The Single Term Democrats Refrain from Using for Elon Musk: "Un-American"
The nature of the attacks would significantly change if he were a billionaire with leftist views.
TroibNews 
Elon Musk is emerging as a significant influence in the 2024 American election. As the wealthiest man globally, he has acquired a major media platform and significantly shifted its ideological stance to the right. He has disseminated conspiracy theories to his 200 million followers and maintained secret communications with Vladimir Putin while engaging in business with the Chinese government. Additionally, he has reportedly invested vast sums in efforts to secure Donald Trump's election. Musk has expressed his ambitions to join the administration if Trump succeeds, aiming to reshape federal agencies to align with his vision.
Evidently, America’s most influential immigrant is pursuing extensive changes to national institutions. Recently, Musk ignited controversy by endorsing a social media post that claimed Trump’s deportation plans and budget cuts would adversely impact the stock market. He also advised a town hall audience to brace for “temporary hardship” as a necessary step toward prosperity under a fundamentally transformed economic system.
Democrats and liberals have reacted predictably, labeling him an authoritarian, a bigot, a greedy plutocrat — even calling him a "dipshit," as noted by vice presidential candidate Tim Walz.
However, some Democrats are considering whether to leverage a potent narrative against Musk: that the billionaire born in Apartheid-era South Africa is an outsider disrupting America’s core.
Amidst a political landscape where nationalism is increasingly prominent, this idea could resonate, presenting Musk as an ingrate who, despite amassing his fortune in the U.S., chooses to criticize its culture while engaging with its adversaries and urging the nation to be less "woke," reminiscent of the condemned regime of his youth.
Musk’s critics largely avoid this line of attack, which speaks volumes about the current political climate in Washington.
“The Democratic Party writ large has become uncomfortable speaking in the language of nationalism,” observed Ruy Teixeira, a political scientist who once predicted the Obama coalition but has since distanced himself from the party’s increasingly white-collar, college-educated tone. “It seems like a little bit of political malpractice. There’s potential political advantage, but they can’t act on it because of this reticence.”
“Why don’t they do it? It’s hard to imagine,” said veteran New York-based Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf. He noted that Democrats typically adopt a “sitzkrieg” approach while Republicans engage in “blitzkrieg.” Sheinkopf added that in dealing with divisive nationalism, Democrats fear that such rhetoric might be seen as inappropriate, contrasting the prevailing Democratic ethos with the Republican approach, which he deemed excessively sanctimonious.
If Musk were an immigrant with left-leaning views participating actively in politics, the reception might be different.
Consider the case of George Soros, whose foreign origins have fueled significant backlash against his philanthropic support for liberal initiatives. Similarly, Rep. Ilhan Omar, the second-most influential African immigrant in American politics, has faced intense scrutiny. “How did you do where you came from? How’s your country doing?” Trump characterized her perspective during his last campaign, suggesting her critiques of America lacked validity.
“If [Musk] were supporting Harris, the Republicans would be very quick to brand him as this internationalist who’s not American and has no voice that should be acceptable,” stated Steve Jarding, a veteran Democratic consultant. “Democrats don’t do that. Truth is, we shouldn’t do that. And yet in politics sometimes, you have to play by their rules.”
“I think it’s valid to say that there’s a certain discomfort among some Democrats with nationalism, but there’s not really with patriotism,” remarked James Carville, the strategist behind Bill Clinton’s first presidential victory. “What is the U.S.? Is it a plot of ground or is it an idea? Is it blood and soil or is it something else? I think that’s the distinction that people make.”
This distinction allows liberals to excel at a more inclusive expression of patriotism, while they often shy away from exclusionary forms that designate someone as an outsider.
Nonetheless, if Democrats were to abandon their current stance of purity, Musk presents an appealing target.
