On a lot of levels, Elon Musk’s an unserious person. So, even if he’s serious about upending America’s political duopoly, his new “America Party” is inherently farcical.
But that’s nothing new for third parties. There’s always an air of farce about them, and that doesn’t preclude such ventures from having an impact at the ballot box. Ross Perot, lest we should forget, won over almost 20 million Americans in 1992 to take 19% of the popular vote.
It’d be unwise (or maybe “unsafe” is more apt) to discount Musk’s third-party ambitions entirely. MAGA, after all, is a de facto third party. Trump didn’t embrace the GOP brand, he commandeered it and remade it in his own image. Or in the image of people like Pat Buchanan and William F. Buckley. Seen in that light, Trump’s characterization of Musk’s political entrepreneurship as “ridiculous” feels ironic.
There are a couple of different ways to describe Trump’s coalition. The standardized analysis says it’s a bigger-tent version of what’s existed for decades: An awkward, exploitative alliance of the rich and the big business lobby with under-educated, poor whites who’re duped into voting against their economic interests by cynical appeals to religion and American “values.”
That description probably worked for “Trump 1.0,” but “Trump 2.0” admits of more nuance. In addition to the “Trump 1.0” coalition, “Trump 2.0” managed to win over more minorities (including, implausibly, Hispanics), made hay of the autocrat-curious vote (i.e., the new right’s fascination with Viktor Orban-style “illiberal democracy”), tapped into an undercurrent of monarchism (exemplified by Curtis Yarvin) and dog-whistled to various factions of white supremacists.
To stitch all of those constituencies together, Trump relied on a particular mode of politics which some trace to Buckley. While reviewing Sam Tanenhaus’s biography of Buckley for Foreign Affairs, Charles King juxtaposed that connection with popular descriptions of “Trump 2.0.” When viewed through “the prism of Buckley’s life,” Trumpism in 2025 “looks more like a radical return to something more recent and closer to home” than it does a “fractious coalition of techno-libertarians and populists or a new American version of older European authoritarianism,” he wrote.
That may be true, but “fractious coalition of techno-libertarians and populists” fused with thinly-veiled authoritarianism works pretty well as a short-hand, oversimplified description of the “Trump 2.0” confederacy. And it’s anyway perfectly consistent with the notion that Trump’s style and messaging borrows heavily from the likes of Buckley and Buchanan. The coalition you build may reflect your political mode, but the coalition and the mode are two different things: One’s an outcome, the other’s a methodology.
It’s almost by definition true that Musk could peel off some of the techno-libertarian vote from the MAGA coalition. Musk’s viewed with suspicion by pretty much everyone outside of the “degen culture” cult he leads, but even if he doesn’t fit the mold as well as, say, Peter Thiel, Musk’s willingness (it’s actually a compulsion) to put himself out there makes him synonymous with techno-libertarianism in the same way Trump’s synonymous with MAGA despite not always living up to the MAGA archetype.
Trump probably has a firm grip on the populist vote, or at least the right-wing populist vote. Musk fashions himself a populist (“Vox Populi, Vox Dei!”) but that’ll be a tough sell in Walmart parking lots. The Cracker Barrel crowd’s never going to back someone like Musk over someone like Trump, let alone over Trump himself.
As for the GOP proper (i.e., sitting Republican lawmakers and Americans determined to vote GOP regardless of whether the banner still represents their actual policy preferences), it’s obviously still beholden to Trump. And for now, Republicans on the Hill are generally falling in line to criticize Musk’s defection.
But some of the Senate and House votes for the “big, beautiful bill” Musk used as an excuse to indulge a political impulse he was going to pursue anyway, were reluctant. And it’s probably the case that some GOP lawmakers are by now wary (to say nothing of weary) when it comes to Trump’s old / Third world-style pretensions to authoritarianism. People like John Thune don’t want a tinpot dictator who throws military parades on his birthday. If nothing else, that sort of thing’s embarrassing.
