ELON MUSK WANTS TO BE THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN AMERICA

Ambition, as Gordon Gekko may have said, is good. The drive that makes individuals excel in their chosen field and life is essential to change the world. In a globalized world, where corporations can be wealthier than many nations by economic measure, the oversized influence that the leaders of these corporations may have on any world or national issues is a given. But while ambitious corporate leaders may want to influence the destiny of nations, the objectives of corporations –survival in a competitive world and maximizing profits for its shareholders— are not necessarily compatible with the objectives of any given nation or lead to its most positive outcomes.

Smaller nations overall may end up with the short end of the stick when a global corporation has an interest in a particular resource in that country, be it a commodity, its market, or its talents, yet individual nationals aligning with those foreign interests will thrive. And then there is the U.S., the largest economic, soft and military power in the world. A country in which national interests are mostly not subjected to the particular economic interests of a single or reduced group of corporations – mostly. The competing interests of each corporation or industry group achieves a messy balance, brokered by the government and the party in power’s own political interests, a balance that energizes business, social creativity, and renewal. Managing the balance of competing interests between the economic power of corporations through the political power of the government has made the U.S. the most advanced economy in the world, churning innovation in all fields of human endeavor. This competition of interests is key to the power of America.

As intrinsic to the power of America is the separation of Church and State, so is the separation of Business and Governance, creating the conditions which allow that creative churn of competing enterprises. Just like Church and State coexist and support and rely on each other, it is natural that Business and Governance also do. But the nature and objectives of a businessman catering to his customer base are different than those of a government functionary catering to a citizenry. The Constitution essentially enshrines the necessity of that separation and recognizes that difference by virtue of its Emoluments Clause.

The illusion of the successful businessman running a country efficiently is just that, an illusion. None, historically, has done so. It is a persuasive argument, in particular for those with a penchant for the control of a bureaucratic order; but societies are not an organization chart with replaceable (fireable) subordinates. In the U.S. the particular case of Donald Trump stands out, presenting himself as a successful businessman that could run the country better than any politician.

Leaving aside his multiple bankruptcies and well documented financial and fiscal shenanigans, there is no question that Trump has established himself as a brand in the business world.  That, by itself, is a measure of success and has created personal wealth for him, if not necessarily for his companies. He has personal success, but his business successes are questionable. He has parlayed his personal successes as positive qualifiers deserving of political power, but he seems to have Impostor Syndrome regarding his business successes, delving into selling the oddest branded merchandise. Enter Elon Musk.

Elon Musk was born in South Africa. His father had interests in an emerald mine and airlines, among other endeavors and was a serial entrepreneur, a trait his son picked up upon. Young Elon, in search of a bigger pond, went to the United States via Canada (his mother is Canadian). In 1992, after graduating with double degrees from the University of Pennsylvania (physics and business, from Wharton), he was admitted to Stanford. While still on a student visa he dropped out and started his first true company, Zip2, an online map guide which was eventually sold to Compaq, netting Musk in excess of $20 million. He describes his immigration status at the time as a “grey area.” In 2002, ten years later, he became a U.S. citizen.

Musk has been a successful serial entrepreneur, founding or seeding companies and selling them to reinvest in increasingly bigger and complex ventures. His ambition and entrepreneurial spirit makes him impatient with obstacles to his vision, so he often clashes with regulations or organizations which he believes impede such vision. These clashes have led to multiple legal confrontations, suits and countersuits.

Musk is a savvy businessman and entrepreneur, something that Trump admires and wishes he could be, just as he admires and wishes he could emulate strongmen like Putin, Xi, Kim, or Orban, even possibly Maduro if it were not politically inconvenient. Musk’s attention on Trump is flattering and, notoriously susceptible to flattery, Trump has embraced Musk as a genius because he supports him, directly and indirectly, (starting by “unbanning” Trump from Twitter, now X). To Musk, however, Trump is an investment that can return great power to him over all the regulatory and procurement agencies of the U.S. affecting his other businesses. Musk has found in Trump a useful idiot to achieve his goals expeditiously.  Leaning on Trump, Musk can go places, even Mars. With Trump, Musk can be the most powerful man in America and the world; or so he thinks.

