GM boycott over bailout accomplishes nothing

Government intervention has been a touchy subject in political circles since the economy went sour. Financial bailouts, billions of dollars in stimulus money and the government’s assistance to auto giants General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC have upset many Republicans.

One in particular, a conservative radio talk show host by the name of Hugh Hewitt, is trying to vent that disdain for the government. For whatever reason, he chose to direct it at GM.

Hewitt said on his radio show recently that “Government Motors,” as he calls it, should be made an example of by those people who don’t believe government bailouts are the way to save companies. To teach that lesson, Hewitt — and later Rush Limbaugh — called on their listeners to join a boycott of all GM products until the government removes itself from the company. Surely Hewitt thought at the time this would be a smart idea, but we wonder exactly what he hopes to accomplish.

Let’s humor Hewitt and say his boycott works perfectly — which it won’t — and not a single GM car is purchased this year. His target, the government, would have two options: they can leave the company for dead, or they can give them even more money to try and build the product back up. In either scenario, GM is treated as collateral damage. One of the signature products of the U.S. would fail just so a talk show host can make his point. Really, there’s nothing to agree with in this boycott.

If this were a strike directed at GM and not the government, our position might be a little different. Hewitt could have called out the auto company on safety standards, gas mileage or any number of other potential concerns about those cars and he would have been justified. The economy is bad, but legitimate boycotts should still take place.

But Hewitt has seriously misdirected his anger on this issue.

A protest of the government should be directed at the government itself. Many people in cities across the country held “tea parties” earlier this year to protest government spending and each had the right to do so. They were trying to influence their government by directly voicing their opinions. A boycott of GM would only increase the company’s and the country’s economic issues. Hewitt is cutting off his nose to spite his face.

It’s very likely Hewitt knew this plan may not work or even gather much support, but it’s safe to say an extreme opinion like this would get plenty of attention from the national media. Hewitt protested government intervention frequently on his show, but received minor attention for it. When he singled out one of the world’s biggest car manufacturers, outrage — and more importantly, attention toward his cause — poured in. He might not even care about the strike, he could just want everyone to know how he feels.

His logic is backward. If he really wants the government to stay away from Detroit, then he should be promoting the sale of GM cars. The more sales they have, the quicker they can get the company back on its feet and paying off those government loans. To punish GM for what the government is doing is asinine.