Plausible Deniability

Saturday, March 29, 2025

If Donald Trump had won the 2020 presidential election, his second term would have been similar to his first, though likely less energetic, as second-term presidential terms usually are. Because he lost in 2020, he had four years to reflect on his first term, and consider how he could do better in his second. Living in Trump's second term, we can now see the results of this planning — a pace of change that is unprecedented in modern history.

The opposition Democrat party is struggling in how to respond to an increasingly popular Trump second term. How do they slow down Trump or make him less popular, and how do they do it while looking noble? Normally, some plausible goal like "saving the children," "preserving the environment," or "protecting marginalized groups" is used as cover to promote actions that harm your opponents. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they can't seem to find any plausible goals to attack Trump's agenda, so they have latched on to an action that runs counter to some of their previously stated goals.

Destroying Teslas is meant to show their disapproval of Elon Musk's DOGE effort to reduce wasteful government spending. However, such action runs counter to several previously rational goals, and opens the question of whether Democrats ever really believed in these goals:

• Electric vehicles to help the environment: Does destroying Teslas, and attempting to discourage future Teslas sales, go against a previous Democrat effort to promote electric vehicles as environmentally friendly?
• Reducing government waste: Does the Democrat party wish to retain wasteful government spending? If they feel the spending was not wasteful, they should make that argument, instead of trying to prevent what appears like a worthy goal.
• Property crime: Does the Democrat party consider the damaging of vehicles who are produced by someone who is trying to reduce government waste justified?

With the popularity of the Democrat party already at historic lows, it seems being associated with and not condemning Tesla attacks will lead the party to be associated even more negative characteristics: environmental damage, government waste, and property crime.

Even the individuals perpetrating these crimes are choosing to attack something that will likely cause them to be caught — a vehicle that has its own constantly-on surveillance cameras. They might hope that local prosecutors will not charge them for political reasons, but because these crimes are clearly intended to intimidate owners, the federal government might prosecute those who local prosecutors refuse to prosecute.

Today is a day of planned, coordinated protests — let's hope they are peaceful. None of this ends well for anyone: Telsa owners, Telsa workers, Tesla attackers, and the political party that thinks these attacks will harm Trump's agenda. The only winner in all of this is Trump and his party, who look like the only rational actors in this mess.