I had many things I wanted to write about this week − stuff happening all over the place: AI, crypto, tech, energy, Ukraine, the Middle East, China, media, entertainment. I had already published a piece on the Musk/Trump skirmish, but the thing keeps shapeshifting like some awful science fiction creature, becoming louder and more dissonant with each outburst.
It is overwhelming the news cycle and needs constant refreshing. There is just so much in this story − it is, in some ways, the story of our times. And here we are again.
There are two questions we should ask ourselves. Trump and Musk are now at extreme odds. They used to be as one − a behemoth of power and money, now cleaved in two. Who do we want to triumph? You may wish the question to be swept aside by a hope for rapprochement or by an assumption that they can go their separate ways without consequences. But no − Musk accused Trump of being a paedophile. They are never going to be friends, even if the war goes quiet underground.
So choose. Whose worldview would you prefer to triumph? (Indulge me − you are not allowed to say neither.) And the second question is: who is going to come out on top in this fight (in which we all have a dog)?
What are we really choosing between? One represents the reality of political power (regardless of whether you like or dislike Trump), and the other represents the power of wealth and influence (specifically the influence of social media, where Musk rules). The outcome of this battle is much more important than a Hollywood-style gladiatorial spectacle. It is a pointer to where the future of democracy will lie, specifically as AI supercharges the online engines of influence.
Outrageous
Trump currently has two self-reinforcing public personas. One is TV and (particularly) at public rallies, where he has perfected the art of being outrageous, loud, controversial, boastful, performative. People obviously love it. And then there is social media − mostly
Truth Social and X, but with full knowledge that his posts will be reposted elsewhere. In them he is, well, outrageous, loud, controversial, boastful, performative.
His communications style is theatre in the service of entertaining an audience. Unlike some previous presidents, in his public communications substance takes a back seat − the objective is to fire up the crowd. (I am not suggesting that there is no substance − some of his advisors like Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, certainly have that in spades.) But Trump is not interested in explaining the details of trade deficits or budgetary trade-offs. He knows what his voting electorate wants. They want to feel good. They want to feel someone strong is in charge, and he gives them that.
Musk is cut from a similar cloth. His posts are, well, much like Trump’s and occasionally a little unhinged (one could argue the same of Trump). And guess what? His audience also loves it − 220 million of them, three times as many as the president. And as Musk tweeted on Friday: Trump will be gone in 2.5 years. Musk will be here for 40 or more. The message was clear − Musk’s influence will outlive Trump’s.
But to my eyes, Musk’s tweets (or at least the man himself) have deeper substance. Musk is well known for micromanaging − he knows the details, and Trump boasts of not sweating those details. It may not come through in Musk’s sometimes terse tweets, but he has far deeper knowledge on most subjects. And he has far higher favourability ratings (although that may have changed in the past couple of days as the Trump faithful fled his embrace).
So what is the difference in their worldviews? Clearly, they overlap here and there, like on some cultural matters and their common dislike of government regulation (although Musk has benefited greatly from it). But there are wide differences elsewhere. Trump is a nationalist; Musk is a globalist. Musk is grounded in the belief that technology can reshape humanity; Trump doesn’t seem to care much about that. Trump is suspicious of scientific consensus; Musk is not. Trump is a traditionalist (loves old industries like coal, pays at least surface respect to religion); Musk is not much interested in either. Trump is transactional; Musk is more aspirational, perhaps a little delusional (e.g. Mars).
Choose your man.
Musk faces a much tougher fight for survival than Trump. First, there are his companies. Tesla has screwed the pooch, as I (and numerous business commentators) have previously written. SpaceX could find itself locked out of its major client, the US government, although this is less likely (the US needs SpaceX as much as SpaceX needs its contracts). But from a personal perspective, Musk is likely to be a larger target.
Blunter
Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, put it subtly: “Do not doubt, don’t second-guess, and do not challenge the President of the United States Donald Trump.” Michael Wolff, the US political journalist interviewed on a recent Daily Beast podcast, is blunter − go against Trump and he will “kill you”. Not physically, of course. He points to Ron DeSantis as an example − a long line of casualties in the I-challenged-Trump hospital ward. Nobody survives, according to Wolff. Nobody.
It’s a difficult choice. Maybe we don’t need to make one. Because maybe nothing happens. Nothing at all. And we can ignore the whole thing as a playground tiff.
But I doubt it.
Image: reve.art
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend