“Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!”~Theodor “Dr.” Seuss Geisel, American children’s author and political cartoonist
Yesterday, a guest post on Lovingthebike.com stirred a bit of controversy, including an unsubscribe request from Shebicycles. It purported to criticize environmental crusaders on bikes, from the point of view of “a fiscal and social conservative.”
As far as I could tell, it was really just a protest against cycling advocacy that includes criticism of car culture and environmental neglect.
There were more than a few supporters, including a reader who lectured that “cars are here to stay” and “most” [cyclists] just want to fit into the “auto-centric society that we live in.”
Strange thing to read on a cycling blog.
VeloWeb’s logo is drawn from what may well be the first bicycle advert, for Karl von Drais’ “Draisienne,” or velocipede, invented in 1817 to carry the baron around his estate. The German forester-turned-inventor’s privileged life would later be upturned by political bloodshed, causing him to flee to Brazil.
For over a century, my hometown of Wolverhampton’s thriving bicycle industry supported thousands of factory workers, most of whom rode to work on the same bicycles they produced.
In regions where political language has been deformed to the degree that words no longer reflect their linguistic roots, it’s not surprising to see this debate intrude on the world of cycling.
Liberalism, everywhere else a term for moderation, is spoken of in tones otherwise reserved for depravity. Socialism, the principle of cooperative support and maintenance of the social fabric, has come to mean something akin to “facism,” even though, as Benito Mussolini clarified, “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it represents the merger of corporate and state power.”
What could be more like that than countries where banks and car companies, with the assistance of business courtiers in government, privatize profits and socialize losses?
It is because of the brutal institution of the Italian system, designed to “make the trains run on time,” that we now correlate the word “fascism” (merely a symbol for branches bound together) with despotism?
Henry Ford, on the other hand, had no interest in punctual trains, despite a brief dalliance with an electric railway, in partnership with Thomas Edison. That other industrial giant General Motors unleashed an all-out war on public transport, buying up and scrapping streetcar systems.
Ford didn’t much care for Jews either. His propaganda booklet The International Jew, The World’s Foremost Problem published by his company’s press The Dearborn Independent, in 1920, inspired another dictator who we also associate with mass murder. The Third Reich decorated the automobile tycoon with its highest civilian honour, the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, in 1938.
At the same time, back in the US, Bush family patriarch Prescott Bush was the Third Reich’s banker in New York, oiling the lucrative exchange between Nazi and US corporations, until his bank’s proceeds were finally seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act, in November, 1942.
Not many think of Dr. Seuss as a political cartoonist, but it was the writer of children’s nonsense verse whose satirical drawings revealed the vile warmongering and racism hiding within the America First movement, led by Ford and another capitalist “hero,” Charles Lindbergh.
So what does any of this have to do with cycling? Perhaps nothing.
Cyclists, like any other social subculture are a diverse lot and may well represent every social strata, creed and ideology.
The Wednesday Coffee Ride group, as an example from my life, represents views across the political spectrum. I know who I can speak with openly. Others, I avoid offending, unless I feel I can politely offer a contrasting opinion—in a sort of freewheeling velo diplomacy. Sometimes a bicycle is just a bicycle.
In an ideal world, we would be judged solely by our deeds. Honourable leaders and generations of petitioners have fought to develop systems—democracy being the finest ideal—by which we hope to reflect the needs of the majority and to apply justice without prejudice. Notice I use the word “ideal” twice in this paragraph, because that dream has never been fully realized and will not bear fruit (at least not a palatable variety) while powerful interests disturb and undermine its roots.
We should no more conflate the idea of enterprise and innovation with Nazi or Fascist nationalism, or American slave labour, than we should view socialism through the blood-smeared lens of Stalinism.
Status quo party politics is ill-equipped to solve the unfolding environmental crisis. In fact, party politics is most often a distraction from the underlying corporatist structures that possess the economic power once believed to be wielded by states alone.
Like it or not, we live on a planet of limited resources, a biological system whose “ideology” is beyond dispute. No one can shame us into submitting to its terms (though the conspiracy-minded already fear a “green dictatorship”).
In a functioning democracy, there are legal means to protect citizens from, or compensate for, injuries caused by the negligent actions of others. In the natural world, cause and effect are truly non-partisan.
Latest Tweets
Thank you for this articulate and very well-written post. I am afraid that I tend to react very strongly to issues I feel very strongly about.
While I strongly agree that the bicycle-as-alternative-transportation should be part of a bi-partisan conversation, I admit to feeling a bit skeptical about the level of open-mindedness that may be brought to the table.
My (admittedly pessimist) self has to ask: does the conservative contingent have a genuine interest in addressing ALL sides of the matter at hand, or only those that are “trendy” and safe for the current political climate? In my area of the country (SE US); I just don’t see evidence that the predominant political (and overwhelmingly conservative) players want to make things happen.
Your closing paragraph really struck me in the heart. No truer words ….
Well said.
I thought your reaction was temperate and well-considered, given the irrational nature of the writer’s ideas.
I’m always wary of people who start of by announcing they’re “social and fiscal conservatives.” They’re usually the kind of people who vote for parties whose policies destroy both the economy and the social fabric.
Sorry, Cassi and Raymond.
I respectfully disagree and I’m disappointed in the tone of the conversation. In my opinion, some of the comments yesterday and here today got a little too personal.
Jim, there was disagreement and an offensive tone from the get-go. I don’t see any tone in response any more personal than that from the blogger in question.
Hers began with the derision of the idea, which she attributes to some “environmental” constituency (likely dressed in tweed), that “cycling and environmentalism are compatible dance partners…” which evidently “does not engage the right-leaning, spandex-wearing folks” like her.
Appointing herself as spokesperson, she claims: “In fact, it turns us off.”
