Is Elon Musk Serious?
Is Elon Musk serious? That question, of course, can be read two ways. The first is sarcastically, as in: "Are you serious?!?" -- which conveys the same concept as stating: "You cannot be serious!" The second way is non-sarcastically, as in wondering: "Is Elon Musk truly serious about starting up his own third political party?" And the easy answer to that is: "Who knows? This is Elon Musk we are talking about, after all."
Musk is having an extended hissy fit, which for most people wouldn't be newsworthy but because Musk is the world's richest man, it is. Musk is on the outs with Donald Trump, because Musk was unceremoniously ejected from Trump's inner circle a while ago. His involvement with slashing government services with a chainsaw came to an abrupt end, and Musk was forced to ride off into the sunset. On his way out, he indicated that he was done with politics, at least for now.
He wasn't serious. He has -- a very short time later -- now re-entered the political fray by coming out very strongly against Trump's one legislative accomplishment: the budget Republicans passed through Congress last week. Musk, true to form, entered the fray very late -- far too late to actually have any real effect. By the time Musk had worked himself up into high dudgeon, the bill was on its way to passage and most Republicans in Congress just ignored him.
So Musk decided to reinsert himself into the American political system in the biggest way imaginable, by starting the "America Party." This was to fulfill a promise he had made in the middle of his tantrum, that he would form a new third party "the day after" the bill was signed into law. Musk, also true to form, made some megalomaniacal statements about the support such a party would get, claiming it would represent "the 80% of people in the middle" who don't like either the Democrats or the Republicans.
This belongs in the "Are you serious?" category. If Musk is right, that would mean only 10 percent of the electorate were solid Democrats and 10 percent solid Republicans, with everyone else holding their nose and voting for one or the other without any strong attachment to either party. Which is patently ridiculous. I have no idea what the actual figures are for what I'd call "hardcore" Democrats and/or Republicans, but I would be willing to bet it is far north of 10 percent for both. Somewhere in the 30-35 percent range seems about right (from watching public polling over the years).
This would leave anywhere from 30 to 40 percent of the public only loosely affiliated with an existing political party that might be interested in a third party choice. Which is likely high enough to win elections, you'll note (if the vote was 30 percent for both the Democrat and the Republican, then the America Party could win with only 40 percent). But this is wildly unrealistic in actual practice.
Musk simply isn't serious in how he is talking about his new party. He claims Americans are ruled by a "uniparty," since neither Democrats nor Republicans are serious about tackling the national deficit/debt problem. A few decades ago, this was a popular notion, that "there isn't any difference between the two parties," but these days it's pretty glaringly obvious that there are major differences between Republicans and Democrats, and what each party wants to accomplish. Calling them a "uniparty" is simply not a serious statement.
It's also rather unclear what Musk wants to even achieve with his new party. Massive budget-slashing? That hasn't been wildly popular so far, as evidenced by how Musk's own approval ratings with the public went into a tailspin after he joined Trump's government (to slash the budget by any means necessary). Just today, after Musk made his third-party announcement over the weekend, Tesla stock sank seven percent. Investors aren't very happy with Musk right now either, obviously.
Every so often in American politics a very rich gadfly makes the attempt to carve out a third party from the glorious middle of the political spectrum. H. Ross Perot was probably the most successful, but that's not really saying much (he did win 19 percent of the presidential vote, but he won precisely zero Electoral College votes). Michael Bloomberg also proved that he wasn't the savior that American voters were looking for. Now it appears to be Musk's turn to learn this lesson.
Running for president is usually what third parties do. This is an expensive and tough thing to do, but the alternative route to power is even tougher. Musk seems to be flirting with this alternate concept -- instead of making a big stand in the presidential race (which Musk, being a naturalized citizen, is ineligible to even run in), he is instead looking at trying to buy a handful of key races in the Senate and a few more in the House.
Theoretically, this could work. If the America Party won maybe three or four Senate seats and perhaps 10 or 15 House seats, it could conceivably prevent either the Democrats or the Republicans from winning an outright majority in either house. The America Party, in this scenario, would act as third parties do in a parliamentary system and become the deciding bloc. The America Party could then make demands of either the Democrats or the Republicans in order to support them enough to form congressional majorities. From what Musk has been saying, he seems to be contemplating taking this route -- which he could do next year in the midterms, instead of having to wait until the 2028 presidential contest.
But this is all theoretical. It ignores one big reality. Elon Musk is not popular. His ideas for slashing government to the bone are also not popular. Any party he builds around his own inflated ego or his own desire to slash and burn is also likely to be quite unpopular -- unpopular enough to not have a chance of winning enough key races to gain any power.
Musk already found this out earlier this year. He tried to buy a state supreme court election, in Wisconsin. It backfired. Instead of being a very close race, the candidate Musk backed lost by 10 points. And the deciding factor seemed to be Musk's involvement in the race. Voters turned out in droves to eagerly vote against Musk, in essence. Sometimes even if you have tons of money to spend, you simply can't buy enough votes to win.
