> It struck me as typical socialist disdain for personal initiative/agency. In my view, you have to be trying pretty hard to get this from the article. The sec

> It struck me as typical socialist disdain for personal initiative/agency. In my view, you have to be trying pretty hard to get this from the article. The second sentence is: > Tesla, Inc. makes innovative and genuinely impressive electric vehicles that can hold their own against the fastest performance cars in the world. More importantly, the article's aim is right up front, too: > Now that the president of the United States is no longer a climate change denier, and there may be some kind of broad national effort to electrify American transit, Musk may take on an even more important role in shaping our national vision for transit, power, and the human future in space. It is therefore vitally important to see through the myths around him, to understand the bleakness of his vision for the future, and to present something better. [Emphasis added.] If this is broad or fundamental disdain for personal initiative, well, you've lost me. It's more accurate to say that the author is wary of what hagiography, myth making, cults of personality, and denial can do to both person who's been given vast amounts of power (Musk) and the society that gave him that power (us). I see this is as not much more than a call to criticality, to skepticism, in a country that's done few other things more fluently or consistently than generate frauds, hucksters, and showmen. From Barnum to Madoff to Trump to Elizabeth Holmes, we're really good at it. Whether Musk turns out to be a volatile but misunderstood and fundamentally benevolent genius or a contemptible huckster (or maybe both) is maybe undecided, but the article is right in asking us to tread very carefully with men like him. Rhetorically, this isn't much different than what the WSJ editorial page publishes about Democrats every week.