Running a country like a business is not realistic. A business is (or should be) focused on market segments and its customers, as well as competing for those customers with its rivals. Government is focused on all of a nation’s citizenry, not a segment of it. Companies are a relatively short-term propositions fulfilling a market need and which succeed when they adapt to competition, market shifts, and new technologies within an established regulatory framework. Successful nations are long term propositions, permanently laying foundations for generations to come, including structures and frameworks which allow the creative churn of capitalism and freedom to thrive, and the renewal of its governmental institutions to occur.  

Trump governed and runs his campaign as businesses, seeking profit for his principal shareholder (himself) and focusing on “his” market segment, ignoring and demonizing the “competition” to the extent that he brands his supporters as Americans and his non supporters as non-American. That is why he claims that if only “true” Americans voted he would win unquestionably.

Musk doesn’t care. He wants what he believes will further his own long-term vision for the world, a world in which he sees climate change as an existential threat, advocating for a carbon tax and of course, electric cars; solving the immigration policy stalemate as a market and population solution; a place for government in the regulation of AI; a new world in Mars, where government is by “direct democracy” of empowered citizens; and many other positions that clash with Trump’s (stated populist) views. With Trump as “his president,” Musk may even believe that his businesses will thrive and his world vision can be implemented. Trump, however, has demonstrated time and time again, that his loyalties and interests are a one-way street, leading to himself only. Like all zero sum businessmen, he believes that anyone that thrives under him, is beholden to him and his authority. That all authority rests on him as the leader, and that all responsibilities can be deflected as he sees fit. It is probable that Musk will find once again this to be the case. The long list of brilliant people that were once close to Trump and now see him as a threat to everything America represents and its future may soon include Elon Musk.

Carlos J. Rangel 

WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS?

We celebrated in a recent event held to commemorate the 75^th anniversary of the adoption by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), sponsored by International Solidarity for Human Rights (ISHR) and hosted by Miami Dade College, the extraordinary impact of ISHR’s leaders, Devorah Sasha and Elizabeth Sánchez Vegas, creating educational programs throughout the world and seeking to integrate the very fabric of our paths through life and the arts with the idea of human rights. Countries, communities, organizations, and individuals were bestowed awards as friends and advocates of human rights. As I sat there, listening, I could not help but ask myself the question that leads this essay: why should we care?

Carlos Cruz Diez - The Route to Human Rights:
Article 27, the Right to Culture.

This is not a pointless question. The idea that human rights are important and that we should care about them is relatively new, not a given. Pragmatic politics and strategic geopolitical interests have been cited as reasons to overlook the abuse of human rights in certain regions of the world by powerful nations with capacity to make a difference in the protection of these, fairly novel, rights. Multiple political movements, leaders, even religions, have pursued and created systems in which human rights as we know them are systematically abused and violated in name of “the greater good” of the country and their own version of what society should be like. Are such greater goods and interests valid? Should we turn a blind eye to such abuses in the name of such greater goods and interests, even "sovereignty"? Why not?

The idea of the existence of rights that protect and guarantee the existence of individuals gained traction in the 18^th century and seeded the American Declaration of Independence. The likes of Locke and Burke laid the modern foundation upon which liberalism is built, culminating in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The adoption by the U.N. of the UDHR in 1948 was part of the apex of liberal thought and action that came in the aftermath of the allied victory in 1945 over the forces of illiberalism channeled through fascist ideology in World War II (more in my essay: Do Human Rights Matter?). The tide of liberalism that enveloped the world after WWII culminated with the collapse of the Soviet Union and what Fukuyama marked as “the end of history,” predicted by Marx, but with a different outcome than the one which that leading theorist of social communism thought would occur (more in my essay, in Spanish: "El final de la guerra fría").