Musk's problem is going to become very apparent very quickly. He'll have to actually find candidates to run under his new party's banner. He could choose to back disaffected "Never Trump" ex-Republicans, or he could back some absolute lunatics. Few actual moderate, middle-of-the-road politicians will decide that Musk's party is the route for them -- that's my humble guess, at least. Partnering with Musk would immediately give a candidate vast campaign funds (paying for a House or even a Senate race is the equivalent of Musk digging in his couch cushions for spare change, since he is a multibillionaire). But partnering with Musk would also tie any candidate to any wild or even downright-insane thing Musk said or tweeted out. The risk of this happening is far too high for actual serious candidates (who would want Musk on a campaign stage next to them, leaping around and generally being an obnoxious jerk?).
About the only thing Musk may actually achieve is hamstringing Republican candidates in close races. If Musk draws an appreciable amount of disaffected Republicans to one of his candidates, it's going to hurt the actual Republican in the race more than the Democrat (again, this is pure guesswork on my part, I fully admit). So Musk could wind up being a true spoiler and hand the race to the Democrat (for fun, picture Musk himself running for Senate in Texas and thus handing the election to the Democratic candidate). This may be enough for him, since this entire project is nothing more than an extended tantrum, after all.
My ultimate guess is that Musk just won't follow through on the idea. Sometimes Musk gets a bee in his bonnet and doesn't let go (as when he bought Twitter, for instance), but more often than not he gets distracted by some other toy and tosses the one he was playing with aside. And at this point, I would bet that the America Party is going to fall into that latter category. Or to put it another way: "No. Elon Musk is not serious about launching a third political party."
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris,
...but these days it's pretty glaringly obvious that there are major differences between Republicans and Democrats, and what each party wants to accomplish. Calling them a "uniparty" is simply not a serious statement.
It might make for an interesting (and, perhaps, even non-brief) column if you could lay out these differences, issue by issue, in great detail. It could come in handy for 2027/28.
Musk's problem is going to become very apparent very quickly. He'll have to actually find candidates to run under his new party's banner.
Hasn't this been tried recently, to great failure as willing candidates were as scarce as hen's teeth?
I read somewhere that while there is a block of “independent” or “unaffiliated” voters in every state, most of them lean left or lean right and vote accordingly. So there is a far smaller number of truly “persuadable” voters out there.
Caddy,
Maybe that is because those major differences between the parties and what each wants to accomplish aren't actually that obvious.
I agree that the problem with starting a viable third party in the US two-party system, is finding viable candidates to personify the new party who can attract a meaningful fraction of the electorate in their districts. These are men and women with political aspirations, savvy, and thoughts about their futures in the next few decades. What's in it for them to join the 'America Party' whose public face is that of Elon Musk, unpopular a**hole billionaire?
So Musk is blowing smoke, hoping that his billions of dollars will somehow mean something in the court of political public opinion, as opposed to in the back alleys of congressional and presidential lobbying where his money really speaks.
And on the question of whether the two current parties are 'different' or 'the same', I vote for 'different'. Sure, both represent elite sectors of the national society and speak for parts of the governing and owning class. But the sectors and parts are different enough in messaging - fairness and equal justice (in theory) vs. brutal dominance and prejudice in favor of white males (in theory), for instance - that most voters do actually recognize that a vote for a Republican is not the same as a vote for a Democrat.
Yes, there is an undecided middle with vague leanings, as MtnCaddy notes [2], which Chris estimates as being 30-40% of the electorate. But I disagree with Elizabeth [3] that that means the two parties are indistinguishable because they both potentially attract these centrist voters. I take the existence of a middle, able to swing to some degree in either direction, as the natural distribution in any population of people with relatively complex (or weak) political views, where emotions and reason are in conflict, or economic interests are different from class or social interests. No society has ever been split exactly into two competing parties - there will always be a middle 'up for grabs'. But that speaks more to the two parties (in the US) being different than being the 'same' in some existential sense. If they were the same, so to speak, elections wouldn't matter; G W Bush would be as likely as Obama to reform health care, and Obama would be as likely as G W Bush to invade Iraq with no end game in mind, etc., etc.
John,
But I disagree with Elizabeth [3] that that means the two parties are indistinguishable because they both potentially attract these centrist voters.
Where on God's green earth did I say that the two parties are indistinguishable?
my question when it comes to mELakON threatening to start a political party is not whether or not he's serious. my question is what's his ulterior motive. everything he does or says, i believe is according to some plan in his head. be it realistic or utter inanity, he's not the type to do something just because.
maybe this is all just a feint to try to manipulate public perception.
JL
Elizabeth on [5] and [3],
Forgive my overstating, perhaps, my take on your comment to Caddy that "...those major differences between the parties and what each wants to accomplish aren't actually that obvious."
'Differences not obvious' isn't the same as 'indistinguishable', I admit! But I felt that that was what you were getting at, especially in contrast to the point I was trying to make about the nature of an 'undecided' or 'flexible' political center that by definition is open to considering voting for one or the other of two visibly different political parties.
The point I was clearly trying to make, John, in response to Caddy and Chris is that if all of the major differences between the parties were set out in great detail in a CW.com column and elsewhere then they would be less obscure to voters and, consequently, there may be more persuadable voters as a result.
