When you’re in a foxhole facing enemy fire, it’s probably sound policy to not badmouth the guy who’s fighting the same enemy alongside you.
The National Motorists Association – which has been fighting for motorists for decades and won the fight to repeal the 55 MPH National Maximum Speed Limit that made highway driving torturous and expensive for twenty long years, until this Nixon-era edict was finally repealed in the mid-1990s, after a dogged lobbying and public relations campaign led by NMA – recently published an article that some consider soft on EVs.
More precisely, soft on the pushing of them – by not firmly stating this fact and (thereby) conveying the impression that the “transition” – to use the popular term as well as the one used to headline the article – is just another one of those things; i.e., an inevitable, natural change, like the transition from horses and buggies to horseless carriages.
Or like the transition away from EVs to vehicles with engines.
The one that occurred more than 100 years ago. That was a natural, inevitable change arising from the economic and functional superiority of vehicles with engines, which (then as now) were not tethered to a cord, didn’t make you wait all day to go for a drive and cost less, too. It made sense to most people to buy them rather than a battery-powered car and so they did.
It makes the same sense today, but the difference is there are forces determined to countermand what makes sense to most people (as expressed by their willingness to pay for it) and push them into what they don’t want to pay for – because it doesn’t make sense to them.
And for that reason, they’d rather not be forced pay for it.
The NMA piece steers clear of the politics of EVs while addressing the issues with EVs (higher cost, longer waits, shorter range) and this is arguably a big mistake – because it doesn’t challenge the legitimacy of imposing these issues on people. For example, the article states:
It “has often often been said that it takes longer to charge an EV than it does to fill a tank of gas. That may be true but a different way of thinking about fueling an EV is needed.”
And why should a person be pushed to “a different way of thinking”? They did just that in Soviet Russia and Mao’s China.
Now they’re doing it here, too.
Why should a person who does not feel the need of – nor see the sense in – spending “as little as 30 minutes” (per the article) to do less than they are currently able to do in 5 minutes or less? You can fill a gas-engined vehicle to full in that time. You can only partially “fast” charge an EV in that time.
The author says “EVs can be constantly replenished when not driving.” By which he means they can be plugged in. But this means having to wait – and not being able to drive while you do. And maybe this makes sense – for those who do have the time and are willing to wait. If so, then perhaps an EV is a good choice for them.
In italics – because the issue – which the NMA piece avoids dealing with – is that this is a push to make everyone wait, which will necessarily reduce how often (and how far) everyone will be able to drive.
That it is not a natural transition.
More bluntly, that it is an evil – precisely because it is being pushed and because it is based on the kinds of lies used to weaponize hypochondria during the three long years of the “pandemic,” which badly damaged not just the economy but the national psyche. People were badgered with gross exaggerations meant to both scare them and get them to go along with sick rituals such as wearing “masks” and shunning friends and family members who refused to play along. The impression of a mass-die-off event was created by hourly “case” counts – though these “cases” were mostly just people who’d tested positive (on a dodgy test) who not only didn’t die, most never needed more than a box of Kleenex and some rest.
Similarly, the EV push is based on hysteria about a “climate crisis” that isn’t actually happening but that people are assured is coming – if they do not buy an EV and accept all of the EV’s driving limitations. One of the most significant of these being the fact that most people will never be able to afford to drive one.
It is likely that the NMA – like the car industry itself – does not yet fully understand the malice behind this push. That it is not about swapping out one type of car for another car. That it is about dramatically reducing the number of cars in the hands (and garages) of average Americans as well as the amount of driving they do.
In simple terms, that it is an existential threat to everything the NMA stands for.
If this push succeeds, there will be as much need for an organization such as the NMA as there will be for an organization such as the NRA in a future America where the only Americans who are allowed to have guns are Americans who aren’t ordinary Americans.
The EV push is not about “electrification.” It is about stratification. It is meant to reset the order of more than 100 years ago, when the car was a luxury item for the affluent and nine out of ten Americans did not drive (unless they were employed as chauffeurs).
There is no bargaining with an enemy who is an existential threat. It is a mistake to think a reasonable conversation can be had. This is a one-sided conversation. They tell us what we’re going to be allowed to do – and we’d better believe it. Just the same we were expected to believe granny would die if we din’t “mask.”
“Will it all work out?” asks the author of the NMA toward the end of the article?
Here’s to hoping it doesn’t.
For NMA’s sake. For our sake.
For all our sakes.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you like items like the Keeeeeeev T shirt pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!