I think that his political bloviating (to put it mildly) is best explained by Matt Levine's theory, that he wants to expand Tesla's appeal to conservatives. Get

I think that his political bloviating (to put it mildly) is best explained by Matt Levine's theory, that he wants to expand Tesla's appeal to conservatives. Getting plugged by Ramaswamy at the last Republican debate to cheers from the audience suggests it isn't the worst strategy. But Tesla's core product will still have issues with this segment, because conservatives are particularly suspicious of heavily computerized cars. However, putting Tesla directly into the political line of fire with the union fight seems more like a case of personal beliefs run amok. Many companies making cars in the United States run non-union shops, including most of the Japanese ones. Their behavior abroad doesn't usually create a problem. But the more that Tesla itself is positioned as a political entity, rather than a car company that happens to have a conservative CEO (which didn't kill Taco Bell), the more he invites the kind of backlash that could really hurt. European regulators watching him scorn their beliefs may take that into account, fairly or not, if they are called on to mediate this union dispute. It seems like a very risky overextension.