escalade is a tin can/diamond encrusted necklace, meant for those who drink Crystal straight from the bottle because it’s the most expensive wine on the menu. 

Tom Friedman’s op-ed in the New York Times reminds us of the arrogance of Detroit, knowing full well that they were getting their butt kicked by, well, everyone else and still pounding the table as if America ruled the roads. 

How could these companies be so bad for so long? Clearly the combination of a very un-innovative business culture, visionless management and overly generous labor contracts explains a lot of it. It led to a situation whereby General Motors could make money only by selling big, gas-guzzling S.U.V.’s and trucks. Therefore, instead of focusing on making money by innovating around fuel efficiency, productivity and design, G.M. threw way too much energy into lobbying and maneuvering to protect its gas guzzlers.

Naturally, Friedman answers his own question.

Nothing typified this more than statements like those of Bob Lutz, G.M.’s vice chairman. He has been quoted as saying that hybrids like the Toyota Prius “make no economic sense.” And, in February, D Magazine of Dallas quoted him as saying that global warming “is a total crock of [expletive].”

This gives a totally new meaning to “like a rock.”  I think “like a brick” would be more appropriate, as in “thick as a brick.”  It’s been decades, as in almost 4 of them, since these geniuses from Detroit showed any imagination.  If only their cars matched the effort of their advertising.

These are the guys taxpayers are being asked to bail out.

The shame is that the ugliness of our ever-decreasing industrial base only comes to the surface when the rest of the economy hits the fan.  It’s not that it wasn’t widely recognized, but that mumbling and grumbling isn’t the equivalent of doing something about it.  Guys like Lutz, secure in his stock options, don’t need to have vision once they are firmly entrenched.  The question I have never been able to figure out is how a Board of Directors would let someone like him in the room?  Did they think he was their go-to guy?

So now we’re left with the problem of another bail-out (remember Chrysler?) to shore up the auto industry and avoid the emanations and penumbras of its collapse.  Sure, a collapse will cause devastation, but will a cash infusion fix things?  Perhaps they are just hoping that it will tide them over until better days reach our shores.  But when they get here, GM, Ford and Chrysler still won’t be able to match the quality and price of a Hyundai or the engineering and thrills of a BMW.

Friedman, with tongue close, if not exactly in, to cheek suggests that a condition of cashing the $25 billion check is to put someone new in charge:

Lastly, somebody ought to call Steve Jobs, who doesn’t need to be bribed to do innovation, and ask him if he’d like to do national service and run a car company for a year. I’d bet it wouldn’t take him much longer than that to come up with the G.M. iCar.

You can bank on it.

Memo to President-Elect Obama:  If you want to save a moribund industry plagued by lack of imagination and vision, don’t turn to a lawyer. 

Who might Obama get to lead such an effort? One of our very own: Georgetown law prof Dan Tarullo, a top Obama adviser on trade, has been appointed to lead the auto-company transition efforts, reports the WSJ.

I can see it now, a co-branded GM/Ford/Chrysler camel with wheels.  As much as I admire lawyers and lawprofs doing certain things, invigorating the auto industry is not one of them.  Just shoot me now.