As some of you will have noticed, my colleague Ben was on the telly the other night, debating on Virgin Media the merits or demerits of Elon Musk’s enhanced political activism.
There was nothing especially remarkable about the debate: Fianna Fáil MEP Barry Andrews, a member of the Renew Group, told us that he is very concerned about Elon Musk exercising political influence on account of his wealth and (he didn’t quite admit this) his political views. Billionaires interfering in politics and the media is bad, we were told.
Of course, this debate took place on Virgin Media, which is substantially owned by the American Billionaire John Carl Malone, nicknamed “Darth Vader” by former US Vice President Al Gore for his ruthlessness in business. What, if any, influence Mr. Malone exerts on the editorial decisions of Virgin Media is unknown, but it is hardly beyond the realms of the possible that he might well be able to express an opinion to his employees about how Ireland’s largest independent television channel covers the news here.
Ben, of course, made the point that billionaires interfering in politics or expressing political views is hardly new. This country, he noted, has been subject to the extensive political interference of people like Chuck Feeney for decades, with the Irish-American billionaire pouring vast tracts of his wealth into funding various campaign groups and NGOs. So welcome was this funding of political activism that the state, on various occasions, has matched it. Not only has the Irish state welcomed the political interference of a billionaire in the case of Mr. Feeney – it has actually amplified that influence.
Which brings me to my point, which is that there is something very admirable about the manner of Elon Musk’s political interference, even if you disagree with the substance of his positions.
Traditionally, those with money influence politics quietly and behind the scenes. They buy lobbyists. They hire retired politicians onto boards in the hope that serving politicians, thinking about their retirement, might take the hint. They fund NGOs and lobby groups. They purchase newspapers and media organs. The first time I was ever involved in a political campaign, in 2002, the victory party for the winning TD was hosted by billionaire Sean Quinn at one of his hotels. My impression was that Mr. Quinn was footing the bill (as was his right). The rich and powerful have always influenced politics.
The thing that is different, and admirable, about Mr. Musk is that everything he does is out in the open. Indeed, probably too much so for his own benefit. He shares his every waking thought, it seems, with us on the largest social media platform of its kind. If he does not like a politician and wishes to remove them from office, he says so openly. It is ironic that those who demand transparency around the funding of politics – which is the usual tactic when a new force they oppose arises – are also now horrified by the most open and transparent political interference by a billionaire in modern history.
I might add here that the Musk model – to use wealth and influence to openly campaign for political objectives – is also the Hollywood model which western politicians have embraced for decades. Nobody in the chattering classes in the west, last I checked, objects to Bono using his very considerable wealth and fame to campaign openly for political objectives he values. The Irish Times has been known to run op-eds by Hollywood stars on Irish climate and energy policy. For some reason, we are all expected to know and care about Susan Sarandon’s views on the middle east, or for whom Barbra Streisand might vote in an American election. They, too, have won their influence by wealth and fame, and use it to the greatest extent of their powers. Nobody cares.
They care about Musk, though. And they care about him for an obvious and simple reason that has nothing to do with his wealth or his power, and everything to do with his views. Arguing that “he shouldn’t say these things he is interfering in our politics” simply requires less brainpower and intellectual heft than arguing that “he can say these things if he wishes but I can prove that he is wrong”. Of course, if intellectual heft and brainpower were not rare commodities in the west’s leadership class, one might argue that it would not have found itself in a position whereby Musk could pose a threat simply by airing views.
Lest this be interpreted as a love letter, I might add here that Elon Musk is simply wrong about many things. I highlighted the other day the boneheaded nature of his intervention against Nigel Farage in the UK. One might also add that he appears either deliberately or consciously unaware of the nature of UK parliamentary government full stop. But these problems are as naught compared to the fact that he, unlike his critics, has been able to spot a problem with multiculturalism in Europe and speak about it openly and refreshingly, which makes him seem authentic and his critics seem clueless.
It should go without saying that if Elon Musk had exactly the same platform, and the same wealth, and was using it instead to talk about why Gail Platt should come back to Coronation Street, the public would not be influenced by him at all. He has influence not because of his platform, but because the things he is saying are resonant.
Lined up to oppose him is the usual cast of b-team politicians and commentators, who simply appear to lack the communications skills or intellectual ability to mount a counter-argument.
“He shouldn’t be speaking” is the last resort of the scoundrel and the hypocrite. And of course, try though they might, they can’t actually shut him up. It’s all a very fitting denouement for the great progressive experiment.