Historically, the United States loves change. Through our perfection of mass production, agricultural shifts due to the cotton gin, and even our very rise as a world power, punctuated with our usage of the atomic bomb, the country has embraced new technology and new direction to help us climb up the world's ranks. President Barack Obama was elected, functionally, on a platform of change. The Republicans were painted as the party of the status quo, and the Democratic party was painted as the party that would lead us in a bold new direction that would fix our ills. However, once the rubber met the road, it became very obvious very quickly that we have little stomach for sweeping change anymore.
I recently saw the documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car". The documentary functionally says that everyone: The state of California, the car companies, the federal government, the oil companies, etc., had a hand in ensuring that the electric car model EV1 was a failure. This seems to be the opposite of the attitude expected by the country that invented the light bulb. The question became "Why were all of these people so scared of an efficient electric car?" My hypothesis on the answer is that the amount of sweeping change that would occur because of the EV1 was not worth it to all parties involved.
Let's pretend for a moment that the EV1 was mass produced an offered in our current market. The vast majority of people do not travel a hundred miles in a single day, so unless you have an exceptionally long commute or are a professional driver of some sort (trucker, taxicab driver, etc.), the EV1 could service your needs without requiring any gasoline. I would like to repeat this statement for emphasis: For most practical usage that does not involve a road trip of some sort, you can effectively stop buying gas. I can't see the EV1 and cars like it not overtaking the market. Who wouldn't love that?
Oil companies, as an example, are the main answer. Whereas it is easy to dismiss their concerns as "big business", let's realistically think about this: How many Americans are employed by oil companies, either directly or indirectly? Could we really handle that many job losses due to a lack of demand for oil? I can only imagine how that would affect the Gulf of Mexico region and Alaska alone. As well, the movie bragged about how the EV1 required such little service – you just need to rotate the tires, and change the window wiper fluid. The difficulty here is that the standard internal combustion engine is far more inefficient than the EV1's engine… and entire industries have been built around the repair and maintenance of this inefficient engine. Now we've also put a large number of mechanics, car shops, etc. out of business. Let's not even begin to go into the "strategic partnerships" with other countries to provide us with the oil we "need".
Now, I do not want to say the electric car would plunge our country into chaos. We would adapt, just as we always do. When we began using robots on assembly lines rather than humans, massive jobs were lost but our country has managed to survive. However, I think it is obvious that we have little stomach for those "growing pains" anymore.
Let's apply this same reasoning to health care. Conservatives argue that any sort of public option would lead to a single payer health care system. I personally do not believe that a single payer system is problematic. We worry about government inefficiency, comparing the USPS to FedEx. However, the "alternatives" are very few in that scenario: FedEx and UPS. It is easy to maintain high levels of efficiency when you only have two other options. How many different health care insurance companies are there in the United States? I don't know the answer, but I know it is more than two. The administrative efficiencies of having a single place where all of the money comes and goes would be tremendous. This does not even begin to go into the power the government could have to lower prices since everyone would be negotiated together. However, as President Obama cited, this will never happen. We already have a system in place that utilizes private companies for insurance, and, as he says, it would be overwhelming to totally switch gears now. I would cite that it would not be "overwhelming", but it would indeed be a "revolution" – we would have to learn a new system, and entire industry would be gone, etc.. Does our country really have the stomach for that?
It is easy to be brave and move in "bold, new" directions when you are not on top. When your country is searching for the edge to surpass other countries, it is easy to take risks and reap the rewards. However, we have spent the last seventy-to-a-hundred years on top of the mountain, and it takes a lot more to move us now. Is this the best direction to move in? I have always been inclined to say that the cultural and technological advances we embrace can only help the nation move forward into prosperity. However, do you want to be the one telling that to the offshore driller that has found his skill set reduced to a totally unmarketable state?
Of course, there is always the chance that "the market" will always prevail no matter what. Coming this year (according to their website): The Aptera 2E, an "electric" car that gets the equivalent of 360 mpg. In early 2010 we will see the hybrid Aptera 2h, which will use have a tank of up to 5 gallons and a range of around 600 miles because of it. I personally think that, whenever it comes out, we can begin the countdown for the retirement of the internal combustion engine – we may still have hybrids, but I simply can't see a standard car surviving against that sort of competition - unless they greatly inflate the price. On the one hand, at a rumored cost of between $25,000 and $45,000, I'd give regular cars another twenty years or so. On the other hand, I didn't hear about the Aptera until I stumbled upon it in a web search. That doesn't exactly sound like a good start for marketing success (assuming I'm not VERY out of the loop in car technology, which may be the case)
