I don’t want to sound too paternalistic, but one thing should be said: poor Elon Musk played a game he does not understand. “This is what victory feels like,” he shouted with overexcitement at Mr. Trump’s inauguration event (it is worth watching the one-minute video). He had contributed more than $250 million to the Trump 2024 campaign. He carelessly promised that he would cut $2 trillion, or one-third, from federal government expenditures, before he cut his cutting promise to $1 trillion, and he finally achieved less than 20% of this last goal. His conspiracy theorizing did not help him, as it never does.
The acrimonious crash of the Trump-Musk relationship was predictable. (See “The Trump-Musk Relationship Ruptures in Real Time,” Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2025; and “The Trump-Musk ‘War of the Roses,’” June 5, 2025.) Neither of the two men is used to being bullied around. It is not the first time that Trump has turned against a former associate. I suspect that Mr. Musk, like Mr. Trump, requires personal loyalty and fealty of the medieval sort, but neither can fathom decentralized power. They both think in terms of power, not in terms of liberty. And both are more emotional than rational.
Musk is certainly a great visionary and entrepreneur, but he does not mind getting or requesting assistance from governments. As we have seen in the last election, he is also a daring political entrepreneur, although his bad bet on Trump may haunt him for a long time.
Although he did oppose the deficit-happy “Big Beautiful Bill” and (less openly) the trade war, Musk is certainly not a libertarian or classical liberal. The classical liberal tradition entertains an economic and philosophical theory of politics that excludes the Princess-Mathilde view—that the criterion of a good government is that it serves my immediate interest at the cost of others. At best, Musk’s political ideology looks like naïve democratism based on a “will of the people” that even lawyers dare not oppose. He probably has never read any structured libertarian argument.
Some of us may have hoped that Musk would eventually discover the liberal ideal of liberty. If any hope remains, it will likely be frustrated. At any rate, few people in their fifties (even in their thirties, John Maynard Keynes believed) are able to seriously consider new ideas. I doubt he will take the red pill. (See my post “Elon Musk, Edward Luce, and Libertarianism,” June 5, 2023.)
The stronger the embrace of Leviathan, the more politics becomes what Anthony de Jasay described: a game of coercively harming some people in order to favor useful clientèles. Mr. Musk thought he had positioned himself on the right side of the divide; he may now, poor man, have fallen on the other side. Trump wrote on his social media:
The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.
Musk’s billions will help him survive on the wrong side of the adversary and discriminatory state, if only Leviathan does not seriously get on his case. As Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s secret police chief, reportedly said, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.” According to the Wall Street Journal, Steve Bannon “suggested that Musk’s immigration status be investigated.” According to The Economist, Bannon wants him to be stripped of American citizenship. Other threats have been voiced. Musk may end up wishing there are judges to block the “will of the people” against him.
If one chickens out between the king and the courtier, it will nearly certainly be the latter. In the meantime, some chaotic surprises and reversals are not impossible. As Trump also has much to lose, it is possible that the two warriors will bury the war hatchet, at least publicly or for a time. As William Riker noted, in democratic choices insufficiently constrained by institutions, “anything can happen.”
******************************
In this fictional future, Elon Musk would need a companion
READER COMMENTS
steve
Jun 7 2025 at 11:05am
By all accounts he is probably a genius engineer. He has been a great entrepreneur though his fans dont want to acknowledge that he has gotten a lot fo the money to do that from the govt. Note that subsidies, state and federal, got Tesla through its early years and now he wants to deny those to new EV companies. However, success in business hardly means he would be good at everything else and his foray into direct politics has not gone well. The DOGE effort was so incompetent it was hard to believe. He would pick a bunch of coders in their 20s to make cuts about stuff they dont remotely understand and then give them access to tons of confidential information?
Anyway, lets hope he goes back to business. Hopefully he and some other rich people noted that when you buy a politician it’s hard to keep them bought.
Steve
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 7 2025 at 11:59am
Steve: I totally agree.
Jose Pablo
Jun 7 2025 at 1:01pm
Hopefully he and some other rich people noted that when you buy a politician it’s hard to keep them bought.
Bottom line: Never try to buy a term-limited politician in his final term. Buying political influence works best as a repeat business.
But that raises an interesting question: for members of Congress seeking reelection in 16 months (a high-stakes event in this political climate), what carries more weight—Musk’s money or Trump’s political backing?
I’ve got my popcorn ready.
