Listen to this story.Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
Packing ever more ions into ever smaller batteries, spangling the landscape with charging stations, lowering the cost to make electric cars and trucks: these are complex, exciting challenges that engineers, regulators and others will probably solve. The tougher problem, the one that may define the limit of the American market for electric vehicles, is much stupider. It is polarisation, the stuff that makes an EV go but in its metaphorical incarnation is cursing not only America’s politics but, increasingly, its culture and marketplace.
Three researchers who studied the adoption of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles between 2012 and 2022 discovered that fully half of them went to Americans living in the 10% of counties with the highest proportion of Democratic voters. A third went to just the top 5% of such places. The pattern held even when the researchers controlled for income and population density.
Lucas Davis, a professor at Berkeley’s Haas School of Business who was an author of the study, was startled that the correlation with ideology did not subside over the period under review, a decade during which the electric-vehicle market diversified with scores of models. “The market has matured in many ways, and I expected to see more of a broadening of EVs across the political spectrum,” he says. “I think the results suggest that it may be harder than previously believed to achieve widespread EV adoption.”
From the popularity of what the researchers called “conspicuous” EVs, they tentatively concluded that many purchases were driven by “extrinsic” motivations—a desire to advertise one’s concern about climate change. That is a signal many Republican drivers are eager not to send.
This problem has caught the attention of one of America’s most experienced Republican campaign operatives, Mike Murphy. A past devotee of internal combustion, Mr Murphy grew up in Detroit and boasts he has averaged about eight miles per gallon over the years. But when he traded in his Porsche for an electric BMW he became entranced by both the superior performance and the community of engineers and enthusiasts trying to overcome the obstacles to electrification. “It’s like the Apollo programme,” he says. “They’re full of joy. They’re solving really tough engineering problems and have a purpose to that. And that’s a bit infectious.”
Mr Murphy decided to apply his skills to knocking down the barrier that the boffins were less equipped to defeat. In January he launched an outfit, the EV Politics Project, to advise automakers on how to overcome Republican resistance and also to counter what he expects, in the 2024 campaign, to be an intensifying barrage of attacks on electrification.
Mr Murphy undertook a poll to gauge the problem. He discovered that Democrats and Republicans had similar attitudes toward car brands in general but split radically over electric-only carmakers. Democrats approved of them by a net margin of 15 points, whereas Republicans disapproved by 40 points—”an Osama bin Laden number,” Mr Murphy says. While 61% of Democrats said their friends and relatives would praise them for a “smart move” if they bought an eV, only 19% of Republicans said that.
The son of a labour lawyer and grandson of carworkers, Mr Murphy fears the American auto industry will not survive if electrification falters. “If half the American market is ruling this stuff out based on bullshit and tribalism—and on marketing that doesn’t understand that—that’s a gift to the People’s Republic of China,” he says. Mr Murphy is a Reagan Republican who advised the likes of John McCain, Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney. The toughest adversary he confronts over the politics of electrification is the same one he has been tilting against for years, unsuccessfully, over the direction of his party: Donald Trump.
Mr Trump has identified in the polarisation over electric vehicles the kind of energy that has powered his politics since 2016. “MAY THEY ROT IN HELL”, he wished of EV supporters, among others, on Christmas Day. He owned a Tesla, according to his aides, but he has claimed electric vehicles are bad for the environment, require charging every 15 minutes and will cause 40% of American auto jobs to disappear in a year or two. Some Republican-led states have begun imposing fees on EVs, restrictions on how they can be sold and even new taxes, purportedly to make up for lost fuel-tax revenue, though Republican leaders, starting with Mr Trump, do not habitually object to tax avoidance.
Yet some Republican leaders have embraced the possibilities of electrification. It has taken ridiculously long for states to begin opening new charging stations with the $7.5bn fund created by President Joe Biden’s 2021 infrastructure law. But the first governor to do so, in December, was Mike DeWine of Ohio, a Republican. Brian Kemp, the Republican governor of Georgia, is busy recruiting battery manufacturers.
The body electric
Mr Murphy sees other openings. He notes that five of the top ten states for EV investment, including Georgia and Michigan, are swing states in presidential elections. He intends to aim his pro-EV messages at them. Whereas 66% of Democrats think Elon Musk is a bad ambassador for EVs, 61% of Republicans disagree. “So is he Nixon to China?” Mr Murphy wonders.
Mr Murphy’s polling also suggests, hopefully, that regardless of party most Americans share important sentiments about EVs. They have the same anxieties about price and range, and they are drawn to some of the same advantages: never paying for petrol, cashing in on government rebates. Mr Murphy thinks carmakers need to shut up about how EVs help the environment—those who care are already sold on the vehicles—and talk instead about how they benefit their owners. “If we want to move iron, we gotta make it about cars, not about luxury opinions,” he says. There may be a lesson in there for Mr Biden’s re-election campaign, too. ■
Stay on top of American politics with Checks and Balance, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter, which examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.
How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister
Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.
If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.
Why No Election Was Required
A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.
This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.
The King’s Constitutional Role
After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.
Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.
Could an Election Still Happen?
Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.
In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.
What This Means for the UK
The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.
Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.
On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.
According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.
The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.
For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.
The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.
The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.
Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.
For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.
Economics4 days ago
Economics5 days ago
Economics4 days ago
Finance6 days ago
Leaders6 days ago
Finance4 days ago
Economics6 days ago
Accounting4 days ago