Democracy is based on the principle of rule by the people – all of whom stand equal in the process. But with the money he's willing to spend, Musk does not stand equal in any democratic country – and can upturn free choice as a result. That is a threat we have to manage.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript.
Is Elon Musk a threat to democracy? It's a question that needs to be asked for one very simple reason, and that is I think he might be.
Let me look at two examples that suggest that he is a threat to democracy. One is happening in the USA right now.
The US House of Representatives, which is the lower House of Congress, the equivalent of the House of Commons in the UK, has a Bill before it right now, as we approach Christmas, that has to be passed to authorise the spending of the federal government in 2025.
Now, what the federal government spends is pretty important to the US people. It covers things like the armed forces, air traffic control and Medicare, which is the equivalent of the NHS for those who are in real need in the USA, and some social security. And it pays the interest on the US national debt. So having that Bill passed, it's pretty important.
But, Musk, using his social media platform - call it Twitter, call it X, call it what you will - has mobilised opposition to that bill because he claims it is going to be the antithesis of what he is going to be asked to do by President Trump, who has asked him to slash US federal expenditure. So, he is encouraging the House of Representatives to reject this Bill, where a bipartisan agreement between the Republicans and the Democrats looked as though it had been pulled together to ensure that the spending could continue.
The consequence of the failure of that bill is pretty significant.
US armed forces will, for example, not be paid. There won't be any legal basis to pay them.
Nor will US air traffic controllers be paid.
Nor will Medicare bills be paid. And half of U. S. children are dependent on Medicare for their healthcare support.
This is really existential stuff when it comes to the maintenance of the federal government in the USA.
But Musk is standing up against it. He's using the power that he has obtained as a financial oligarch - and I think that's a fair word to use in his case, so wealthy is he - to actually mobilise opinion against the forces in the House of Representatives who were, despite their differences of opinion across the Republican and Democrat benches, coming together to try to authorise that spending so that federal government could continue.
Now, if that isn't a personal threat to democracy from a very powerful person, I'm not sure what is. And it worries me, because this is the use of power by somebody with immense wealth, who has already used that wealth to influence the election of Donald Trump by, we believe, expending something like $270 million to support Trump's campaign.
But it's the use of that wealth to actually influence outcomes within democracy in a way that might be severely contrary to the wellbeing of the employees of the federal government, including the US armed forces, but also the people of the USA. So, there is a direct conflict here.
And now let's come to the UK. What we know is that Nigel Farage, the leader of the Reform Party, is seeing Musk and is asking him for financial support for his party. He's not hiding this fact. He's completely brazen about it, and pictures have been taken at Mar-a-Lago, which is, of course, Donald Trump's place in Florida, where it seems the centre of power now is in the USA.
And the request that Farage is making is simple and straightforward. He wants Musk to provide him with substantial funds - a figure of a hundred million, I'm not sure whether it's dollars or pounds, it doesn't make a lot of difference which one it is - has been requested to fund Reform to win the 2029 general election.
That is out of all proportion to any funding ever previously supplied by anyone to a UK political party. It would swamp Reform with money and change the nature of UK democracy as a consequence because no other party could stand up to the pressure that would be brought to bear by Reform in that case through advertising on social media, in the media, in direct mailing, and everything else. This is an attempt to take over democracy by spending.
Now, of course, it may not happen. Let's be clear: Musk might entertain Farage, but he might see through him and decide he doesn't want to part with his money for this reason.
But equally, messages have come out which have implied that he might. And if he did, the nature of UK democracy would at the very least change altogether forever, and it might simply cease to exist because I cannot see another source of funding that could in any way match that which Musk - as the wealthiest, or if not the wealthiest, one of the most wealthy men in the world - can supply.
And legally he's able to do this. Although he's not a British citizen and therefore is not able to make a direct donation to a UK political party, because he has businesses that operate in the UK, he can donate through them. And that is, of course, where the weak underbelly in his plan is.
If we are to preserve democracy, which is based upon the idea that one person has one vote, and that each person stands equal, then we have to exclude the likes of Musk from influence within British politics.
We also have to exclude the likes of quite a lot of other people who have undoubtedly been trying to influence politics in their favour for some time by making significant donations to, in particular, the Conservative Party, but also to Labour and, to a lesser degree, to other parties. We would need to clean up British political party funding.
We might also need to change our electoral system to defend ourselves against the possibility that one party, with an enormous amount of money to spend, could secure an overwhelming majority in Parliament without having mass support in the population - a bit like Labour has now, to be totally honest, which is as unacceptable to me as it would be if Reform won on the same basis in 2029 because neither represents the people of this country.
So, we need to keep dirty money, in the sense that it is trying to buy influence, out of British politics.
And we need to make British politics representative of us all by being based upon proportional representation.