Jose Pablo
Jun 7 2025 at 1:41pm
However, success in business hardly means he would be good at everything else and his foray into direct politics has not gone well
Moreover, success in business at a particular time doesn’t necessarily mean he would have succeeded under different circumstances. We often forget that reality is just one outcome among many possibilities, and not always the most probable one ex-ante.
We tend to underestimate the role of luck in anyone’s life. That’s worth remembering when we assign weight to someone’s opinions based on their achievements. Often, what we’re really saying is: “He must be right—after all, he’s lucky.”
Napoleon had it right: it’s better to be a lucky entrepreneur than a brilliant one. Or a lucky presidential candidate rather than a competent one (think of Nixon in 1968.)
David Seltzer
Jun 7 2025 at 11:22am
Viewing them sharing a cell, can one imagine DJT and EM living in Anthony de Jasay’s world of conservative anarchism?
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 7 2025 at 11:58am
Intriguing question, David. If I read it correctly, here is my take. It’s not clear who would pay for jails in a Jasayian anarchy. As for sanctions against those conspiring to re-create a state, I think de Jasay would say that, if commercial boycott is not sufficient, some people would take justice in their own hands. As I mentioned in my review of de Jasay’s Justice and Its Surroundings, there are no formal “rights” in this setup, at least outside of evolved conventions such as those against murder and theft. The criminals who want to avoid retribution might have to take refuge in Russia or Turkey, a bad enough punishment.
Craig Walenta
Jun 7 2025 at 1:07pm
“If I read it correctly, here is my take. It’s not clear who would pay for jails in a Jasayian anarchy.”
Just as an aside here, Pierre, in this comment one can see why many common law crimes carried the death penalty or of course why we see things like exile to a place like Australia.
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 8 2025 at 6:58pm
Interesting reflection, Craig.
Craig
Jun 7 2025 at 12:33pm
I wonder of Trump will lift Biden’s tariffs on Chinese EVs to get back at Musk? Sounds a bit ridiculous for sure. On the one hand one can decry the motive while still shedding crocodile tears for Musk.
“He carelessly promised that he would cut $2 trillion, or one-third, from federal government expenditures, before he cut his cutting promise to $1 trillion, and he finally achieved less than 20% of this last goal”
He overpromised and underdelivered. That’s usually a bad combo but honestly that doesn’t reflect poorly on him it reflects poorly on the federal government. Give me that job with authority and I promise you ny reign of nepotism and tyranny will begin for sure, but as far as I’m concerned balancing the budget is a simple math problem, it is, in reality, an impossible political problem. I’d cut carelessly, adbitrarily, capriciously, with vitriol, but trust me I’d cut so much the federal government wouldn’t even exist. #nationaldivorce
#BBB ? The Republicans never seem to walk the walk, do they? (Spending also increased under Reagan as well)
Jose Pablo
Jun 7 2025 at 12:50pm
The President of the United States, trading childish insults with an American entrepreneur in full public view, defied the limits of absurdity.
This loss of dignity for such a high office is not without consequence And this isn’t the first instance (think of the Zelensky episode or the now-forgotten Gaza peace plan), and unfortunately, it’s unlikely to be the last.
The damage to the legitimacy of the presidency and to the norms and customs that underpin American democracy is likely to be profound and difficult to fully predict.
Craig
Jun 7 2025 at 1:00pm
“This loss of dignity for such a high office is not without consequence”
You know, JP, help me understand YOUR (not mine, yours!) worldview on this one, because I am not saying your wrong, I AM surprised that YOU are writing this. Let me tell you why, given what I have read, I detect a strain of anarchism where, prior to this statement, I’d have suggested that you wouldn’t have had any respect for the office, ab initio, even for a person wielding presidential authority as solemnly and dignified as possible? Maybe I am misinterpreting your world view here?
Jose Pablo
Jun 7 2025 at 1:22pm
Craig, in my view, the closest thing to libertarianism, or even anarchism, is a presidency guided by quiet competence rather than noisy ego, whose behavior has factual (not rhetorical) results and can offer a useful example to follow in for people’s everyday attitudes and decisions.
Not my preferred option, by any means, as you rightly suspect. But it’s certainly a better second-best than a presidency perpetually teetering on the edge of absurdity. If we must be ruled, better by those who resemble effective angels, as closely as possible, than by noisy clowns.
And, since we are at it, what’s YOUR take on the argument that the loss of dignity in the office could have far-reaching consequences for American democracy?
