Long-standing readers might recall that for years I wrote about the car industry, starting in the mid-2000s. This was just as the industry was running into technical challenges as a result of tightening environmental requirements, which manifested differently in the two big markets, the US and Europe. Simplistically, the Europeans were focused on greenhouse gasses, and the US on air quality.
It was into this morass that Elon Musk stepped, investing in a six-month-old electric vehicle (EV) start-up called Tesla.
Sometimes, local commentators like to import the views of the American liberal vanguard and apply it to SA like an ill-fitting suit. Nobody looks comfortable or clever, but it does at least have the benefit of being easy. And so, even here, Musk is more incendiary than he is merely divisive. One doesn’t generally encounter people who do not have a view.
Musk’s divisiveness is founded in the US, where he has over the past few years become a hate figure on the Left. This is mainly because he has betrayed the liberal tribe by criticising the Democrats, by having a view on free speech that is — they would say — un-nuanced and dangerous, and because of an internet bubble that believes billionaires should be banned.
Additionally, through Tesla, he perpetuates the American dream of personal transport, and in decarbonising it and removing polluting tailpipes from cities has solved an environmental problem. For those who advocate for the removal of the car from urban streets, this has nixed one of their key arguments.
More interesting though, is that Musk has done much to support causes that seem compatible with the Left. When Russia — a regime it is fair to describe as fascist — invaded Ukraine, Musk’s Starlink internet service helped keep Ukrainian forces connect to communications networks. And Tesla has shaken up the motor industry so radically that it will never be the same again.
To the irritation of Big Auto, Tesla showed that usable EVs could be produced at scale and that they hadn’t really been trying very hard. It is unlikely that Canada, California, the EU and the UK would have banned the sale of internal combustion cars from 2035 without Tesla’s disruptive influence.
Outlier
By almost every measure you care to think up, Tesla is an outlier on environmentally friendly motoring, down to the details of the cleanliness of energy sources used to power its factories, and the sourcing of minerals for batteries. In a cradle-to-grave scenario, no carmaker can even fit on the same graph as Tesla.
It does seem that it is impossible to be successful and not draw ire and admiration in equally unhealthy volumes. As much as I find the distaste for Musk expressed by the American Left and its intellectual bag-carriers here absurd, it’s important to note that adulation is just as ridiculous.
TeslaBros, a right-wing, very male, aggressive and loud internet bubble of Musk obsessives with a strong line in misogyny, take an equally narrow view about the kid from Pretoria Boys’ High. They dismiss with disdain questions about Tesla’s treatment of its workers, especially some black workers who say they have faced discrimination in the company.
They treat anyone who reasonably questions the efficacy of EVs, the integrity of Musk, the story of the origin of the company and his views on free speech, with disgust and abuse. Mention that Tesla’s cars are poorly built and after-sales service is often woeful, that they roll out “self-driving” software too quickly, and you’ll need to hold tight. To question any of this in good faith is to walk into a enfilade of fire from the Muskboets — to coin something more vernacular.
In fact, Musk is a complicated, unknowable polymath. He has done some incredibly good and clever things, yet he does also appear to not be particularly nice and is probably horrible to work for.
Quite what the financial consequences for Tesla and Twitter are of Musk having become part of the contested terrain in the US culture wars remains to be seen. Each side has a view on this that is both obvious and not worth recording. But what is absolutely clear to me is that if you’re not interested in nuance, you’re not going to fix anything.
In fact, Musk is a complicated, unknowable polymath. He has done some incredibly good and clever things, yet he does also appear to not be particularly nice and is probably horrible to work for. Both of these things can be true at the same time — something the social media algorithms don’t like.
Recently, we published a letter from a reader about online commentary on BusinessLIVE.co.za. He was upset about a comment that he felt was bordering on incitement. We looked into it and he was right — an unpleasant thing had been said under one of our stories, so we removed the comment and banned the individual from participating in future.
Too many of Business Day’s readers say too many intelligent things for us to turn off comments altogether, but in less collegiate circles of the internet there is an underlying lesson that I think is universally true; if somebody says the answer to a problem is simple, they probably don’t know enough about it and should read more.
As we consider the existential difficulties that face this country in 2023, too many people will suggest that the solution to any given problem is simple. Eskom? Just build solar, bru! Politics? Crush the ANC! Business? Ban black economic empowerment!
This is the hallmark of intellectual grifting and laziness. The grindingly hard work it will take to fix SA lies in grappling with the infuriating, messy realities, and creating realistic strategies within the constraints created by complexity.
Social media amplify fragility, entitlement and certainty. It’s best to avoid being taken in by it, because if you’re not careful it can make you stupid, and we really don’t have time for that.
• Parker is Business Day editor-in-chief.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.