I saw this going viral:
Very few Americans realize that, if Trump is NOT elected, this will be the last election. Far from being a threat to democracy, he is the only way to save it!
Let me explain: if even 1 in 20 illegals become citizens per year, something that the Democrats are expediting as fast… https://t.co/u3HBdd5Bv0
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 29, 2024
This tweet is bad on many levels:
1. people believe it
2. he does not actually believe it, but instead is trying to boost engagement, so it’s disingenuous and unhelpful
3. it’s wrong
This continues in the trend of wealthy people predicting doom and gloom or economic collapse if their desired outcome is not achieved, or just to get attention. You see this a lot in the media, such as Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan who for years has predicted and warned economic collapse, yet at the same time is extremely wealthy thanks to this economy that is supposedly always on the precipice of dying. It makes no sense.
If these people actually believed this, their actions are inconsistent with this belief. It’s an example of revealed vs. stated preferences. If I was a billionaire and thought the economy or society was on the verge of dying, I would get out of dodge, not be one of the biggest, most-visible targets in the world in the event of such mass unrest or collapse.
It’s also possible that his tweet is just rhetoric to get people to vote, and that it’s not to be taken literally, which would make the rest of this post irrelevant. But at the same time, this is a contributing factor for increased polarization and division in America today. The state of discourse is so bad, not necessarily because people personally hold extreme beliefs, but project or voice such beliefs to be heard or to stand out, like patrons talking over each other to be heard at a noisy restaurant, so the noise level gradually increases. It’s easy to get drowned out on social media unless one resorts to hyperbole.
Related to #2, it’s typical of savior or messiah syndrome. The ultra-wealthy want to be seen as saviors in the event of collapse, or if they do not get their way. It’s not so much that they believe that the economy or society is dying or at risk of dying, but that they want to swoop in and save the day. It’s not enough to be wealthy, but they also want to be seen as heroes, or to be called upon to fix the problem and get credit for saving the world.
But there are no shortcuts. Even Trump had to run for office like everyone else. No one is going to let a billionaire cut to the front of the line due to his private sector accomplishments. This is what happened with Peter Thiel in 2016. Despite his wealth and private sector experience, was sidelined when it came to policy after being appointed as an advisor by Trump–it was the policy guys with seniority and legal backgrounds who called the shots.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too: either you get rich in the private sector, or you go through the law-school-to-public-office route working one’s way up the ladder, but seldom can one just cross over. Or it’s like enlisted vs. commissioned ranks. These are two separate, parallel career paths that have different ceilings or outcomes; you cannot become a general as enlisted without first becoming commissioned.
Politicians seem mediocre–not necessarily because politics as a profession attracts mediocre people per se (although there is probably some of that)–but the political process, which is slow and gradual, has the effect of making politicians appear mediocre, compared to the fast-moving, dynamic private sector, where individuals appear more competent. This is why so many business leaders are in for a shock when they try politics and find their money and experience does not get them far.
Regarding #3, the quantity of electors per state is not arbitrary or fixed, but instead is determined by population growth via the Census. If a state sees an influx of people, then it stands to gain representatives and hence electors. It’s not as hopeless or permanent as he is making it sound.
So what options are there for Republicans? For example, Republicans in lopsided states such as California could strategically choose relocate to swing states to offset such migrants. This would have a 3-fold effect: by getting more votes to win the state overall, but also shifting the electoral math in that state’s favor, and also reducing the number of electors of the first state. This is drastic, but it shows a pathway nonetheless. So it’s not not like it’s doomed or that a one-party system is inevitable.
Also, things tend to be gradual. I remember people making such predictions 20 years ago of either a one-party system or Republicans never winning another national election, and yet, still, Republicans can win. 2016 was a reminder of that.
Additionally, immigrants, unlike the comparable ideological groupthink of African Americans, can change their party preferences or are more malleable. For example, Catholic immigrants and their decedents up until the mid 20th century were reliable Democratic voters, but white Catholics today are much more divided. There is also the SCOTUS which in recent years has generally acted as a bulwark against the left, as well as other judicial appointments.
Yeah, the situation is not good, no doubt, but it’s not like it’s hopeless either should Kamala win. This type of hyperbole is not helpful and distracts from solutions or hope.