As someone fond of spandex myself, for its utilitarian comfort and flattery of my eternally youthful figure, I take offence at being lumped in with “right-leaning …folks,” whatever that may mean in the writer’s world.
I’m also old enough to remember the joys of black wool, originally the uniform of furtive illegal night racers, in the country of my youth.
Therein may lie the source of my iconoclastic nature.
Anyway, my point is that if a writer wants to stir controversy by poking a stick at a long-established, hard-working political and social movement, then be ready for some opposing views. As I’m getting here.
I like to ride my bikes. I also like to drive my truck for trips – especially long road trips – that are not realistic to conduct via bicycle. For example driving to Baja Mexico to camp/kitesurf.
I don’t think cars are going anywhere. Things may change, but the majority of people will never ever be self-propelled. I’m okay with that.
I’ll participate in political discussions related to transportation infrastructure and laws. But, when I get onto my bike the only political act that I undertake regularly is civil disobedience of the idiotic mandatory helmet law in BC.
I don’t ride my bike to save the planet or because I want to make a political statement. I ride my bike because I enjoy riding it and it’s good for me.
safe riding,
Vik
BTW – since we are on the topic I will add that focusing on transportation issues if you are worried about the environment is like focusing on how the chairs are arranged on the deck of the Titanic as it slowly sinks. Potentially an interesting diversion from the stark reality of what’s going on, but ultimately pointless. There is only one issue that needs resolving as a priority = the growth economy model and the resulting population explosion. If we expend our energy on any other topic I think we are wasting it.
It may well be that we are on the planet Titanic. There are certainly more icebergs calving off the poles.
I’ve been writing on these issues for decades, to no avail, but I am not willing to throw my hands up, buy an F250, and surf into the sunset. I have grandchildren to consider.
Surely, as a cyclist, you benefit from the work put in by bicycle advocates, like the Greater Victoria Cycling Coalition and would appreciate fewer motor vehicles clogging the road … whether on your bike or in your truck.
And surely you wouldn’t resent at least a portion of the billions in subsidies propping up Big Oil and car infrastructure being redirected to establishing integrated public transport? We’re not even trying in North America.
I agree that cars aren’t going anywhere. In fact, I think people like Jeff Rubin have the situation pretty much pegged.
Tailwinds.
Yesterday’s post definitely stirred things up and it was interesting to be the cause of so much fire. As I mentioned in my comments, I am probably the most un-political person you’ll ever meet and I really don’t understand all the debate and irritation.
I’m just a guy who is Loving the Bike and I don’t take it any deeper than that. But I am also perfectly okay with people formulating their own opinions and voicing their beliefs. Whether I agree, disagree, or are neutral on what they have to say…..they are able to say what they wish.
It’s unfortunate that the world we live in feels the need to comment and criticize things….and others opinions.
Shebicycles and I are friends and have discussed things through e-mail. We remain friends, fellow cyclists, and people who possess our own thoughts.
Darryl
It certainly has, and I actually welcome the chance to engage.
I am completely apolitical when riding my bike through the countryside. The only thing I’m likely to be pondering is the wonders of birdsong.
The thing that raised my hackles was simply the intrusion of right wing commentary into cycling … and in a hectoring tone.
Let’s face it, the core message was “You old lefty environmentalists just turn off us lycra-clad legions of the New Right.”
That to me (an old lefty environmentalist to the core) was a red flag (what other colour flag would it be?)–like somebody stole my cycling strip in which to goose-step backwards.
As someone else pointed out, the young writer in question is like a woman who believes she owes no debt to the feminist movement.
Just one last point: Surely you didn’t expect to host that provocative article without an opposing view. I think I’m safe in saying we’ll never see a world where people don’t criticize one another’s ideas. The absence of debate would indicate we were living in the nightmare society dreamed of by despots.
“There were more than a few supporters, including a reader who lectured that “cars are here to stay” and “most” [cyclists] just want to fit into the “auto-centric society that we live in.”
“Strange thing to read on a cycling blog.”
Yes it was. And I stand by that. (Though I don’t think I was lecturing.)
While I *wish* more people would learn to Love the Bike;
And I know the physical, emotional, and exnvironmental benefits of riding compared to driving;
I recognize that, esp in the States, the “car culture” (or auto-centric society) we live in is a reality that is not going away anytime soon. Even with rising fuel costs, the auto is not going to disappear.
The battles, as I see them, right now are to create environments were cars and bikes can co-exist, where there is an infrastructure in place to support and encourage the use of the bike – for pleasure, for health, for commuting, for the environment, for the Earth.
Perhaps I’m more of a gradualist. Support the infrastructure now, and (if Rubin is right), we will be prepared for others to follow and ride their bikes. And if they don’t, at least we can still be safe while we ride.
Ultimately, I hope this debate has engaged and challenges the original poster into formulating a method to engage conservatives and get them to support bikes and bike culture. I am not convinced that it is possible. Because it would require an investment in services and infrastructure (re: things the government can supply) – investment that comes in the form of tax revenues. And I don’t believe that today’s fiscal conservatives will ever agree to that.
Peace.
Well, Bob, I can’t find anything in your comment here to disagree with, as cantankerous as I am. I think we’re entirely on the same page.
I happily “fit in” with motor traffic for most of my life, growing up in a fully-integrated city (where there may have been more bicycles than motor traffic), but what I don’t want to fit into is a “car-centric society.”
Not that I’m completely anti-car either–I own an old Honda, which is presently gathering dust in the car-port and hasn’t been insured for 2 years. I moved to a village neighbourhood 8 years-ago, much like the English one I grew up in, with all amenities close by.
Thing is, burgeoning car culture has become increasingly irrational and aggressive and now threatens global health. I believe we must plan (and many are) to abandon it poste haste.
Comments on this entry are closed.