The US depends on foreign countries for oil, obviously. Consider as well that there is a national speed limit, even though road regulation is at the state level of jurisdiction. The national speed limit had nothing to do with safety. It exists as a as a national security measure to control US dependency on foreign oil.
So naturally when someone fuels their ICE¹ car in the US, they are working against the country. They are contributing to the foreign dependency problem. Somewhat ironically, republicans tend to drive gas guzzling SUVs and oversized pickups. These are the same people who are hell-bent on national security – and who have also hi-jacked the US flag and repurposed it to equate republican politics with patriotism. The foolishness is on display when they attach US flags to their F350 pickups.
US addiction to oil is a bipartisan problem. Dems are also addicted to the convenience of cars to the extreme extent of voting out a California democrat who vowed to impose a fuel tax. Cowardly hypocrits indeed.
There was an attempt by democrats to stigmatize tax avoidance and anti-tax policy as “unpatriotic”. Superficially that would be a wise move, but it failed. Republicans just laugh at that because they have made themselves the definition of patriotic. They can just as well argue that tax hostility is inherently American.
But what about fuel? The republicans would have no viable argument to make against the contradiction of burning oil with patriotism. If dems could pull that off, they could take back the flag.
¹ Internal Combustion Engine
It’s quite the opposite. Gas cars require imported crude. Acquisition and protection of crude has historically been a military function.
And I probably don’t need to say that in today’s USA, nothing is more patriotic than Jesus blessing our troops, in whatever action the undertake.
MAGA world was extremely anti EV, anti hybrid, anti sustainability, anti anything ecologically intelligent. This was the party of coal-rolling. They haven’t changed, they’ve just been confused and conflicted about EVs since Elon came into the fold.
What’s the opposite of what?
That’s essentially what I said, no?
And? Anything that requires the use of the military is obviously contrary to national security. It’s like saying “Thieves force me to hire a security guard for my shop, therefore theives are good for security”.
Know your audience. Hence why the focus should not be on ecology – but rather national security, when facing a MAGA audience.
That confusion should be exploited.
Your title question… no, we can’t stigmatize ICE cars because we are putting in overtime stigmatizing EVs and all things sustainable energy. We need to stop doing the opposite of stigmatizing ICE cars before we can stigmatize them.
You’re gonna try to use logic to persuade MAGA, and tell me to know my audience. Lol. MAGA are fools and followers, not critical thinkers, not people who form their own opinions. They do what they’re told. The way to change what they think is to change what they’re told by their idols. Elon accomplished it with the Cybertruck by throwing heaps of money at the politicians (and a lifetime of being one of them). The same could work, but it requires heaps of money, a mouthpiece, commitment to a purpose, and organization.
Knowing your audience requires wisdom on /your/ part, not the MAGAts. You have to be smarter than the MAGAt.
You put the ecology angle on the table. This is where you demonstrated not knowing your audience. Playing the ecology card is a non-starter. Ecology is not even worth mention in this context. Yet you think national security is less of a factor for them. You have to have a sense of logic yourself, apart from knowing your audience.
And you can’t work out how to use that against them?
Time to learn about social engineering, in the very least.
And no, it is not a “critical thinking” exercise to pitch national security to right-wingers. If you think that degree of depth constitutes notable “critical thinking”, you have some more thinking to do.