Mactoul
Jun 8 2025 at 12:32am
On the contrary, the practical aims of anarchism are better aided by the presidents making a comical spectacle of themselves rather than behaving like a Washington or a Lincoln.
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 8 2025 at 7:01pm
Mactoul: That would have been the belief of Murray Rothbard. I suspect it was also the belief of many libertarians who supported Trump’s election. There are many theories of anarchy–albeit not as many as authoritarian theories.
Jose Pablo
Jun 7 2025 at 4:49pm
I happened to come across a paragraph by Nozick today that seems particularly illuminating on this matter:
“Persons who want to be paternalistically regulated forget the possibility of contracting into particular limitations on their own behavior, or appointing a given paternalistic supervisory board over themselves.
…
Is there really someone who, searching for a group of wise and sensitive persons to regulate him for his own good, would choose that group of people who constitute [the membership of both houses of Congress]?”
In my mind, I’ve put “the office of the Presidency” in place of Nozick’s “the membership of both houses of Congress“. And I tend to believe that the more people who could sincerely answer “yes” to that question, the greater the legitimacy of the government. And that the perceived wisdom and dignity of the office surely play a role in helping more people answer “yes.”
[Just to be clear, I personally wouldn’t let anyone regulate me for my own good. Not even the Obama presidency, though I can certainly appreciate the stark contrast.]
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 7 2025 at 2:22pm
Jose (and Craig): Before seeing your rejoinders above, I was planning to reply more or less the following to Jose. When I put on my Buchanan hat (which I keep near my desk here), I agree with you. But when I put my de Jasay hat (which is also conveniently very close my desk) and even more if I could find my old anarcho-capitalist hat à la Rothbard, I wonder why the deflating of the Ruler in Chief’s job is not a plus. This little man in the big, flashing motorcade is just an ordinary and very bad-mouthed individual who is openly using his public position to discriminate against and insult half of what he calls “the people.”
Ultimately, I share Jose’s position. Assuming that liberal anarchy is not feasible, getting as close as possible to a state where the Chief Ruler could not take sides in favor of some citizens and against other citizens (and even residents and, up to a point, members of mankind) is what we should aim at. John Hicks wrote:
Increasing the distance between Lavrentiy Beria on the one hand and, on the other hand, Pam Bondi or Elon Musk is a worthwhile goal. (Incidentally, the loyal Lavrentiy Beria was eventually assassinated on the orders of Stalin.)
Craig
Jun 7 2025 at 2:51pm
“When I put on my Buchanan hat (which I keep near my desk here), I agree with you. But when I put my de Jasay hat (which is also conveniently very close my desk) and even more if I could find my old anarcho-capitalist hat à la Rothbard, I wonder why the deflating of the Ruler in Chief’s job is not a plus”
Don’t worry, sending risperdal now!
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 7 2025 at 9:55pm
Craig: First time I hear about this drug. Perhaps I should have a sip.
Mactoul
Jun 7 2025 at 10:47pm
There is a direct line between Manchester liberals and the liberals who forbore to investigate Rotherham grooming gangs.
It is, by nature of things, impossible to maintain such a posture. If you resolutely forbear to discriminate in favor of your people, you will necessarily discriminate against your people.
Incidentally, Beria was among the living when Stalin died.
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 8 2025 at 6:56pm
Mactoul: Thanks for correcting my error on Beria. Indeed, he was only assassinated after Stalin’s death.
As for your statement that “If you resolutely forbear to discriminate in favor of your people, you will necessarily discriminate against your people,” it looks like saying that if you do not coercively intervene in somebody’s life, you intervene by not coercively intervening. Or like Orwell’s “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” Or perhaps like Marcuse’s “repressive tolerance.” It’s either nonsensical or a dilettante’s play on words.
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 8 2025 at 1:19pm
Jose: Along those lines, Trump’s post of May 26 on his social media is worth reading:
He meant, “God Bless at most half of America!”
Jose Pablo
Jun 8 2025 at 10:08pm
American prose reaching new heights. Hemingway outdone.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Jun 7 2025 at 1:00pm
But what attracted Musk to Trump[s agenda in the first place. He presumably had the convectional belief that tariffs are bad. We know he did not favor even further restricting high potential immigrants like himself. Harris was not going to remove his subsidies.
Was it just the belief that he would be able to reduce spending more than Trump was going to reduce taxes? (And where could he have come up with such an absurd idea?) That was worth a 250 million dollar bet and trashing his brand?