Of course, Musk’s the furthest thing from a safe bet when it comes to political saviors. As the face of what critics often deride as techno-fascism, Musk’s arguably more dangerous than Trump.
DOGE offered a preview of what America can expect under a techno-fascist. It’s not good. More importantly for the near-term prospects of Musk’s “America Party,” DOGE was a failure. It netted no cost savings of any meaningful magnitude, it was mercilessly ridiculed by the press, it produced street protests around the country and it sparked (no pun intended) a wave of Tesla vandalism. Ultimately, Musk was forced from his direct role in Trump’s government. (He denies that.)
But Trump’s ham-handed, often cringeworthy attempts to mirror foreign strongmen like Vladimir Putin and Recep Erdogan risk a backlash eventually if he’s unable to consolidate real, physically coercive power. Trump breeds resentment every, single day. And it’s important to remember that virtually no one in the Republican party respected him prior to 2016.
Rather than work to earn respect, Trump spent a decade attempting to instill fear in the GOP. It worked. Sort of. “Sort of” because no one in America fears Trump the same way Russians fear Putin. Or the same way Turks fear Erdogan. Trump remains, to this day, one Joseph Welch moment away from ignominy.
I doubt Musk’s the man to break the spell, and part of me prays he isn’t. Because, again, rule-by-Musk is a road to a literal techno dystopia. But at a time when Americans are avowedly disillusioned with a political duopoly that hasn’t delivered for everyday people in decades, it’d be a naive to declare Musk’s “America Party” dead on arrival.
In 1895, William McKinley’s campaign manager allegedly said, “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can’t remember what the second one is.” Musk is the richest private citizen to ever walk the Earth.
That Kamala Harris did not deliver a proverbial sack tap, the swiftly accurate power and incisive truth of which, permanently degraded Trump’s curb appeal, in her opening statement of their debate, will never cease to pain me. This guy is more overdue for a Joseph Welch moment than anything I’ve ever seen. I can’t even think of a good comparison that captures the degree to which this guy has dodged getting publicly humiliated while being the most objectively embarrassing fool you could create if you were writing an absurdist horror fantasy novel.
Yeah, and now he has a political rival with $300 billion and a penchant for unpredictability that’s even more extreme than his own.
They have been running “from the archive” Bill Buckley at the national review for a while now.
He has almost the opposite appeal as Trump, similar messages under the radar, but Buckley had that pedigreed poetic flair that the current writers at the review, lack. The national review is now overt in ways that Buckley would scoff at.
This is the post I’ve been waiting for. It was inevitable in the Tolstoyan sense of history–an inevitability where the West marches East, and then the East marches West. It all just seems like small individual tiles falling (I hear they’re called “dominoes”) at any given moment, but collectively it’s an avalanche that would happen regardless of the individuals involved.
Once the OBBB kicks in with the new fiscal year this September, every part of Tesla will be unprofitable. We all have front-row seats to what will be remembered as one of the greatest–maybe the greatest–displays of self destruction in history.
Finally, being condemned to witness the rise and rise of Donald J. Trump would have been the perfect Purgatorian punishment for W. F. Buckley. Sometimes when you stand athwart history saying, “Stop!” you get run over by a truck.
Here’s hoping an ongoing Donnie & Elon cage match destroys them both!
We are in an episode of the Twilight Zone on the Jerry Springer show.
Just on the math, if Elon even drew a small percentage away from the GOP, it could make a big difference in 4 years. Of course the Dems need to solve for a terrible case of cranial-rectal inversion before it would matter.
Can’t imagine where Musk could position a 3rd party. He won’t get one Democrat. Independents aren’t enough and what Republican is willing to jump ship. Musk via Doge has already shredded his own reputation. Maybe his play would be Republican primaries. How big a draw is being funded by the world’s richest man. How about the Tech Bros Party with a pitch that democracy can only survive by a marrying of the constitution with AI to deliver a chicken in every pot and ketamine in every pocket.
