What Elon Musk's 3rd Party Could Mean
Given our nation's history, it's easy to dismiss the idea of a third political party as meaningless, but not so fast.
For many years, polling regarding the approval ratings of Congress has generally been abysmal. Most recently, at the end of June, Gallup reported the overall Congressional approval rating as 23%, and it's no better when you look at the two parties individually.
In late June, an NPR/PBS News/Marist poll, Congressional Republicans reached a record high approval rating of 36%, since pollsters began asking this partisan question in 2011. For Republicans, their approval over this time had previously only been as high as 33%, and as low as 19% in August, 2015.
For Democrats, they are currently at a four year low of 30% approval in a recent YouGov/Economist poll, though they have performed consistently better than Republicans historically, even reaching net positive ratings on several occasions. The most recent incidence of this was in early 2021, when approval ratings for Congressional Democrats reached as high as 44%, and when compared to a 42% disapproval rating at the time, left them at +2% overall.
Just in looking at the Democrats, even when polling is directed only toward Democratic voters, the approval rating is currently only sitting at 60%. Given all the different polling we are inundated with in modern times, a 60% approval rating sounds pretty good, but when it's the results of a party specific poll, that's a little like asking only your family members what they think of Mom or Dad, and if only 60% of the family holds a positive view, it's probably less than impressive.
For most of us, it doesn't take polling to tell us that people are generally not happy with Congress, generally, and how many of us ever think our own party is doing enough, or truly representing our interests and wishes? The reality is that for many, “government” generally is not viewed very favorably, and Congress takes the brunt of that disdain.
Now, I would argue that this is often an unfair assessment, most often driven by a lack of understanding of how government works, or even how it's supposed to work, because the reality is that the last thing we should want is a government that swings wildly one way or another, based on little more than voter sentiment in a handful of Congressional districts in places most have never even passed through, or even thought about visiting. In fact, the founders intended for our system of government to be measured and slow moving, not reactionary to the passions of the moment, but rather making steady, methodical progress toward the stated goal of a “more perfect union.”
I would further argue that today's purely partisan behavior is the root of the dissatisfaction, because very little actual governing takes place, and has been replaced by displays of raw political power that always leaves half or more of the country feeling like they aren't represented at all, and are left to just hope their chosen party succeeds in obstructing the opposing party who happens to have accumulated power at the moment.
What I believe we SHOULD want is a government that meets the needs of the people, not one that imposes our beliefs on those that we disagree with, but currently, that's not the way enough voters think, and this just fuels the general dissatisfaction most feel with the government generally, and Congress specifically. We see it in the dramatic changes to our country over the past few months, and globally, we've seen it with things like Brexit.
If you're familiar with my writing, you know that I often argue that “the government” has three basic functions:
To keep people physically safe.
To keep people socially free.
To keep people economically secure.
I remind you of these points to give you a lens through which to view the changes, including the most recent Republican only legislation passed, but also the avalanche of executive orders we've seen since January. When you apply those three fundamental purposes to any of these actions, have any of them furthered those goals? Going back to Brexit, did that further any of those three goals for the people of Britain? The answer, I can easily argue, is no. Exercises of raw political power to appease a passionate voter base rarely, if ever, have a lasting, positive effect for the people as a whole.
And that notion brings me back to Elon's stated intentions of forming a third party. In a nation where the majority of voters are dissatisfied with their government, where passions are running as high as any time I can recall in the past 50 years, the political environment is ripe for this kind of initiative. Not a day goes by that I don't hear a claim of “both sides are bad”, or “both parties have become too extreme”. And, honestly, the idea of “both sides are bad” has the potential to make things so much worse than they've already become.
Elon Musk, though you need to take everything he says with a grain of salt, has at least expressed an idea that could prove to be very impactful, but there's no way of accurately predicting if the impact would be positive or negative, as history is rife with examples of both. Let me explain.
First, our electoral system is simply not set up to account for a third party in most cases. We can look to structural elements created by lawmakers over the years, or those rooted firmly in the Constitution, though ironically, the founders did not really address the rise of political parties. For the former, Georgia is a great example. Under their state law, elections for statewide offices have a requirement that in order to win, a candidate must receive 50% +1 of the total votes cast in an election. This law was originally created as a means to reduce the chances that a black candidate could win, at a time whete neither major party in the South would dare nominate a minority candidate. While this requirement doesn't make it technically impossible for a 3rd Party to win, it makes it effectively impossible when you consider the odds against a 3rd Party candidate not only receiving the most votes, but receiving more votes than all other candidates combined.
