David Leonhardt, a New York Times columnist and formerly an economics reporter, had long been a supporter of the trade deals we negotiated. I remember what I often saw as his uncritical enthusiasm for deals like NAFTA and China’s entry into the WTO.

For this reason, I was surprised by his seeming endorsement of the most crude protectionism in his interview with Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin. In a list of things which Leonhardt declares Democratic candidates will have to do to win elections, he tells readers:

“It’s saying: No, we’re going to have cars run by gas for a long time.”

This one is a bit infuriating, since Leonhardt is effectively saying that if Democrats want to win elections, they will have to be extreme protectionists.

The point here is that electric cars are already far cheaper than gas-powered cars and they cost about half as much to operate and maintain. Furthermore, the gap is likely to grow larger quickly, as both the cost of electric cars drop and the cost of clean energy declines further.

The lowest cost EVs can be purchased for less than $8,000 in China. A larger, higher quality EV can be purchased for $18,000. The newest batteries can be charged in five minutes. This will make Chinese EVs enormously attractive to people in the United States. In China, EVs already outsell gas-powered cars with their share rising rapidly.

The only reason that we will not be buying large numbers of EVs from China is if we have extremely protectionists policies (we currently do) that keep them out of the country. We can accommodate these cars and still preserve jobs in our auto industry by requiring technology transfer as a condition of admitting a certain number of cars tariff-free or with low tariffs. But this would still mean a rapid transition to EVs.

Apparently Leonhardt, with the seeming agreement of Senator Slotkin, thinks that hard-pressed American families can throw tens of thousands of dollars in the toilet purchasing gas-powered cars that are far more expensive to buy and operate. It seems they both place a high priority on destroying the planet for our children and grandchildren. But those of us who are more focused on economics and living standards might see the situation differently.