I'm not american, so this is cheap talk. I'll start with that.
I don't have an outright objection to these positions. They're not crazy or nonsensical. They're matters of judgement, taste & perspective. Cars/roads have been very successful, as a transport technolgy. It's not wrong to be pro cars.
What I do have a problem with is the Das Capital-esque, think-talk-esque, manifesto-esque statements. The position isn't presented as "I like cars better," it is presented as:
"Cars are better. This is an absolute truth. I proved it.^" I can prove it using complicated philosophy with roots in America's founding or Bastiat. I can prove it with Adman Smith & Ricardo derived philosophy. Here is my horrendously complex econometric analysis, that only ever seem to convince their own authors.^
This type of argument is ironically bolshevic, and has all the characteristics that oponents of marxism took issue with, from fredriech hayek to Karl Popper. More importantly, it is fanatical and this makes it hard to engage others of different opinions/tastes. This is particularly frustrating here in this case, where the arguments so clearly involve matters of taste and subjective preference.
Cars need public infrastrucure too, all the asphalt you see everywhere. The infrastructure is costlier in land use. Consumer choice.. I'd say you could make the consumer choice argument both ways. People certainly like (judging by house prices) to live in (and visit) less car-centric cities.
This way of presenting politcal cases is not unique to the american right, it permeates all places & all parties.
^Al la: You are an ass. I can prove that mathematically.