Even with the demographic shifts within Georgia, the white, non-hispanic population sits at 53.2%, whereas the black population is at 32.3%. What this means is that if, as the drafters of the law assumed, people will vote for a candidate of their own race more often than not, a 3 or more person race where no one achieves the 50% + 1 requirement (as is almost always the case in situations with three or more candidates) will frequently end with two white candidates as the top two vote getters, and leading to a run off election with just those two white candidates. Further, though, even if a black candidate manages to receive the most votes, when two white candidates split the white vote nearly equally, they still don't win, but instead are pitted in a head to head, black versus white race in a run-off election, where they will be at a more than 20% statistical disadvantage. Now, in recent years, with party identity often superceding race as the primary driver for voter decisions, we have seen electoral success achieved by individuals such as Senator Rafael Warnock, but it actually took winning two elections (on top of his own party primary) to achieve it.
It's this partisan behavior that will serve to quell the chances of any 3rd Party candidate in a place like Georgia, because first, they must beat at least one of the two major parties to reach a run-off election (because the possibility of them receiving the required 50% + 1 of all votes a 3+ party race is remarkably implausible), and then beat “the establishment” head to head. Nothing is truly impossible, but it would be an uphill battle to say the least and would likely require a broadly appealing centrist running against very extreme major party candidates. Given recent history, I have a hard time envisioning a Musk supported candidate having that kind of broad centrist appeal to voters when Elon Musk is probably the second most polarizing figure in politics today.
Now, with the latter structural obstacle, the Constitution, and more specifically, the Electoral College, any candidate to win the presidency must achieve greater than 50% of electoral votes to win, making the most likely outcome for a highly successful 3rd Party candidate a race with no winner. Even to do that, however, the 3rd Party candidate would not simply need to do well generally, but rather win at least a handful of states outright. They wouldn't necessarily need to win so-called swing states, but they would need to accumulate enough electoral votes overall to prevent the more broadly appealing candidates from reaching 270 electoral votes, and with the winner-take-all system employed almost everywhere, that means winning states outright, not just running strong. Additionally, it would require the two major party candidates to essentially split the remaining electoral votes equally. That last part is what prevented segregationist George Wallace from really effecting the outcome in 1968. He managed to win over 13% of the vote nationally, and even took 5 states in the South, for a total of 45 electoral votes, but the Democrats were particularly weak that year with LBJ deciding not to run for re-election, and Hubert Humphrey being trounced by Nixon nationally. Had Johnson chosen to run, it's possible that the election may have had no winner, but even then, the decision would have been thrown to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation would have one vote, and no delegation was controlled by Wallace's American Independent Party, so his chances would have been very very slim to say the least.
Ironically, had Wallace been successful in forcing the election to the House in 1968, he would have likely had the opposite impact of his segregationist goals because Democrats controlled the House delegation of 26 states, whereas Republicans only controlled 19 House delegations, with 5 being evenly split. That means most likely, Humphrey would have most likely ended up winning the Presidency despite being effectively trounced by Nixon in the popular vote and the electoral college, and Humphrey was far less friendly to Wallace's cause.
Additonally, the man widely considered the most succcessful 3rd Party candidate in modern times, Ross Perot in 1992, with 19% of the national popular vote, ended up winning no electoral votes. In fact, while there is no way of knowing for sure, all he managed to do was make the Republican candidate he most closely aligned with a sure fire loser by picking off millions of critical votes that could have helped Bush hold off Bill Clinton.
3rd Party candidates have been equal opportunity spoilers for Democrats too, with Jill Stein and the Green Party crippling Hillary Clinton in 2016, and Ralph Nader possibly helping topple Al Gore in 2000, both helping the candidates they were most opposed to win.
Finally, when you factor in the challenges of ballot access, both in expense and boots on the ground, required for a 3rd Party to even be on the general election ballot in every state, the idea of a 3rd Party doing anything more than causing the party they most strongly oppose to win is a non-starter when it comes to the presidency, at least as long as the electoral college remains in use.
The Election of 1800
There is an alternative that seems more likely. Historically speaking, the Election of 1800 might provide the greatest example of another possibility. As most know, the Democratic and Republican parties have not always been the two major parties in this country despite the fact that it's all current voters have really ever known. Over our nearly 250 year history, many have come and gone, but none have gone down in flames quite as spectacularly as the Federalists in 1800.
While there are always a lot of reasons, some more impactful than others, the Federalists might be the closest parrellel to the modern Republican Party, and the total takeover by the MAGA wing. In the late 1700's, the Federalists controlled everything, with a sizable majority in Congress and John Adams in the White House. They imploded. While most probably know John Adams as a primary figure among the founders, and a patriot, who played a major role in our nation's founding, once he gained the presidency, I would suggest he was less than heroic (though history taught in American schools doesn't really cover the dark side of John Adams). It isn't so much the partisan views he held, but rather what he did with power once he attained it. Aided by a complicit Congress under the control of his Federalist Party, he was able to enact a series of four significant laws in 1798, to further his agenda. Now, on the surface, they were portrayed as addressing the crisis of the day, the French Revolution, and America's position on the issue, that's not what they ultimately served.