That would curiously increase Reform's representation in Parliament. And I would be happy with that. I could live with that because people in this country do support Reform. And their voices should be heard as a result. But what it would prevent is the corruption - because we could not find someone like Musk funding a party in the UK to take control with a minority of votes.
And this is key. We must preserve democracy, shallow as it is at present, because without it, we get an alternative. We get oligarchy. We get what The Economist calls kakistocracy, which is rule by the most unfit - those who want power, but who are not suited to manage it. Whatever we end up with. is going to be very much worse than the democracy we have, inadequate as it is.
And therefore, this is a time for democratic renewal in the UK, heeding the threats, the challenges, and the impossibilities that are arising in the USA - which we thought would never happen, but which are, and which could so easily be replicated here unless, Labour now realises the threat to our future that the likes of Musk, even if not Musk himself, present to this country.
They must act. They must stop that sort of money coming into British politics. And most of all, they must change our electoral system so that it is truly representative. Then we have a chance of democracy surviving. And everything else that we cherish depends upon that.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Its also a huge argument for more effective taxation of wealth as you have called for so individuals cant have this sort of influence.
It would also curb ‘elite overproduction’ so we wont have hundreds of ‘Musks’ rattling around with the time and money to make a nuisance of themselves
[…] have already noted this morning the imminent shutdown of the US Federal government as a result of Trump and Musk demanding that the […]
At least Musk and his ilk reify what Neo-liberalism is all about.
It reveals the crude greed and unfreedom as the result of the unfettering the money- power of Capital.
In some way, the gloves are coming off but the outcome is not going to be easy in the short term and even less certain in the long run. All I know is that we are entering an era of mass delusion and lying at scale.
Answering the headline question: no.
Humanity has been here before. Example: Gaius Ceasar of the Julli (to give him his correct name) want on a genocidal rampage in Gaul (murdered 1/3rd of the population) and used the wealth (lots of gold in Gaul) to pay off his debts, finance propaganda for the war – which he started – to strengthen his political position – end result – destruction of the Roman republic (which frankly was half-arsed to start with). The same will happen again. Ultra-rich people using their wealth to groom a populace obssesed with trivia (this is by design of course) & disconnected from most forms of public discourse. Twitter etc is not, in my view, “public discourse”
The current LINO rabble are nutless/gutless/brainless and as such incapable of regulating the likes of Musk – & he knows it.
What to do? This is worth a read & offers pointers – remarkable (although I know that Richard is not enamoured of democracy – Athenian style).
https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2024/12/16/brills-companion-to-the-reception-of-athenian-democracy/
Thanks
@ Mike Parr From your web link:-
“modern politics is more a predicament than it is a cultural accomplishment or intellectual achievement.” John Dunn
It’s a predicament because social intelligence is on a spectrum and for John Dunn to make this statement is another way of him saying there’s a paucity of social intelligence in most human societies. Social intelligence or not is created in babies and children by compassionate primary caregivers.
A PS: in the Terry Jones book “Barbarians” it was observed that the population of the Roman empire in 200AD was perhaps 65million with only circa 1 million (= +/- the 1%) living above subsistence level. If the oligarchs get their way – that is the prospect for “us lot”. (it’s a good book by the way).
Thanks for this reference. At first glance it looks to be a possible key text for long overdue research into collective alternative political and social structures.
The following Guardian article strongly suggests Starmer will do nothing to stop Elon Musk “buying” British democracy such as it is:-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/19/keir-starmer-chief-of-staff-met-trump-team-earlier-this-month
Neoliberalism creates populism. The neoliberal elites blame the woke brigade for ignoring the populace and they will clean the swamp. Result even more neoliberal wealth inequality.
The opportunity to break this cycle in the UK?
Labour uses the state to fund decent services for the populace and the tax system to reduce wealth inequality.
Likelihood of Labour doing this sensible policy? Zero. The Labour elite are too scared of upsetting the City and financial elites.
Thank you, Richard.
I don’t disagree.
Please note that most US federal government spending is on the war machine, including a small percentage on veterans. Services like education are the preserve of states.
Labour won’t dare upset its own foreign owners and Murdoch. That horse bolted well before Musk was even heard of.
@BBC Never ask ministers such as wes streetin – about their ‘donors’ – privatre healthcare etc.
UK politics is corrupt from top to bottom existing more and more only on big money donations and not on party members subscriptions .
The tangle between big money and big politics goes both ways – if politicians are nice to oligarchs and big corporates – they themselves can obtain future riches – Mandelson the new ambassador to US has made millions from his lobbying business – capitalising on the connections and favours he negotiated when he was part of the Blair governement.
There has to be a cap on spending – and a ban on corporate and big money donations.