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 7 2025 at 9:59pm
Thomas: What about the hypothesis that he simply did not understand the game of politics? Or the second one that he wanted to be on the right side of the harm-favor divide?
Pierre Simard
Jun 7 2025 at 6:42pm
It’s an interesting topic, but I don’t believe the conflict between Donald Trump and Elon Musk can be reduced to a mere clash of personalities with divergent worldviews. That would be giving them a level of intellectual depth they likely don’t possess.
In my view, their initial alliance was based on mutual self-interest: Trump benefited from Musk’s public image, while Musk gained privileged access to decision-making circles that favored his business ventures. It was a purely opportunistic partnership, driven by a rational calculation to maximize gains
But once their interests began to diverge (with Musk becoming a political liability for Trump, and Trump becoming a reputational burden for Musk) the breakup was inevitable. Their dispute reflects a classic principal-agent problem: Trump (the principal) never had the tools or leverage to effectively control Musk (the agent).
All in all, this fallout was entirely predictable.
Traduit du français par ChatGPT
john hare
Jun 7 2025 at 7:35pm
I’m a Musk fan when he’s doing space. I didn’t predict the current issue, but was quite uncomfortable with him in the political arena, and with the Twitter/X purchase I doubt either of those fields play to his strengths.
I may have acquired an ex-friend today. At Home Depot one of the associates that I have known for a while claimed to be completely on board with the Trump agenda. I bluntly said I wasn’t. Apparently I must be a Democrat and evil even without being aware of it.
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 7 2025 at 10:10pm
Pierre: Why would Musk not see that Trump would become a reputational burden for him? Wouldn’t he have seen that had he known anything about democracy except that it is “the people” and that the people like him? Musk, I think, needed some economics and especially some public choice theory.
Craig
Jun 8 2025 at 11:31am
Pierre Simard
“In my view, their initial alliance was based on mutual self-interest: Trump benefited from Musk’s public image, while Musk gained privileged access to decision-making circles that favored his business ventures.”
Biden favored tariffs on Chinese EVs as well.
Pierre Lemieux
“Why would Musk not see that Trump would become a reputational burden for him?”
Emotions. Don’t underestimate them. I would suggest the possibility that there was something about Musk’s trans kid where those events happened and Jimmy Crack Corn and Musk doesn’t care.
Mactoul
Jun 7 2025 at 10:34pm
It is strange that there is no mention of the actual content of the fight. As Ross Douthat writes in NYT:
“Must any pair of would-be great men of history always find a path to conflict? Ask Caesar and Pompey, Octavian and Antony, Lennon and McCartney. But the specific thing they fight about is less predictable. I would not have guessed, six months ago, that Elon Musk and Donald Trump’s version of the Battle of Actium would be fought over the budget deficit.”
“That’s because six months ago I understood Musk’s interest in politics, his long march away from Obama-era liberalism and his reinvention of himself as the prince of the very online right, as reflecting two key goals: his newfound desire to defeat cultural progressivism, rooted in the experience of his child’s gender transition, and his long-term, career-shaping desire to get human explorers to Mars.”
Mactoul
Jun 8 2025 at 12:08am
James Burnham is a name that has rarely if ever appeared in these pages though his 1941 book The Managerial Revolution is much more pertinent than utopian fantasies of classical liberalism. Especially, when at present we are going through an attempted counter-coup against the manageralism. As Nathan Levine writes in NYT:
“in a managerial system, there is no clear separation between public and private branches of elite power. To the administration, as Mr. Vance put it, “the universities are the enemy,” for example — not because they are independent bastions of free thought but precisely because they are no more independent than any other managerial institution, staffed by the same class of people with the same interests.”
JoeF
Jun 8 2025 at 8:05am
Interesting article, can’t believe it ran in the NYT.
Jon Murphy
Jun 8 2025 at 8:19pm
There are two big assertions in your comment that you seem to take as given, but need a little more explanation.
First, you write that the Managerial Revolution is “much more pertinent than utopian fantasies of classical liberalism.” I’ve not read the book, but just going over the Wikipedia description of it, it doesn’t seem that different from the writings of FA Hayek, LV Mises, and other classical liberals at the time. What do you mean that the book is more “pertinent”?
Second, you write:
What’s the “counter-coup”? Taking the Managerial Revolution as given, I don’t see a “counter-coup” going on.
Monte
Jun 9 2025 at 12:19am
True. The loss of dignity for this high office started with Clinton. Respect for it has since been on the decline and I doubt very seriously it will bottom out with Trump.