Backing up just a bit, for historical context, the French Revolution put the United States in an awkward position because without the aid and support of the French monarchy, we quite likely may not have been successful in our own pursuit of independence, but that monarchy was under seige back home by the late 1700's with the beginning of the populist movement that evolved into the French Revolution (and the ultimate executions of the King and Queen).
During this time, Britain, who we obviously had a complicated relationship with at the time, began as neutral toward the French Revolution, but as it grew more violent, with the afformentioned executions of the monarchs, Britain transitioned to strong opposition of the new French leadership under Napolean. For the most part, they feared the spread of the revolution to their own country, and despite an initial welcoming toward the advancement of a more democratic system, they weren't quite ready to give up their own monarchy, especially not with guillotines involved. As a result, Britain became directly involved, militarily, beginning with naval blockades and continuing through 20 years of wars with Napolean led France.
Here in the United States, loyalties were split dramatically. We had many who still supported Britain, despite the recently fought Revolutionary War, we had many who supported the French monarchy, not forgetting their support during the Revolutionary War, and we had plenty who closely aligned with the cause of the French Revolutionists. Adams, similarly to Britain, initially welcomed the idea of revolution in France and its goal of achieving a more democratic republic, versus a tyrannical monarchy, but he began to fear it in the same way as violence escalated and chaos ensued. Ultimately, he feared that sort of violent uprising spreading to the United States, just like Britain feared the same for their nation.
The difference between Adams and Britain, however, is that while Britain engaged in military action, Adams sought a diplomatic solution. Opinions in the United States were strong and divided, however, and Adams faced much criticism as a result…and that is where he made his ultimate mistake.
While his diplomatic efforts ultimately proved successful, his handling of the debate (and opposition to his approach) were not handled well. He used his power as the President, along with his party's control of Congress to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts. They were a series of four laws, including:
Here's a breakdown of the four acts:
Increased the residency requirement for American citizenship from 5 to 14 years.
Allowed the president to deport any non-citizen deemed dangerous.
Allowed the president to deport or imprison non-citizens from countries at war with the U.S.
Made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials.
Sound familiar yet?
Of the four, only the Alien Enemies Act remains in effect today, and while it's been used infrequently, it's never led to a positive outcome in most people's opinions, whether it be FDR's internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, or Donald Trump using it to disappear immigrants to an El Salvadoran gulag without due process and despite court orders to the contrary. Back in 1798, however, with all four in effect, we began to see the first attacks (“use of executive authority” for supporters of this kind of action) against immigrants, political opponents (including fellow citizens), and really anyone who sympathized with a cause opposed by the President.
Keep in mind, that in 1798, while the 1st Amendment obviously existed, as did the Supreme Court, it wasn't until 1803 that the notion of “judicial review” was established by SCOTUS with their ruling in Marbury V Madison. In other words, there was no check on the constitutionality of these laws, nor against the repeated violations of the 1st Amendment by President Adams as he routinely used his power to investigate, and even imprison, political opponents, including regular citizens and even newspaper editors, who publicly opposed his handling of the French Revolution or any other issue. As it turns out, the American people were not happy with having their rights to speak freely and protest their government forcibly suppressed. Who knew?
So, long story short, Adams and the entire Federalist Party responsible for both the creation and enforcement of these highly unpopular acts, were absolutely destroyed in the Election of 1800, with Adams not only losing his re-election bid to Thomas Jefferson, but to the Federalist Party as a whole being dispatched to the trash heap of history, and despite a brief resurgence during the War of 1812, they were gone by the 1820's, despite being the party of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and the afformentioned John Adams. In other words, when a political party oversteps their bounds and abuses their power against the will of enough Americans, their own history and past accomplishments will not save them.
In current times, I would just suggest that it doesn't matter if today's GOP refers to themselves as “the Party of Lincoln”, or even that Reagan helped win the Cold War, the fact of the matter is that there's ALWAYS a red line that a political party must remain aware of, one that if crossed, will lead to their political death. It remains to be seen if the Trump led GOP has crossed that line with enough people or not, but I would certainly argue they are walking all over it as we speak.