Only a special independent commission could begin to clean this up – its no use hoping Starmers – ‘donor’- funded stooge government would do it.
But how can we get that?
And as for electoral reform – which Richard so persuasively argues for – looks even further out of reach.
It is indeed a crisis of democracy – and so far – only the ultra right have benefitted – they are in a minorty really – but looking at Germany in the thirties – how can the latemt majority in favour of a real democracy be mobilised, to stop a nazi-like coup?
Musk isn’t a threat to democracy, rather he is an indicator that Western democracy is weak. For years, MSM in the UK, have wielded immense power over the results of elections, with no-one bothering to do anything about it. Remember Ed Miliband and his sandwich? plastered wall to wall in order to influence voters. What about the Antisemitism scam to destroy Corbyn. What about FPTP with almost no comment in respect of the last election!
What Musk highlights, is that there have been no proper checks and balances in our voting system, and that this has been the case forever – he is a most extreme indicator
Whilst there is the possibility of influence via money, media ownership, censorship, outright lying; or no PR, no proper controls on party funding, parliamentary whips and no recall for MPs, western democracy will always be flawed.
On which subject, it’s well worth watching this segment of Lawrence O’Donnell MSNBC show from Thursday evening to understand exactly what I mess Musk created for Trump and the MAGA Republicans by using X to destroy the bipartisan spending bill. Very few people explain these issues better than O’Donnell.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-the-weakness-of-elon-musk-and-donald-trump-has-now-been-fully-exposed-to-the-gop-227554885612
Thanks Ivan.
Good analysis.
Starmer’s labour will do nothing.
As usual Labour ministers will talk a lot of lies but their words are meaningless, we know them by their actions.
Labour have been terrified of the right wing media for decades and even when they have had huge majorities they have done nothing to reign in those tax dodging off shore media companies nor have they ever done anything to fundamentally change the UK.
Starmer is toxic, deeply unpopular both inside and ouside of his party and a fundamental danger to this country. By aping the Tories and even going further right than them, offering no real alternative, supporting genocide, impoverishing children and pensioners, deepening cuts and attacking our freedoms, he is ushering in fascism.
This is a pretty good explanation of what has happened in Congress in the last few days, followed by some personal commentary
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1869968155637948428?s=46
I don’t think Elon Musk need open his cheque book. If it is true that Kier Starmer is seriously considering delaying next year’s local elections, then that’s the next General Election given to Reform on a plate. Sadly the alternating bouts of indifference and vindictiveness from every government since 2010 has brought it home to people that neither Tory nor Starmer’s Labour have anything to offer the electorate. If we don’t like the thought of 30p Lee running the show, then there’s only a couple of years to change popular perception of Reform. One thing you can’t do is to tell their prospective voters that they are stupid. No one likes to be told they’re stupid, even if it fits the bill, and all it does is make them dig their heels in and more determined than ever to vote against their interests. We saw it with Brexit, and American commentators have confirmed that the Democrats’ use of this tactic contributed to their election loss. I don’t know what the most useful tactic is. Suggestions welcome!
It’s highly significant that Musk called for the compromise deal to be rejected many hours before Trump did. Yesterday Musk “treated” his Twitter followers to an hours-long rant amounting to dozens of posts, many of them totally ignorant and many outright smears and falsehoods. He also threatened those House Republicans who did not do his bidding that they would deserve to be defeated in the 2026 mid-terms, with the clear immplication that he is prepared to fund any challengers he approves of in primaries.
Speaker Johnson has revealed today that he spent hours on the phone with Musk’s fellow oligarch Ramaswamy and exchanged many text messages with both of them. This is the very definirtion of rule by oligarchy – a democratically elected Speaker of the House of Representatives pleading with two unelected billionaires to stop obstructing his deal, and democratically elected House representatives being threatened with de-selection by the same meglamaniac.
Agreed
Thangham Debbonaire and Marvin Rees are both being sent to the lords after the people of Bristol voted them out
This shows exactly how much democracy means to Labour Politicians
There’s no such thing as losing an election when you’re Labour It’s just failing upwards.
there is a Bemba (Bantu language of north east Zambia) “Umushi wamukali upya kumbali” = “The village of a powerful man is destroyed when he is gone” – can Musk continue ad Infinitum ?
As an American living through this it is highly dismaying. The oligarchs have had a multi decade effort to undo the New Deal – and look to be succeeding. Its grotesque.
Anyhow, just to clarify, Medicare is our program for sort of financing healthcare for seniors — everyone 65 and older. I say sort of because it has been perverted into a program to enrich the large corporates like United Health Group. Medicaid is the program that is essentially discretionary (it’s a little complicated as the Feds fund it, but States can choose if they participate) which is what you refer to in the post and where too many children get their healthcare funding from.
Thanks