Two cents worth on the definition of Trump’s coalition. Could it be that a fair chunk of that are Thatcher-style small Shopkeepers? That forms a decent portion of the electorate if you count today’s gig-workers.
I wonder if the tax-break to tipworkers in the OBBB is not aimed at them?
my main question is which one Putin backing…? …we’ve sadly seen how massive money and propaganda can be brutally disruptive…
…my lol wants the party to be called the “Go Forth and Multiply” Party…
He’s backing chaos. His goal is a weaker America.
There was a report on Russian troll farms from 2021 where they uncovered that the Russian propaganda machine was pushing both sides of the Black Lives Matter / George Floyd wave of protests. There was outrage-bate for the left (look at this police brutality! These militias! These police being nice to these militias! And what the hell is going on in Portland?!), and there was outrage-bate for the right (look at the vandalism of small business property! Look at these cars being set on fire! Molotov cocktails being thrown at police! And what the hell is going on in Portland?!)
Obviously, given a binary choice, Putin will always have one candidate he prefers, but for the most part, he just wants Americans at each others’ throats, tearing each other apart to save him the trouble of doing it himself.
My thoughts exactly…
…as in I’d be shocked if Elon is doing this completely on his own…
I am still waiting for a politician to lead a political party that primarily supports the majority of Americans to be in the “middle class”. A party that is supportive of a social safety net for those in need, is liberal with individual rights and is willing to work on decreasing our federal debt. Nothing too far right or left. It doesn’t seem like it should be this hard. In my personal opinion, if the Democratic Party shifted to be this party- they could win at the ballot box.
I actually used to teach American Government at a public high school. On several occasions, my fellow government teachers and I discussed the possibilities of “viable” third party in the Congress. If you could put together a firm coalition (or “party”) of about 10-12 committed moderates from both sides, in both houses, in theory, you could determine the outcome of most legislation by getting both existing parties to pander for your votes. There is no guarantee that a given President would then sign an approved bill into law, but at least you could represent “the middle,” and get things through the Congress.
Modern day however, Democratic moderates are in ill favor, and Republican moderates are essentially extinct. The existing party leadership, on both sides, might also balk at offering any legislation that could be defeated by a small group of moderates which could then lead to even more gridlock. To my mind, any attempt to form a legitimate third party would have to be a grass roots movement similar to how the Tea Party originated, perhaps threatening to “primary” anyone who is not moderate, or perhaps liberal enough for their chosen agenda.
Musk probably views himself as more of a “kingmaker,” who can readily fund those who will shoulder his views and/or oppose his adversaries up to and including Trump. (Recall, he claimed: “without me, Trump would have lost the election.”) Something akin to a modern political boss whose agenda would likely include Bitcoin, taxes, and all things Tesla. I doubt he has any genuine political/philosophical views that could serve as the basis for a viable “party,” but he could definitely fund a number of Democrats and any disaffected Republicans who don’t want to carry water for Trump anymore.
Elon Musk has over 225 million followers on X.
Musk recently conducted a poll on X, asking his followers if they wanted him to form the “America Party”.
1.2 million of his followers participated in the poll, with 65.4% voting in favor of creating the party.
What does that tell you?
Watch Musk take a page out of the Rupert Murdoch playbook and try to buy a traditional media outlet (I use that term very loosely) like Newsmax. Granted, the Trump administration would find all sorts of reasons to block that from happening, but if he wants to have a fighting chance, he needs to think bigger than Twitter. Twitter’s reach might seem large, but Rupert Murdoch has far more influence on actual voters than Twitter given where the MAGA crowd gets their “news” (again, using the term very loosely).
NewsMax is spoken for. Truth Social just announced a streaming platform, and NM is their first product offering.
The President of the United States has his own personal propaganda network. Goebbels would be so proud.
Haha, wow, didn’t see that, but obviously not surprised. Trump will just whip out the whataboutism and claim 60 Minutes alleged interview edits are somehow comparable.
As a bonus, preachers can now preach the gospel of Trump right from the pulpit. We’ve got ourselves a hearty stew of propaganda going.