I'll try, again, to be clearer in future. Hopefully, in future, you will not make false claims about what I said. Deal? :)
Sorry, John ... I'm in a bit of a mood. Ahem.
the problem isn't a dearth of fully available information that's true. the trouble is that there's significantly more information that's either completely false or heavily biased, and no reliable method by which most people might be able to distinguish one from the others.
Liz
JFCt
PHWEEET!
“Unnecessary Roughness, 15 yards, still 3rd down.”
Technically you didn’t, Liz, but I also took the tone of your question to suggest that you didn’t see any difference. And that you asked Chris for (a series if’n you want her any kind of details) to show you the difference.
I also took the tone of your question to suggest that you didn’t see any difference.
The tone of my question? Classic projection. Or was it intentional misinterpretation because my constant harping on - strike that - prattling on about the Republican cult of economic failure was so, I dunno, clearly an ode to both parties.
Beginning not to like this place. But, I'll keep on keeping on. Just because.
Caddy,
How could anyone NOT see the differences between the parties these days? Of course, that is not to say that they both aren't responsible for the damaging debt to GDP ratio, even considering that one of them has been a cult of economic failure since at least the Reagan era.
If you can't discuss and understand these issues in nuanced fashion, then chances for an enlightened discussion evolving out of it are about zero, especially here in Weigantia.
@John/caddy,
close reading is absolutely fundamental. what Liz wrote was that the differences "aren't actually that obvious." that doesn't mean they don't exist, nor that they don't become crystal clear upon sufficient research. it's a comment on the media environment, which i happen to agree with. chrisweigant.com is one of the last places left on earth where the commentary is clear-headed enough to live up to the moniker "reality-based." Barry Ritholtz's site is another. most other places, you just can't presume that what you're reading will be even mostly accurate.
JL
Edit [13],
Caddy,
How could anyone who is following US politics fairly closely or who at least reads all of Chris's columns NOT see the differences between the parties these days? Don't answer that! Of course, that is not to say that they both aren't responsible for the damaging and ever climbing debt to GDP ratio, even considering that one of them has been a cult of economic failure since at least the Reagan era.
If you can't discuss and understand these issues in nuanced fashion, then chances for an enlightened discussion evolving out of it are about zero, especially here in Weigantia.
Second Edit [13],
Caddy,
How could anyone who is following US politics fairly closely or who at least reads all of Chris's columns NOT see the differences between the parties these days? Don't answer that! Of course, that is not to say that they both aren't responsible for the damaging and ever climbing debt to GDP ratio, even considering that one of them has been a cult of economic failure since at least the Reagan era.
If we can't discuss and understand these issues in nuanced fashion, then chances for an enlightened discussion evolving out of it are about zero, especially here in Weigantia.
And, the chances for finding persuadable voters would be pretty low, too, my friend.
The Attention Economy was first theorized back in the late 60s (long before the internet!) and says that attention is our currency.
So, think about it:
1- Trump’s BBB sucks (if you’re not a millionaire) and the more Americans learn about it the bigger the outrage. Twenty-five points underwater level outrage.
2- Legacy media cannot pay attention to more than one shiny object at a time.
3- Trump and Musk stage this little “spat” and suddenly no one’s paying attention to the horrid BBB.
4- ONCE this passes watch as they go back to mostly ignoring each other because each is so toxic to the other.
Leave it to Joy Reid on Substack,
But to get those precious tax cuts, some Americans are just gonna have to die.
Some from floods and other natural disasters.
Some from losing their access to healthcare.
Some from the rampant measles.
And perhaps some from despair as his tariffs and mass deportation schemes destroy their businesses.
At least they’ll be dying for their Lord and Savior — though as I’ve said before, when you die for your Savior, that’s a cult. A proper religion is when your Savior dies for you.
Very nice!
So are you suggesting that Trump’s willingness to share the stage with Musk was so that Trump would not be the most despised person up there? It had to be much more than that! Musk had to have played a major role in Trump being elected or else Trump would never have willingly shared so much of the limelight with Musk.
Trump doesn't share the spotlight with anyone for very long. His ego cannot handle doing so. Remember all of those photo ops in the Oval Office at the start of Trump’s presidency? Musk would pull all the attention on himself while Trump just sat at his desk staring blankly straight ahead (like a broken robot from Westworld). That only happened because both Trump and Musk believed Musk had earned that spot in the President’s office. How he earned it is the question we need answered fully and completely.
JL,
close reading is absolutely fundamental.
So true...thanks for practicing what you preach! :)
Close reading - and careful writing, I would add, are prerequisites for thoughtful and respectful discourse anywhere but especially here.
It's also rather unclear what Musk wants to even achieve with his new party.
IMO... Musk wants retribution at any cost, and he possesses the cash with which to purchase it and controls a platform with which to exact it. Furthermore, he's also quite used to getting what he wants.
Musk is like Trump with the exception he doesn't obsess over money (doesn't have to), and he isn't a needy attention whore in constant search of praise/prizes.