I & I Editorial BoardWhy do Democrats insist on forcing consumers to make choices they don’t want? Americans are making it clear they don’t want electric vehicles, yet Democrats won’t give up their mandate zealotry. Are they driven by authoritarian urges?
A poll taken last month shows that 48% of consumers would not consider buying an EV. That’s up seven percentage points from last year. Only 35% of those who responded to the Gallup poll said they might consider buying one, down from 43% just a year ago. A mere 9% said they were seriously considering an EV purchase. That portion was 12% in 2023.
Yes, EV ownership has increased. In 2024, 7% of Americans own a battery-powered car. Last year only 4% owned an EV.
But this combined with a growing resistance is an indicator that the demand is reaching a peak if it hasn’t already. After all, there are only so many consumers willing to buy an expensive, unreliable, grid-draining and destructive automobile merely for the privilege of demonstrating their green street cred and moral superiority. There are quite a few shallow people in this country but not enough apparently to keep the market warm.
Even with the rank of Democrats – whose positions are built on political superficiality – the EV fever has broken, with 27% saying in 2024 they would not buy an EV compared to 17% last year. Among independents, the “would nots” have grown to 47% from 38%. (A thanks to Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell for asking Gallup to break down the responses by party.)
Which is why the Biden administration and nearly half the states have to force EVs on the people.
Of course EVs aren’t the only choice that Democrats want to make for the entire country. They want to choose the our energy sources (breezes and sunshine only), the homes we live in (out of those suburban houses and their large lots and into cramped multi-family flats), and our transportation options (public transit and bicycles).
Democrats insist that they have to manage the production of household appliances, limit the choices of sneakers and deodorants, and design dishwashers and gas cans. They have banned or restricted a host of modern conveniences, from single-use plastic bags to plastic utensils to natural gas, condiment packs and incandescent bulbs. They’ve outlawed shower heads and toilets they don’t like. The Democratic Party has gone to war with truckers and targeted heating and cooling systems with obstructive guidelines.
Not even our First Amendment rights (nor those guaranteed by the Second Amendment) are safe from the Democrats’ agenda to manage, control, coerce and manipulate through raw political power.
In answer to our earlier question, yes, Democrats are driven by authoritarian urges. When Barack Obama said just before the 2008 election that “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” he wasn’t talking about restoring lost liberty. He was telling his party that its campaign of conquest had picked up the pace.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
Very simple why the Democrats use force. Their full name nowadays is the National Socialist Democrat Advocacy Party: the new NSDAP. There it is.
Americans choice on energy is simple. Abandon fire, the combustion of carbon in air, and our nation and society will be destroyed. The terminal scenarios differ but the basic facts and end are the same. Carbon is the sole source of economical fuel on earth. And without cheap energy to sustain life, you will die off.
“only so many consumers willing to buy an expensive, unreliable, grid-draining and destructive automobile”
I appreciate I&I, but they are Luddites on this issue, missing the point that EVs are already using resources more efficiently even as battery chemistries and grid capacities improve. Subsidies are only part of the reason Tesla produced the most popular car in the world last year. And narratives such as EV fires (far less common than other cars) and lifetime total resource cost (cheaper) have been debunked elsewhere by authors who do not hid behind anonymous editorial board byline. There will be ongoing challenges for drivers who do not have luxury of charging at residences and commonly drive or tow hundreds of miles a day, but it appears that many Tesla drivers are quite satisfied.
Hi Eric,
I own a Tesla and an electric hybrid to travel past the EV restrictions when needed. While I love my cars, I only bought them after I put up an extensive solar grid at home as here in CA, we have the most expensive electricity and gasoline in the USA.
Having said that, EVERYONE knows we have a 3rd world electrical grid here. We all had to get generators a few years back due to the PG&E fires and CA shutting down power to millions at a whim when the winds blow too hard. It is absurd to think our grid can sustain only EV’s as the lefties in CA have mandated to begin in just a few years. Not to mention the mining of Lithium as you have to have enormous batteries to bring any of the ridiculous windmill generation to normal usage. Just the disposal of my EV batteries is a disaster compared to even the cars on the CA highways prior to catalytic converters.
The new grocery bags will take a century to degrade compared to the year or two of the old thin bags. There is never any logic with a Democrat party
“save the earth, feel good” policy.
Yes, I like the torque of my Tesla, but I actually feel bad that EV’s and windmills are probably more of a ultimate ecological disaster than any carbon based product.
There are two basic problems with the above post.
The first is that there are in fact extensive problems with EV’s. They have serious limitations (they would clearly not meet my needs, which include periodically driving 700 miles in a day, often in cold weather) which is why 85% of EV’s are second-cars in households with ICE vehicles, and demand for EV’s appears to have peaked in the US. And, our current power grid is inadequate for widespread EV use. And, numerous studies have shown that their environmental benefits are, at best, marginal, and a very mixed bag.
But the second problem is more fundamental: Why are we debating the merits of EV’s at all? The entire point of the article is that people aren’t being left free to make their own choices. The above post operates from the premise that citizens are not competent to do this properly and the government should decide what vehicles people own. If those holding power find EV’s marginally more desirable in some ways, they should be mandated. Most Americans, and the editors of this website, reject that basic premise.
This article reports on the results of a poll. They are telling you what people prefer. It’s not some big plot as you make it out to be. You argued against everything but what they are reporting on….preferences.
Biden is the worst POTUS ever, but Obama is a close second.
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to….
My opinion: As the I&I editors say: “Freedom is just another word that the political left abhors and misuses.”
They also misuse Tyranny by ignoring it in themselves. The Progressives of the Democratic Party avow that they abhor tyranny-even while practicing it, with their EV’s regulations and with their Trump Lawfare cases.
Not all the people in the Democratic Party are Progressives, but those who aren’t Progressive ignore the tyranny that is practiced (and which are all Progressively coated in a veneer and with the bellowings of “freedom”).
Jee-soo-ee, Eric. If people were so satisfied with their EVs (including Tesla) why is the EV market dropping so precipitously?
Why is the “lifetime resource cost” so cheap? This is why. The EVs don’t last long enough to sum up their resource costs. Or, to put it another way, the oil fuel driven car lasts and lasts (compared to the EVs, which is either blowing up, or has it’s batteries fearfully discharging in cold and hot (due to A/C) weather).
/var/folders/xy/wfsfzb993wz7cp59__phsf_w0000gn/T/com.apple.mail/com.apple.mail.drag/WhatsApp Video 2023-06-28 at 08.51.21.mp4 Watch how exciting saving the planet is when EV’s collide! (sound up)