Should Trump win, it would be a profound irony that the most provocative voice in his America-first campaign belongs to someone with a remarkably cosmopolitan background. Musk is an immigrant, an Ivy League graduate, and a proponent of niche political philosophies, whose business dealings extend to America’s most dubious foreign rivals. He is a tech mogul seeking to transcend the conventional American dollar and a social media personality frequently critical of American culture, leadership, and demographics.
Having a representative from the Apartheid era critique Americans for being overly woke parallels a scenario where an immigrant from North Korea opines that American capitalism is excessive or where a wealthy newcomer from Saudi Arabia supports candidates arguing that America permits too much religious freedom. Although these points may hold merit, a shrewd political strategist could argue that Musk’s background disqualifies him from authentically representing any such movement.
In blue America, however, many individuals struggle to raise issues around birthplace, even when it concerns one of the left’s most criticized nations.
Trump, despite leading a lifestyle distinct from many of his core supporters, fits a familiar American archetype, embodying a lifestyle that many might aspire to if they had his resources. Musk, in contrast, exists on the fringes of American cultural norms. It’s interesting that progressives often portray him as a villain but hesitate to indulge nationalistic impulses that would deem him an outsider.
Addressing how to counter Musk doesn't only pertain to the current election cycle; regardless of the outcome, he will remain a prominent figure in America’s political discourse for the foreseeable future.
Recently, some Democrats have begun broaching the subject of Musk’s foreign origins, triggered by a Washington Post report detailing his alleged illegal work while in the U.S. on a student visa. “He was violating the law,” President Joe Biden remarked. “And he’s talking about all these illegals coming our way?”
“He lied his way into citizenship and now he’s attacking us,” Carville exclaimed during our conversation.
Still, the Democratic critique largely centered on labeling Musk a hypocrite due to his vocal opposition to illegal immigration and dissemination of conspiracy theories. Few have ventured to argue that his purported legal transgressions undermine his legitimacy in American democracy.
Perhaps this restraint is commendable; Democrats have long asserted their opposition to the politics of delegitimization and advocate for consistency in their principles.
However, many political strategists perceive this approach differently. “Running for office is so much different than governing,” Jarding remarked. “When you run for office, you’re on an island, and to get to the elected position, you have to swim through a lagoon filled with sewage. It’s ugly and distasteful, but you’ve got to get elected.”
“Democrats don’t really speak nationalism,” he concluded. “And they don’t to their detriment.”
Ian Smith for TROIB News
Evidently, America’s most influential immigrant is pursuing extensive changes to national institutions. Recently, Musk ignited controversy by endorsing a social media post that claimed Trump’s deportation plans and budget cuts would adversely impact the stock market. He also advised a town hall audience to brace for “temporary hardship” as a necessary step toward prosperity under a fundamentally transformed economic system.
Democrats and liberals have reacted predictably, labeling him an authoritarian, a bigot, a greedy plutocrat — even calling him a "dipshit," as noted by vice presidential candidate Tim Walz.
However, some Democrats are considering whether to leverage a potent narrative against Musk: that the billionaire born in Apartheid-era South Africa is an outsider disrupting America’s core.
Amidst a political landscape where nationalism is increasingly prominent, this idea could resonate, presenting Musk as an ingrate who, despite amassing his fortune in the U.S., chooses to criticize its culture while engaging with its adversaries and urging the nation to be less "woke," reminiscent of the condemned regime of his youth.
Musk’s critics largely avoid this line of attack, which speaks volumes about the current political climate in Washington.
“The Democratic Party writ large has become uncomfortable speaking in the language of nationalism,” observed Ruy Teixeira, a political scientist who once predicted the Obama coalition but has since distanced himself from the party’s increasingly white-collar, college-educated tone. “It seems like a little bit of political malpractice. There’s potential political advantage, but they can’t act on it because of this reticence.”
“Why don’t they do it? It’s hard to imagine,” said veteran New York-based Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf. He noted that Democrats typically adopt a “sitzkrieg” approach while Republicans engage in “blitzkrieg.” Sheinkopf added that in dealing with divisive nationalism, Democrats fear that such rhetoric might be seen as inappropriate, contrasting the prevailing Democratic ethos with the Republican approach, which he deemed excessively sanctimonious.
