« Operation Moshtarak: Kinetic Operations in Afghanistan Begin Anew | Main | Obama's Cynical War on Terror »
February 15, 2010
What I Wish I'd Said About the Audi "Green Police" Ad
The ad that aired during the Super Bowl
And what I wish I'd said in my first post on it
The New Conformo-radicalism
Groupthink compliance has never felt so right!
by Mark Steyn
A man asks for a plastic bag at the supermarket checkout. Next thing you know, his head's slammed against the counter, and he's being cuffed by the Green Police. "You picked the wrong day to mess with the ecosystem, plastic boy," sneers the enviro-cop, as the perp is led away. Cut to more Green Police going through your trash, until they find . . . a battery! "Take the house!" orders the eco-commando. And we switch to a roadblock on a backed-up interstate, with the Green Police prowling the lines of vehicles to check they're in environmental compliance.If you watched the Super Bowl, you most likely saw this commercial. As my comrade Jonah Goldberg noted, up until this point you might have assumed it was a fun message from a libertarian think-tank warning of the barely veiled totalitarian tendencies of the eco-nanny state. Any time now, you figure, some splendidly contrarian type -- perhaps Clint lui-même in his famous Gran Torino -- will come roaring through flipping the bird at the stormtroopers and blowing out their tires for good measure. But instead the Greenstapo stumble across an Audi A3 TDI. "You're good to go," they tell the driver, and, with the approval of the state enforcers, he meekly pulls out of the stalled traffic and moves off. Tagline: "Green has never felt so right."
So the message from Audi isn't "You are a free man. Don't bend to the statist bullies," but "Resistance is futile. You might as well get with the program."
Strange. Not so long ago, car ads prioritized liberty. Your vehicle opened up new horizons: Gitcha motor running, head out on the highway, looking for adventure. . . . To sell dull automobiles to people who lived in suburban cul de sacs, manufacturers showed them roaring round hairpin bends, deep into forests, splashing through rivers, across the desert plain, invariably coming to rest on the edge of a spectacular promontory on the roof of the world offering a dizzying view of half the planet. Freedom!But now Audi flogs you its vehicles on the basis that it's the most convenient way to submit to arbitrary state authority. Forty years ago, when they first began selling over here, it's doubtful the company would have considered this either a helpful image for a German car manufacturer or a viable pitch to the American male.
But times change. As Jonah Goldberg pointed out, all the men in the Audi ad are the usual befuddled effete new-male eunuchs that infest all the other commercials. The sort of milksop who'll buy the TDI and then, when the Green Police change their regulatory requirements six weeks later, obediently take it back to the shop and pay however many thousand bucks to have it brought it into compliance with whatever the whimsical tyrant's emissions regime requires this month.
Indeed we are trading our liberty for illusory environmental gains.
I've noticed a few things about this entire matter, especially surrounding the topic of global warming climate change.
One, the same people who screamed and hollered that the Patriot Act was the ultimate violation of our civil liberties have no problem regulating the most minute aspect of our lives when it's in the name of environmentalism. They will create the most gargantuan bureaucracies with the most vast powers, and which are largely unaccountable to lawmakers. But mention that maybe we shouldn't treat would-be airplane bombers as common criminals, and you'd think the world was about to end.
Two, if you're against any part of the environmentalist agenda, you must also be against any sort of regulation whatsoever and in favor of air and water pollution. Don't believe me? Here are the two comments left at my blog after my first post on the Green Police ad:
Are you saying there are no environmental problems severe enough to warrant government intervention? There are limits to what voluntary civic action can achieve. Actually I think these low-emission light-bulb campaigns etc are good examples of how calls for voluntarist action so often wind up irritating people, creating a backlash.Shouldn't there be laws on the books preventing companies from dumping hazardous chemicals into water supplies, for example? And if environmental regulations are sometimes necessary, why is it so absurd that the government should enforce them? If a company is caught dumping illegally, shouldn't the CEO be arrested? Call this the "green police" if you want, but I doubt you'd want to live in a society where government didn't intervene to protect drinking water standards.
I know that we disagree about climate change, but seeing as you have ridiculed my country of birth I will at least say this. The UK government has decided that CO2 is a pollutant (as has your own, for that matter). If they want to regulate it, good for them.
Posted by: Mylne Karimov at February 10, 2010 1:27 PM
If you look at the website for the NY "Green Police", their enforcement covers petroleum spills, illegal burning, dumping oil in storm drains, and chemical spills.
Those crazy greens!!!! Next they will have notions about not letting me cut down tree on my own property!!!
To protest this we could have our own tea party. I'll dump oil in the storm drain, and you can crap directly into the river that provides water supplies for your neighbors. That will put an end to this green madness!!!
Posted by: jason at February 10, 2010 1:37 PM
It'll be interesting to see what I get this time.
Posted by Tom at February 15, 2010 11:00 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1532
Comments
Please see my above comment.
Posted by: Mylne Karimov at February 15, 2010 11:25 PM
All right, I'll take the bait.
Your first post was attacking not just the Audi advert (which is, you do realize, a joke?), but actual green police units in existence that enforce important environmental regulations. Hence my response.
As for liberal hypocrisy regarding civil liberties, I'm not convinced. The right to habeas corpus and the right to emit greenhouse gas pollutants are two different kinds of right, for a start. And these rights must, in the final accounting, be reckoned against the risks. Conservatives believe that the risk of terrorism outweighs the benefits of habeas corpus; liberals do not. Greens believe that the risk of anthropogenic climate change outweighs the benefits of being able to emit CO2 freely; climate skeptics do not. These are value judgments and to accuse one side of hypocrisy seems unhelpful - an effort to make the debate needlessly partisan.
What gets to the heart of this issue is whether you regard climate change as a serious threat or not. If you did, you would not find green regulatory efforts absurd.
Posted by: Mylne Karimov at February 16, 2010 10:20 AM



