PROOF POSITIVE CLARENCE DITLOW IS EITHER A SOPHIST OR AN IDIOT

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Ralph Nader disciple Clarence Ditlow has long been a controversial figure in the automotive world. As head honcho of the hyper-regulatory activist group Center for Auto Safety (CAS), Ditlow has frequently turned his Naderesque fire on the Detroit 3. The CAS list of causes célèbre often reads like a contingency-fee trial lawyer pirates' wish list. (Plaintiffs trial lawyer shakedown artists often champion scores of regulations to bootstrap questionable negligence and products liability claims)

Now Ditlow wants General Motors and Chrysler to just "roll over" to the extreme, radical demands of the pirate lawyers and other liberals who want to regulate every aspect of motoring and vehicle production under the guise of "safety."

Given the government's ownership, the lobbyists are in essence working for the government," said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, a consumer group. "The government ought to be able to tell them, 'Do what we say because we are you.'"

This evidences either empty sophistry or a profound lack of understanding as to how government actually works. Even if "Government Motors" and "Fix It Again Tony Chrysler" were cabinet-level government agencies (and not just captives to the Obama-UAW-sponsored bailout madness) they would be urging the other components of government to formulate policies meeting their mutual interests (anyone who has ever spent any time around government at any level realizes this fact of intra-governmental "lobbying.").

Is it reasonable to for policy makers to make decisions without the input of those who will be affected? Clarence Ditlow apparently thinks so.

The fact that GM and Chrysler will still be required to have registered lobbyists adds a level of transparency to something that would inevitably occur.

As one lobbyist wrote:

Before we start casting stones, however, consider for a minute that the vast majority of these lobbyists are working on issues that you might actually care about! For example, are you a member of AARP? Do you contribute to the Sierra Club? Do you own a car and have an AAA membership? All of these organizations use funds from their members to hire "lobbyists" in Washington, DC. In fact, you, yes you, might actually be acting as a lobbyist in your daily life. Have you ever called up a city agency to express the need for a stop sign in your neighborhood? Have you signed on to a petition or letter from a professional organization that was then sent to elected officials at the state or federal level? That's lobbying, my friend, pure and simple

.

Perhaps in Ditlow's world, banning GM and Chrysler from any lobbying would lead to more hasty, anti-free market, bad deals, such as the Obama Administration's sudden hike in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirements (Which Jim DeMint attibutes to the Detroit 3 being reduced to "pawns," even without Ditlow's dream of a lobbying ban).

Or perhaps Ditlow and CAS just want the liberal Naderites and the GreeNazis to have completely unfettered control over the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Moreover, he likely does not want anyone at GM or Chrysler lobbying Congress to reign in the abuses of the Obama Administration. Perhaps CAS believes that getting rid of input from the experts at GM and Chrysler will make the road to government-approved Obamamobiles smoother.

Regardless, Ditlow's demand for no lobbying is classic overreaching.

But the real problem isn't lobbyists, but rather the NEED for lobbyists. Ford Motor Company CEO Alan Mulally candidly observes that "We've become so stymied with regulation" . . . . "We have to say enough is enough and get back to freeing people up."

Daniel J. Mitchell also put it succinctly back in 2004:

The real problem is that government is too big and has too much power -- and this attracts lobbyists for the same reason that rotten meat attracts flies.

In other words, lobbyists exist because many people cannot resist the temptation to try to redistribute resources in their direction -- while others seek representation because they don’t want to be the chumps footing the bill. . . . And don’t forget federal regulations. Rules and red tape cost the economy about $850 billion annually [in 2004]. Does anyone really think it odd that this costly regulatory maze encourages lobbying?

To paraphrase Professor Wigmore, the adversarial system is the greatest engine ever invented for the discovery of truth. Yet, if taken at face value, Clarence Ditlow apparently wants no debate and no opposition from those whom his comrades are seeking to regulate.

This view is either highly naive or completely disingenuous. Even fellow Naderite Joan Claybrook can't agree with Ditlow: "I do believe in the First Amendment and speaking your mind . . . If they don't have lobbyists expressing their point of view, who does it?"