Former CNN political analyst Chris Cillizza has never shied away from controversy—but over the weekend, he found himself at the center of a cultural crossfire not for a hot take, but for his choice of car. Writing in a personal Substack post, Cillizza revealed that his Tesla was vandalized with a sign that read “Musk is a N***” during his son’s soccer tournament, highlighting what he describes as the increasingly unhinged politicization of everyday life.
The incident serves as a vivid illustration of how symbols, brands, and even lunch choices have become ideological battlegrounds in a deeply divided America.
In his reflection, Cillizza admits that he originally bought the Tesla because it was “cool” and “fun to drive”—not because it signaled loyalty to Elon Musk or his policies. And therein lies the rub.
Not long ago, driving a Tesla coded someone as a liberal environmentalist. Fast-forward to 2025, and that same vehicle has become a lightning rod for accusations of right-wing affiliation, largely due to Musk’s high-profile presence in the public square and his alignment with parts of the Trump administration.
“Doesn’t that suggest that there’s an inherent ephemeralness to what an inanimate object ‘means’ in a political context?” Cillizza asked rhetorically, underscoring the absurdity of treating consumer goods as moral declarations.
Cillizza didn’t stop at cars. He also lamented the endless political filtering now applied to food, specifically recounting blowback he received for eating at Chick-fil-A. Once again, a personal preference—this time for a sandwich—sparked accusations of bigotry from those who view any association with the chain as an endorsement of its founders’ past positions on gay marriage.
“But does a sandwich have to be political at all?” he asked. “I didn’t eat it because I wanted to send a message to gay people. I ate it because it was delicious.”
In other words, can we please just eat in peace?
At its core, Cillizza’s post is a plea for sanity. A warning that we’ve stretched the fabric of political symbolism so thin that even mundane daily decisions are now viewed through an ideological lens. This kind of scrutiny, he argues, is not only exhausting—it’s corrosive to our social fabric.
“If your bar is that you never interact with or buy anything from a company whose founder has taken a position with which you disagree... you are going to make very few purchases,” he said. It’s a shot across the bow of cancel culture and purity tests that dominate public discourse.