If Musk were an immigrant with left-leaning views participating actively in politics, the reception might be different.
Consider the case of George Soros, whose foreign origins have fueled significant backlash against his philanthropic support for liberal initiatives. Similarly, Rep. Ilhan Omar, the second-most influential African immigrant in American politics, has faced intense scrutiny. “How did you do where you came from? How’s your country doing?” Trump characterized her perspective during his last campaign, suggesting her critiques of America lacked validity.
“If [Musk] were supporting Harris, the Republicans would be very quick to brand him as this internationalist who’s not American and has no voice that should be acceptable,” stated Steve Jarding, a veteran Democratic consultant. “Democrats don’t do that. Truth is, we shouldn’t do that. And yet in politics sometimes, you have to play by their rules.”
“I think it’s valid to say that there’s a certain discomfort among some Democrats with nationalism, but there’s not really with patriotism,” remarked James Carville, the strategist behind Bill Clinton’s first presidential victory. “What is the U.S.? Is it a plot of ground or is it an idea? Is it blood and soil or is it something else? I think that’s the distinction that people make.”
This distinction allows liberals to excel at a more inclusive expression of patriotism, while they often shy away from exclusionary forms that designate someone as an outsider.
Nonetheless, if Democrats were to abandon their current stance of purity, Musk presents an appealing target.
Should Trump win, it would be a profound irony that the most provocative voice in his America-first campaign belongs to someone with a remarkably cosmopolitan background. Musk is an immigrant, an Ivy League graduate, and a proponent of niche political philosophies, whose business dealings extend to America’s most dubious foreign rivals. He is a tech mogul seeking to transcend the conventional American dollar and a social media personality frequently critical of American culture, leadership, and demographics.
Having a representative from the Apartheid era critique Americans for being overly woke parallels a scenario where an immigrant from North Korea opines that American capitalism is excessive or where a wealthy newcomer from Saudi Arabia supports candidates arguing that America permits too much religious freedom. Although these points may hold merit, a shrewd political strategist could argue that Musk’s background disqualifies him from authentically representing any such movement.
In blue America, however, many individuals struggle to raise issues around birthplace, even when it concerns one of the left’s most criticized nations.
Trump, despite leading a lifestyle distinct from many of his core supporters, fits a familiar American archetype, embodying a lifestyle that many might aspire to if they had his resources. Musk, in contrast, exists on the fringes of American cultural norms. It’s interesting that progressives often portray him as a villain but hesitate to indulge nationalistic impulses that would deem him an outsider.
Addressing how to counter Musk doesn't only pertain to the current election cycle; regardless of the outcome, he will remain a prominent figure in America’s political discourse for the foreseeable future.
Recently, some Democrats have begun broaching the subject of Musk’s foreign origins, triggered by a Washington Post report detailing his alleged illegal work while in the U.S. on a student visa. “He was violating the law,” President Joe Biden remarked. “And he’s talking about all these illegals coming our way?”
“He lied his way into citizenship and now he’s attacking us,” Carville exclaimed during our conversation.
Still, the Democratic critique largely centered on labeling Musk a hypocrite due to his vocal opposition to illegal immigration and dissemination of conspiracy theories. Few have ventured to argue that his purported legal transgressions undermine his legitimacy in American democracy.
Perhaps this restraint is commendable; Democrats have long asserted their opposition to the politics of delegitimization and advocate for consistency in their principles.
However, many political strategists perceive this approach differently. “Running for office is so much different than governing,” Jarding remarked. “When you run for office, you’re on an island, and to get to the elected position, you have to swim through a lagoon filled with sewage. It’s ugly and distasteful, but you’ve got to get elected.”
“Democrats don’t really speak nationalism,” he concluded. “And they don’t to their detriment.”
Ian Smith for TROIB News
