On May 2nd, Tesla released its earnings report for the first quarter of 2018. It beat street estimates, but still reported a loss of $3.04 per share. As conservatives, we can point to the company’s losses as a sign that Tesla can’t survive in the free market. Some might argue that electric cars can’t compete with the internal combustion engine, and that they’ve only had limited success as a result of government subsidies. That may all be true. Nonetheless, as conservatives, we should all be rooting for Tesla.
On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh often used to play a parody song called “In a Yugo.” The song mocks “a liberal guy and a liberal gal” who are so dedicated to saving the environment that they buy a small fuel-efficient car from a used car lot. Predictably, the couple ends up in a collision with a truck, and their sad little car gets flattened.
While ironic, if not slightly morbid, the song represents a point of view that conservatives feel isn’t being addressed by advocates of climate change regulation. Does the government have the right to put our safety at risk? Do we need to drive cars that are cramped and have no horse power? Does the government have the right to establish policies that will create economic instability? If climate change modeling is inherently speculative, and inaccuracies should be expected, should we really take steps that assume those models are infallible?
Unfortunately, the counter-argument that’s made by many—that people who are against regulation just don’t care about our children’s future—exacerbates the polarization. As with many issues, if people are characterized as not caring about children, they’ll likely become more entrenched in their position.
Over the past ten years, Tesla has objectively made “In a Yugo” irrelevant. It’s created cars that are safe—perhaps the safest on the road. It’s created cars that are both comfortable and ridiculously fast. Teslas are not Yugos. Not remotely.
In his mission statement for the company, Elon Musk stated that Tesla’s goal was to make “an electric car without compromises” in order to “help expedite the move… towards a solar electric economy.” The phrase “without compromises” should inspire conservatives to get up and cheer. If that isn’t enough, try sitting in a Tesla Model S P100D while going from 0 to 60 in 2.5 seconds!
None of this is to claim that Tesla and Elon Musk are free of criticism. Recently, long-time Tesla fans have been justifiably disappointed in the rollout of the new Model 3 sedan. As a reservation holder myself, I was pretty shocked when I got an email saying there would be a “slight delay” in my delivery date, and found out that it would be almost another year before I could hope to see my base level Model 3. The company’s stated goal—to make an “affordable” mass market electric car—has yet to be achieved. One couldn’t be faulted for being skeptical of whether that goal will ever be achieved.
As advocates for limited government, we also have the right to question the role of government in providing subsidies for electric vehicles. If Tesla can’t succeed in producing cars that will compete in the free market, particularly without subsidies, conservatives would be right to raise objections. In fact, Elon Musk has stated that his intention is for Tesla to sell cars at a price point that’s affordable to the mass market before any government subsidies.
All that being said, there’s a compelling moral argument for us to hope that Tesla is wildly successful. If Tesla can prove that electric cars are just as good as, if not better than, gasoline powered cars, then a large portion of the climate change debate becomes moot.
After writing his first opinion column for The New York Times, Bret Stephens faced intense criticism for presenting what most conservatives would feel was an open-minded and innocuous critique of advocates for climate change regulations. While trying to find a middle ground, Stephens was branded as a radical. At the same time, many on the right have attacked Elon Musk as being a card-carrying leftist, despite examples of him similarly trying to find a middle ground. In the climate change debate, common ground has been hard to find. If a solution became available through the free market, that would be optimal.
Conservatives understand that lack of certainty alone doesn’t justify inaction. If there’s a possibility that the climate is being affected by human activity, and there’s a very compelling solution that could help solve the problem, we should all be open to exploring the solution. When that solution includes innovation, potential economic growth, and good old fashioned American ingenuity, we should be inspired to give it our moral support.