What is liberalism if not the enshrining of the individual as the motor of society, the economy, and progress? If we believe that progress is beneficial for society (as the development of societies that have embraced liberal doctrine would seem to prove), then the potential of each individual must be protected and enhanced, their human capacity supported, their rights protected. To do so is to foster advancement, productivity, and progress. It is in “the greater good” of society and interests of humankind to do so: protect human rights.

For privileged elites, leaders and rulers it is natural to believe that the system they created, know, and have thrived in is the best possible system. After all, they have achieved success in such a system; no need for change, no need for progress, no need for renewal. In fact, if progress has been made to the detriment of their privilege, it must be stopped and reversed. This is a fundamental paradigm of authoritarian rule and tyrants. Human rights within such a paradigm are an unnecessary luxury. The churn of renewal and progress is anathema to tyranny and even hegemony, so human rights are deemed inconvenient.  Individuals are expendable, power and sway over the masses is what counts. This was true during medieval Europe and is just as true in today’s Russia, China, North Korea, and Venezuela.

That peak of liberalism towards the end of last century generated a backlash from those who believed their privileges were threatened by progress.  We now are living in a world in which authoritarian rule is condoned and even celebrated as much as it was towards the beginning of last century, a dangerous precedent. But the idea that human rights are expendable or inconvenient in order to achieve the greater good is a contradiction and unsustainable for any significant length of time. Leaders, tyrants, even countries are transitory, humanity is not. The improvement of health conditions, the reduction of poverty, the dignity of life, and the fairness of justice can only be achieved when human rights are protected equally. Yes, it is a liberal idea and, yes, it is an idea that leads to progress; but such liberalism and progress have created the greatest standards of living that humanity has known in all of its history and is the only proven system that has the potential to create even greater living conditions for more people around the world.

Why should we care about human rights? Why should we care about breathing? Because of life.

Carlos J. Rangel
December 2023

The author with Elizabeth Sanchez Vegas, President of ISHR

AFTERWORD - MYTHS OF OUR HUMANITY (SELECTIONS)

In a few months my forthcoming book "Myths of Our Humanity: Tales from Forever for Today" will be available to the general public. While as the title indicates, the book is intended to have a broader attention span than ephemeral current events, I hope insights into our daily grind can be gleamed from the following advance-copy passages from the Afterword, which seem particularly relevant at this political moment in the U.S.:  

=====

Some time ago I was invited to participate in a political consultancy team working for a presidential candidate in a Latin American country. As is often the case in the region, a broad spectrum of liberal democracy leaning political organizations were pitted against a broad spectrum of populists labeling themselves (or accusing their opponents) of being "nationalists," socialists," or other such names to that effect, depending on the political base they were seeking to sway. It was clear to us, once again, that while populists base their standard story on an easily conveyed narrative of "facts" deeply rooted in emotion with a scant sprinkling of reason, liberal democratic forces typically struggle to convey complex ideas rooted in reason with a light sprinkling of emotion,

This is not only the case in Latin America. It is a normal human tendency to aspire simple order and control rather than complex messiness and uncertainty. Strongmen (not always men) can use the institutions of democracy to achieve and keep political power with a promise to end the uncertainty and restore order. Over the last twenty years we have seen a great illiberal wave sweeping across the globe, a likely reaction to that font of messiness and uncertainty which is democratic liberalism, and which had its peak in the early 90’s —Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History” era.

====

In a previous book I have written about the power of populism, with its own seductive narrative: the promise to redress a heterogeneity of grievances, gathered under a mantle of general malaise, with simple ideas, catchy slogans, and strong, almost iconic symbols, colors and even garments. [1] As a counter narrative, I argued, the promises liberalism can make are attractive when articulated: individual dignity, equal and fair treatment under the law, equal opportunity, and protection of private property--promises which one way or another are often made by all candidates during democratic election campaigns while enjoying local foods, kissing babies, and loving mom and dad.

In that same book, I propose to define liberty as a condition under which a human being has the opportunity to fulfill his or her own potential as such. Liberty is at the essence of free will; it is the ideological core of liberal democracy. In the present book I juxtapose through its collection of "vignettes" liberty against its rival: authoritarianism -- a condition under which human beings survive and thrive dependent on the opportunistic whims of a regime whose ideological core is that power is rightfully and legitimately concentrated in its leader. 

