By Jonah Goldberg
Thursday, December 26, 2024
In the wake of a successful effort to kill a year-end
spending bill and replace it with more limited legislation to keep the
government open, Elon Musk declared victory last
week on X (formerly Twitter), the social media platform he owns:
“Your actions turned a bill that
weighed pounds into a bill that weighed ounces!” he crowed. “You are the media
now. VOX POPULI VOX DEI.”
The stopgap funding measure will largely delay major
spending decisions until after Donald Trump’s inauguration, keep the government
open through the holidays, and at least temporarily delay the most indefensible
spending that was crammed into the scale-tipping bill. But those who believe
the indefensible spending won’t end up back in the budget are endearingly
optimistic.
The most interesting political takeaway from the drama is
that the Republican Party now has two masters with different goals. Musk’s
stated mission was to impose fiscal restraint and greater efficiency on
government (though his unstated motives are a matter of speculation). Trump’s
objective was to avoid the hassles of a debate over raising the government
borrowing limit early in his term, freeing him to rack up more debt through
spending and tax cuts.
Based purely on the political result, Musk won and Trump
lost. Although the bill does spend less than the earlier version, it does not
raise the debt ceiling.
A case can be made for both goals. I think Musk is
indisputably correct about the need to cut spending. And although I don’t want
Trump to be able to amass more debt, fights over the borrowing limit are
reckless because they put the full faith and credit of the United States in
doubt. The challenge for Republican legislators is that they are caught between
the agendas of two figures who are very popular on the right, and those
agendas—and perhaps others—are in conflict.
We’ll have to wait to see how the politics play out. In
the meantime, I also want to address the more philosophical problems with
Musk’s position.
First of all, literally weighing the value or profligacy
of a piece of legislation by the ounce, as Musk proposes, is not exactly
logical. The National Industrial Recovery Act—the foundational legislation of
the New Deal—comes in at an economical 18 pages, but that hardly gives one a
sense of its massive impact on the economy.
Then there’s the idea that Musk’s minor budget victory
proves his X followers are “the media now.” Huh?
The standard conservative complaint about traditional
media is that they mislead the public in the service of an ideological or
self-serving agenda. But Musk rallied his virtual mob with a host of false
claims
about the bigger spending bill. Now he is suggesting that misleading the public
in the service of the agenda of the owner of a media platform is a glorious
triumph. It’s certainly a triumph for if-you-can’t-beat-them-join-them
hypocrisy.
Lastly, Musk’s oft-repeated motto “Vox populi, vox dei”—“The
voice of the people is the voice of God”—is theological
nonsense. Its use by British Whigs to challenge monarchical power in the
18th century was politically defensible, but it doesn’t take a divinity degree
to understand that, taken literally, the phrase argues that God is subservient
to the passions and vicissitudes of public opinion. It’s very difficult to find
anything in the Old or New Testament to back up that idea.
If a poll were all it took to change God’s mind, Sodom
and Gomorrah would have been fine, Noah wouldn’t have needed a boat, and Jesus
wouldn’t have had to ask God to “forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
One of the earliest mentions of the Latin phrase is found
in the writings of Alcuin of
York, an adviser to Charlemagne. Alcuin told the first holy Roman emperor
to ignore such declarations of public godliness “since the riotousness of the
crowd is always very close to madness.”
Musk started using the phrase “Vox populi, vox dei”
to validate the verdicts of his own Twitter polls. When users voted to
reinstate Trump’s account two years ago, Musk declared that the
result he clearly wanted amounted to a divine statement. We can only guess what
this says about Musk’s God complex and its compatibility with his role as
Trump’s Alcuin.
But my main objection to Musk’s assertion is that it’s a
dangerous lie. The idea that the largest mob has God on its side is even more
pernicious than the notion that legislation should be measured in pounds.
No comments:
Post a Comment