Elon Musk's endorsement of Trump— other than the millions of dollars he’s plowing into the campaign— is a net negative for Trump. In part that’s because Musk’s public endorsement of a suggestion to replace democracy with a government led by “high-status males” is not just dangerous, but starting to worry normal people. It reflects a worldview fundamentally at odds with democratic principles, based on equality, inclusivity and the rule of law— all values antithetical to authoritarian narcissists like Musk and Trump. By promoting the idea that only “high testosterone alpha males” and neurodivergent individuals are capable of free thought and should therefore have exclusive control over governance, Musk is aligning himself with a toxic and exclusionary ideology that resonates with alt-right and authoritarian movements… but no one else.
Ariana Baio reported that in Musk’s formulation, “women or ‘low T men’ would not be welcome” to participate in governance. “On Sunday, Musk re-posted a screenshot of the theory— which appears to have been conceived on 4chan in 2021... The theory, written by an anonymous user, suggests that the only people able to think freely are ‘high [testostrone] alpha males’ and ‘aneurotypical people,’ and that these ‘high status males’ should run a ‘Republic’ that is ‘only for those who are free to think. People who can’t defend themselves physically (women and low T men) parse information through a consensus filter as a safety mechanism,’ the post reads. ‘Only high T alpha males and aneurotypical people (hey autists!) are actually free to parse new information with an objective is this true? filter,’ it adds. ‘This is why a Republic of high status males is best for decision making. Democratic, but a democracy only for those who are free to think.’”
Theories like this, which promote hegemonic masculinity, are often criticized for being sexist, exclusionary, not realistic and “toxic.” They are popular in alt-right communities.
“Interesting observation,” Musk said, in response to the post.
The screenshot of the theory was uploaded to Twitter by an account called “AutismCapital” which often posts memes that appeal to right-wing individuals and support Musk’s endeavors.
It claimed the theory was “also known as the Reich effect”—seemingly a reference to Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor, who wrote an op-ed in The Guardian last week claiming that Musk is “out of control” and needs to be stopped.
When Reich says that Musk must be stopped, he’s speaking to the broader concern that Musk's influence, especially through his control of Twitter, is being used to undermine democracy and that Musk's unchecked power has been leading to the spread of dangerous ideas that erode public trust in democratic institutions and fuel extremist ideologies. It’s why the Brazilian Supreme Court unanimously approved shutting down Twitter in that country— a duty to protect society from a predator that neither Britain’s nor America’s political leaders have had the guts to do.
Musk’s apparent support for such a crackpot theory will continue to embolden those who seek to replace democratic governance with an elitist, authoritarian system. And this isn't just a theoretical concern; the spread of such ideas leads to real-world consequences, including the destabilization of democratic norms and the rise of violent extremism.
I’m thinking that, in essence, Reich's call to “stop” Musk would be a multifaceted approach: regulating Twitter to prevent the spread of harmful misinformation, holding him accountable for actions that threaten democracy, as well as challenging the ideas he promotes through public discourse and political action (what we trying to do here at DWT and what Reich does as well. Failing to address Musk's normalization of fascism is already having dire consequences for the future of democracy. There’s a need for stronger anti-trust actions and the breakup of Big Tech, rather than just incrementally regulating predators like Musk, including forcing the sale of key assets or splitting companies to reduce the concentration of power. Twitter should be a public utility, subject to stricter public oversight, if not outright nationalization, shifting control from private hands to the public, ensuring that the platform serves democratic rather than private interests.
No one who reads DWT is going to be surprised that we back the idea of introducing measures that limit the accumulation of extreme wealth, such as wealth taxes or even caps on personal fortunes, which would reduce the political power that individuals like Musk wield. There should be no billionaires. While some of these ideas do push the boundaries of what democracies typically do, they underscore the seriousness of the issue. The core challenge remains how to act decisively without undermining the very democratic values that need protecting.