===

Left and right ideology is purposefully clouded by their adherents as a means tu sustain their political survival and self-preservation. The ideological basis of these factions and their ultimate goals can be traced back to the French Revolution era, where the so-called left championed rights to opportunity, in all its possible manifestations, while the so-called right championed property rights, again, with all its possible implications. A true liberal democracy system seeks to balance the rights of opportunity and those of property to achieve the best possible outcomes for society. In other words, for democracy to exist and thrive, so must the political alternance and permanent creative churn of left and right. 

But the pursuit for ultimate political self-preservation, i.e., achieving and maintaining power at all costs, will lead to other outcomes. Right and left partisans may prefer to heat up antagonistic rhetoric, each faction accusing the other of being the anti-democratic one, the one that "will destroy our country and our values as we know and love them," with the corollary that to protect the essence of the nation the opponents (and eventual dissidents) must be silenced, canceled, eliminated... Polarization ensues, extremism gains ground, and positive social outcomes diminish. ...

It is important to point out that when a subset of these opposing factions engages in truly antidemocratic behavior using their power to subvert norms and institutions, [2] and even incurring in political violence, such behavior is sometimes resisted (heroically) by their own associates and peers instead of (treasonously) collaborated with. But the labels of treason, loyalty, cowardice and bravery are results dependent and, as such, and as they relate to societal transformation, are explored in the fifth vignette, "Petrified." In this manner ... the intention of the book is to explore what makes that messy institutional mechanism we call democracy tick and stick, and the roots it may have in our enduring ancient and familiar tales.          

            [1] "Populism, or the collective blindness which leads people to the abyss," in La Venezuela imposible: Cronicas y reflexiones sobre democracia y libertad (2017), Alexandria Publishing House, Miami, FL.

            [2] For example, by members of the Polish Law and Justice party in 2015, subverting constitutional and political norms to drive democratic institutions and society to the extreme right, or by the Morena coalition trying to do the same in Mexico towards the extreme left in 2022.

------------

This book is a major project I have been working o for several years now hoping it will be of useful interest. It will be published simultaneously in English and Spanish.  

 

SOME OF THE PEOPLE...

“You can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time; but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”

Attributed to Abraham Lincoln

Democracy Destroys Itself

Liberal democracy is a social condition under which the rule of law prevails over the rule of men and in which mechanisms to renew and convey the consent of the governed are in place, such as an accepted electoral system and free speech. Renewal is an intrinsic trait to this condition, naturally generating questioning and creativity of ideas and methods. This trait dovetails with the economic system of capitalism, which also thrives on renewal or, as Schumpeter coined it, creative destruction.

This serendipitous match between the political condition of liberal democracy and the economic system of capitalism has generated the greatest rise in general wellbeing in the history of civilization. It has allowed the knowledge accumulated in the previous 6,000 years to generate a world in which, over the span of 300 years, famine, disease and ignorance have diminished to a fraction of their previous prevalence. Advances in science and technology, widespread access to education and health care and increased standards of living worldwide have occurred as a direct result of liberal democracy and its economic cousin, capitalism. This combination has proven to have the greatest capacity to unleash throughout society the potential of its individuals to harvest the increased opportunities offered to them.

But democracy and capitalism represent a threat to continued privilege, because they are inherently renewal mechanisms –and no one wants to get “renewed.” Privilege can come in many forms: political, economic, social and racial, or any and all combinations of these. When privilege uses power to assert itself politically, it undermines the creative dynamics of democracy. Capitalism creates economically powerful entities and individuals by its process of market renewal and innovation. These entities and individuals will likewise use their power to protect their earned privilege by undermining the very same processes and free markets that allowed them to rise, manipulating markets to their advantage. These actions are triggered by the expected self-preservation instincts.

