Archive for April 10, 2009

If We Ignore a lot of Variables, China Has an Intriguing Plan for Electric Car

Let’s forget the traffic jams (regardless of what kind of car is on the road) or the small issue of how the country is going to produce all of the electricity to power the fleets, China has decided to jump-start its domestic alternative-vehicle market by offering consumer incentives to purchase rather than the more traditional (and favored by the U.S. government) offer of incentives to companies to produce.

I do not like corporate welfare, but I also understand the need for tax breaks, etc., to spur innovative R&D in some areas. Thus, I didn’t balk when our government offered incentives to Detroit to retool their factories and investigate alternative-fuel auto products. After learning about China’s plan, though, I can be easily convinced we might be on the wrong track toward reinventing our domestic car industry.

China is offering the U.S. equivalent of almost $9,000 in incentives for purchase of electric-vehicle fleets. It is also offering approximately $1.5 billion to Chinese car manufacturers to produce them. Compare this corporate-subsidy amount with that of the U.S., which currently has promised $25 billion to the Big Three for R&D with little detail on what it plans to offer consumers.

Zhang Shaochun, a vice minister of finance, said that the government wanted to let the market determine which electric vehicle models would become popular. …

“The fiscal subsidy gives voting rights to the consumer,” he said.

….

Mr. Zhang said that with a greater emphasis on incentives for electric car buyers, “we will cut back on the discretionary power of government agencies — otherwise, the companies will just fight for subsidies.”

If China is able to pioneer the electric-vehicle industry, thereby creating a solid domestic market, we will have, yet again, another instance where Detroit has fallen behind the curve. Hopefully, the reinvention of Detroit does not morph into a giant sponge for corporate welfare with little return, but after reading about China’s auto-industry plan, I would definitely feel better if the U.S. government had some specifics about how it might similarly play supply-side subsidies against consumer incentives.

Choice in Messaging: Is Rove Losing His Touch?

Say what you will about Karl Rove. Lord knows I have. But at least up to now, even his detractors have had to concede his skill at what he does. Yes, the GOP lost control of all federal political organs in ’08, but not for lack of trying. The fact is that some failures are just too big to spin, and it’s not Rove’s fault that he could no longer hide the GOP’s intellectual bankruptcy. No-one could have.

Looking beyond electoral results, though, there’s some subtle evidence that Rove is losing his touch. Given the GOP’s current minority status – and Rove’s central role in GOP messaging – one would imagine that he should be spending his time and effort rebuilding a coherent, appealing conservative narrative, or chipping away at the majority’s appeal. Judging by his last column, though, if Rove is attempting either task, he’s failing at both.

Rove’s latest column accuses Obama of being “divisive,” and reneging on his promise of bipartisanship. For evidence, Rove marshals polling numbers showing record partisan gaps in job approval ratings, and contrasts these numbers with some (truly trivial) bipartian gestures made by Obama’s immediate predecessor. There’s a lot wrong with Rove’s conclusion – the Truth of the Matter Asserted, if you will – but Salon nails it better than I could. And in any event, substance has never been Rove’s strong point. It’s not the point of what he does. When looking at Rove, you don’t ask what he’s doing, you ask why he’s doing it. So let’s step back, move up the funnel of abstraction, and ask what’s to be gained from even arguing that Obama’s a “divisive” figure.

The answer is, not much. “Partisanship” – unless clearly demonstrated in a single act – is a “red meat” accusation. If voters are already happy with a Politician X, pointing out that you disagree with him, and he doesn’t care, isn’t going to win you any points. In other words, accusing Obama of “partisanship” without pointing to a single, clear inflammatory act will not shift votes. It’ll entrench right-wing voters and anger left-wing voters, two Rove specialties, but given a popular administration (ignore Rove’s polling, it’s wrong, and 56/30 is good), mostly glance off those in between.

This article suggests to me that Rove has yet to adjust to the post-2006 landscape. The GOP lost the public’s trust, to Obama’s immediate gain, and as long as that condition persists, Rove’s old tricks just won’t work.