Remember, Musk is not just a private citizen expressing opinions online; he is one of the world's most powerful people, with significant control over major platforms, technologies and narratives. When someone with his level of influence engages with or amplifies extremist ideas, the potential for real-world harm increases substantially. His engagement with authoritarian ideas legitimizes and amplifies these views, giving them a veneer of credibility. His followers, numbering in the millions, may take his endorsements as validation, which could lead to the mainstreaming of extremist ideologies, including the spread of toxic masculinity, exclusionary ideologies and authoritarian perspectives that contribute to radicalization. Individuals who feel empowered by such ideas are more likely to engage in or support violence, believing they are justified in doing so to achieve their vision of a Republic led by “high-status males.” Repeated exposure to and normalization of these kind of anti-democratic ideas weaken public commitment to democracy. If people begin to believe that democracy is flawed and that only a select few are fit to govern, it undermines the fundamental principles of equality and shared governance that sustain democratic societies. Promoting the idea that only certain types of people are fit to govern fosters division and exclusion and reinforces harmful stereotypes and deepens societal rifts, which can lead to increased polarization and conflict.
The contrast between Trump's transactional embrace of “the poorly educated” and Musk's apparent endorsement of a government led by “high-status males” highlights a deep irony and potential conflict in their respective populist and elitist appeals. Trump's 2016 declaration, “We love the poorly educated,” was a clear nod to his base, many of whom felt neglected or looked down on by elites— especially after Hillary’s comments about deplorables. Trump tapped into a populist sentiment, positioning himself as the champion of ordinary people against a distant, condescending establishment. It was a strategic move to solidify support among voters who felt alienated by elites. Meanwhile, Musk's flirtation with the idea of governance by “high-status males” is nothing short of a belief in an elitist system where only the most “capable”— defined by certain arbitrary standards like testosterone levels— should have the right to govern. This is in direct contrast to Trump's populist rhetoric, which at least superficially rejects elitism and embraces the idea that anyone, regardless of education, can have a voice in governance. Musk might view Trump's statement as pandering— which it was— or as an example of the “consensus filter” he disparages in the theory he reposted. In the worldview Musk entertained, the “poorly educated” are unfit for decision-making, which is reserved for those he considers truly capable of independent, critical thought— as long as they’re not women, obviously an elitist perspective that dismisses out of hand the notion that democracy should involve everyone, regardless of their educational background or social status. The contrast underscores the tension within right-wing politics between populism and elitism. While Trump has often exploited populist rhetoric to rally support, figures like Musk seem to flirt with a more exclusionary, hierarchical view of society. The coexistence of these conflicting ideologies within the same political sphere reveals a deep and unresolved divide that could have significant implications for the future of right-wing movements.
Musk, clearly, favors forms of governance like oligarchy, plutocracy, aristocracy, timocracy, corporatocracy, and, probably most of all, technocracy (governance by technological “experts” and elites, leading the policies that prioritize efficiency over popular will), all concentrating power in the hands of a select few, prioritizing the interests of the elite over the general population and invariably leading to kleptocracy, where Trump’s faux populism and Musk’s elitism are bound to merge.These systems justify their existence by claiming that the elite are naturally or inherently better suited to govern, standing in stark contrast to democratic ideals, which emphasize that power should be derived from the consent of the governed.
And now he’s using a combination of AI and Twitter to shower Kamala and the Democrats with unhinged attacks. Yesterday, CNN reported that “Musk’s disdain for the Democratic Party was never subtle, but in recent weeks his commentary on the upcoming US presidential election and his attacks against Vice President Kamala Harris have intensified, aided by a crude use of burgeoning artificial intelligence technology. On Monday, Musk posted an AI-generated image on his social media platform that depicted Harris as a communist, wearing a red uniform complete with hammer and sickle emblazoned hat… which appeared to violate Twitter’s policy on manipulated content... By Tuesday afternoon, less than 24 hours after Musk shared the fake image and false statement depicting Harris as a communist, the post had been viewed nearly 60 million times, according to data from Twitter. Musk’s post suggesting women shouldn’t take part in democracy had been viewed more than 19 million times. Twitter did not respond to a CNN request for comment.”
Comments