The nature of democracy and capitalism as mechanisms for renewal and innovation is what makes them inherently weak and subject to continuous attacks by those that have used democracy and capitalism to accumulate power and privilege. Just like the combination of democracy and capitalism fosters opportunity to create innovation and shared prosperity, the combination of power and privilege actively stifles such opportunity to create innovation and prosperity.

I begin one of my books, “La Venezuela imposible,” with the assertion that, historically, democracy is not a natural condition for society. It is fiction to believe that even today, in “advanced” western societies such as the U.S. or Western Europe, democracy is favored by everyone; even less so in other societies more distant from Western tradition and history. As illiberal regimes gain strength, the threat to a condition that has fostered opportunities for growth and prosperity throughout the world becomes an ominous, growing reality.

---

A Question of Goals – “Death to Intelligence!”

The United States faces a dilemma; a dilemma having to do with its goals as a society. In a recent essay by Gerald Russello, on the positions on conservative and postmodern politics, it is stated that politics is the way we speak to one another to identify and further the common good—our goals. For years, that was the case in the United States and many countries under its influence, all gazing at that “city upon a shining hill” which President Reagan spoke about, referencing Reverend Winthrop. It was a simple goal encapsulated in a universal “American Dream,” mostly understood as a proper home, education, health and security, all part of a growing middle class in which our children would lead better lives than the ones we had. That was the understood common good. Partisan discourse revolved around the ways and paths to achieve such a goal, not on the goal itself.

The condition has changed. “Grievance politics,” groups of all sorts fighting to preserve, assert or appropriate privilege have arisen to pursue disparate goals for society, rending a cleavage manifested in "political correctness," "cancel culture," or paramilitary groups and outlandish conspiracies. Those who  believe in democracy as a renewal mechanism to achieve the common good are being overtaken by those who use democracy to accumulate power and maintain their interests. In the United States this looks like the unimpeded accumulation of monopoly power by legacy corporations, “systemic racism” and misogyny in many government and private bureaucracies, and the use of electoral sleight of hand to impose minority rule. The goal does not seem anymore to create opportunities to achieve the American Dream for all; it seems to be to attain and retain power in order to defend the privilege of some by impeding the creative forces of renewal.

Polling would suggest that approximately 40 to 60% (adding “right” and “left”) of Americans are comfortable undermining the mechanisms of democracy as long as their own interests and privileges are protected – or believe they will be. This is one explanation for the current wide range of support for Donald Trump (it is not only “white men without college degrees”) from a steady core of the electorate.

Privilege seeks to eliminate opportunities for potential rivals, leading to policies weakening a basic compact of liberal democracy: prosperity rises by growing a strong middle class. Limiting education and health care, for example, perpetuates cycles of poverty for the underprivileged by hampering their opportunity to compete and prosper, become part of the middle class and fulfill the “American Dream.” Limits to opportunity ensure privilege is retained.

In previous iterations of the illiberal condition, we see more open and brazen attacks on education culure and culture, as in the notorious assertion by Francoist General José Millán Astray: “¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la muerte!” (“Death to intelligence! Long live death!”) during his infamous exchange with Miguel de Unamuno at Salamanca University in 1936, at the beginning of the Spanish Civil War. Or the notorious line in the play by Hanns Johst: "When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun" (Schlageter, 1933). While in the swing toward a condition of liberal democracy it seems as if such positions are "left behind," the legacies of intolerance live on in any society as a seed ready to sprout anytime.

----

Finding "Some of the People"

A key contribution of capitalism is the embrace of win-win propositions in transactions. Adam Smith explained that when a customer buys a loaf of bread, both the baker and the customer obtain something they want. General wellbeing (GDP) increases and commercial laws and contracts are codified from that simple idea. This was contrary to previous practice, in which strongman rule commonly prevailed, albeit somtimes also codifed but not neutrally, with justice not so blind. Win-lose propositions are the basis of mercantile societies and, by extension, communism. The wealth of a nation was measured by its accumulated treasure relative to the treasure of others, not by the number of transactions creating shared wellbeing within it. Many of the privileged subscribe to the idea that if others gain privilege, they themselves will lose it, their treasure, so they do everything in their power to prevent it from happening.

When democracy is understood as an environmental condition (as opposed to an “evolved” form of government) which allows in its better iterations rising prosperity and wellbeing – win-win propositions –the swings of nations from authoritarian rule, to democracies, to oligarchies and other governance arrangements are better understood. It is misleading to categorize “mature” or “developed” politics or governmental institutions, implying linear progressive improvement.  Forms of governance swing back and forth among various types, some more conducive to allowing the common good and some more intent on protecting privileges for the few: the insiders, the partisans, the members, the race, etc. - a populist promise even if it means totalitarian crackdowns.

So, how many of the people are “fooled all of the time” into believing that a society based on renewal and win-win propositions is a lie, contrary to their interest? That a nation works best when ruled by a permanent minority of “smart” people, in a gerrymandered (or fraudulently) vote into office in some cases, and appointed (or self-appointed), for life in others? And how many of the people are “fooled all of the time” into believing that liberal democracy is aligned with their interests, in pursuit of an abstract, imperfect and unattainable common good for all (“The American Dream”) --and that their fellow citizens believe in democracy too?

Polling would suggest that numbers probably hover around 40% for each of those groups in the United Ststes, probably similar in other countries. The remaining 20% are the ones all sides try to “fool some of the time.” But because illiberal forces are opposed to, and deft at managing to their advantage, “free and fair elections” and free speech, they have a better chance of fooling “persuadables” and keeping the apathetic on their couches (or voting meaninglessly), than those promoting liberal democracy values; or they just have a better knack for stealing elections. That is why the condition of liberal democracy is permanently fragile.

----

"Venceréis, pero no convenceréis"

The 2020 election in the United States is significant as a shining, prime exemplar of these issues. This election is unusual because it brings forth a broad coalition of forces that believe in liberal democracy and supports the alternative to a president who has repeatedly demonstrated does not. The usual figures on the left that would be expected to oppose a Republican president, no matter who, do not make this coalition noteworthy. Some of these even have suspect liberal democracy credentials themselves and do not risk much by their opposition to the current president. 

What is unusual is the large number of long time Republicans and conservative leaders and figures that recognize the threat that the incumbent and those supporting him represent to norms, institutions and even laws supporting the condition of democracy in the United States; what is unusual is that former members of all administrations, even of this one, have voiced their concern about the distortion of institutions that protect government and the people, such as law enforcement, intelligence and security, justice and others; what is unusual is that pundits in administration friendly media such as FOX or the Washington Times -some with power and some since sidelined- or traditionally conservative writers in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal or The New York Times, question the democratic integrity of the president; and what is unusual is that former members of the inner circle, of the administration at large and of the Republican party as a whole are willing to risk excoriation, careers and livelihood to raise the alarms in this matter.

The illiberal coalition in power knows it is in the minority and behaves accordingly. It rushes legislation and appointments that strengthen their long term privilege and slows down those which do not. The coalition in power is doing whatever it can to interfere with free and fair elections. The coalition in power behaves as if it knows it is in the losing side of an election, which polls and demographics strongly suggest. In my book, Campaign Journal 2008, I point out that a successful professional politician is one capable of building broad coalitions towards a goal which he or she strongly believes in and can "sell" to others, maximizing results. The illiberal coalition in power seems uninterested in the idea of goals or broad coalitions, or "selling" ideas to earn votes and supporters, only in the idea of protecting privilege.

I return to the exchange between General Millán and Unamuno in the University of Salamanca in search for clarity on the dangers faced by the United State in the democracy crucible in which this condition is always forged anew. I return to those words from a scholar that universally ring true as a warning against interest above nation, and were a warning about the horrors of the Spanish Civil War about to be unleashed upon that country:

"You will win, because you have enough brute force. But you will not convince. In order to convince it is necessary to persuade, and to persuade you will need something that you lack: reason and right in the struggle. I see it is useless to ask you to think of Spain. I have spoken."

Perhaps, then, democracy shall not perish from this earth after all.