And this leads me to the second way Elon Musk could potentially lead to a major political shift. The reality is that the current Republican Party is not one built upon a single core governing philosophy, nor a tightly bound group of voters offering a singular philosophy. They are a coalition of many different idological groups, and even with their pied piper, Donald Trump, threading the needle to bind them all together, in order to win elections, they need every single one of these factions, as well as both high voter turnout and a reduced Democratic voter turnout (along with a variety of structural advantages such as the electoral college, a hugely undemocratic Senate with 2 Senators per state, regardless of population disparity, extreme partisan gerrymandering, unrestrained campaign finance opportunities, and control of SCOTUS).
Now, we all have our views of each of the groups I am about to mention, and I know I certainly do, but setting those feelings aside, the factual reality is that in order to win elections, especially state-wide or national elections, the Republican Party, as currently constructed, needs to win a vast majority of each of these groups.
Limited government proponents.
Deficit hawks.
White Nationalists.
Libertarians.
Evangelical Christians.
Pro-Life.
Anti-LGBTQ.
Neo-Nazi/White Supremacist types.
Corporate/Trickle Down Economics/Tax Cut types.
Anti-Social Safety Net types.
Anti-Immigration.
Protectionists/Anti-Free Trade.
2nd Amendment advocates.
Traditional “Family Values”.
Tech Bros types.
Anti-Science/Climate Deniers.
Rural/Farmers
There are likely others I am not thinking of off the top of my head, and people may find their group being associated with other groups on this list offensive, but it's awfully hard to deny they all predominantly vote Republican.
One can also argue if the current GOP even represents some of these groups, for example deficit hawks. In that instance, GOP leadership has (for the last 50 years) exploded the budget deficit every time they've had the political power to do so, and despite the claims that tax cuts pay for themselves through economic growth, it's literally never actually happened. And with farmers, between Trump trade wars crippling exports and increasing the cost of vital materials, like Potash from Canada, or cutting food programs like SNAP and USAID, or not addressing climate change leading to both extreme droughts and floods, how long will farmers keep voting Red?
At the end of the day, however, regardless of whether you find my list offensive or not, the reality is, for example, not all Republicans are white supremacists, far from it, BUT every white supremacist who votes, tends to vote Republican today.
Now, given that Donald Trump won the presidency with less than 50% of the vote, and the votes of less than 25% of U.S. citizens, the margin for error is not great, so, presuming Musk can field a viable party alternative in some key areas, it's reasonable to also assume that he could have potentially detrimental effects on the Republican Party's future because he doesn't have to peel off a ton of voters to cripple GOP chances. Whether Musk has the attention span to build a party or not is certainly a reasonable question, but whether he has the means and platform or not isn't really debatable.
The Most Likely Outcome of a Musk Party
I will give Elon Musk credit here. Based on his statements so far, he has the right idea if his goal is to influence our future. For all the reasons I've described, becoming a real player nationally (a viable 3rd Party Presidential candidate) or even in enough states and Congressional districts to control anything is a huge longshot and likely impossible. It's somewhat more likely that he could irreparably fracture the GOP and they fade away like the Federalists 200+ years ago (especially given Trump's abuses of power and Congressional Republicans aiding, abetting or simply ignoring it (along with ignoring the overwhelming graft and corruption).
BUT, given what he claims his goals are - winning a handful of House and Senate seats - it's possible that he could have an outsized influence over the government of this country, and that's an influence we should ALL fear.
First, while there isn't specific polling to this effect, at least not yet, the terrible approval ratings of both major parties in Congress seem to indicate their could be a strong appetite for “none of the above,” which is exactly what Musk's party would be offering.
Second, U.S. House election winners spent on average $2.8 million, so money is not an issue for a guy worth $400+ billion, along with some of his other Paypal Mafia buddies like Peter Thiel, and backed by the disasterous Citizens United freedom to buy elections, and ballot access becomes much easier when you're only talking about a few states. Add to those facts that a 3rd Party candidate would effectively circumvent the primary election system, and it's easy to see how he could be extremely competitive quickly.
The Senate is more of a challenge, but with an average campaign spend of around $26 million, money will not be the obstacle, nor would ballot access be. He would also still have the avoidance of primaries (and all that spending) advantage, and for every Georgia that has effectively blocked the possibility of 3rd Party candidates with electoral restrictions, there is an Alaska with ranked choice elections or California with their jungle primary system. The challenge would be simply finding centrist candidates in those places that could peel away enough voters from both parties to come out on top. I don't know if Musk could accomplish “centrism” at this point, but with the majority of voters looking for anyone other than a traditional Republican or Democrat, it's certainly a good possibility he can, especially with his social media platform to promote all of it.
Amd that brings me to the reason for fear. Given the near 50-50 split in both the Senate and the House, it simply doesn't take many seats in each to be loyal to Musk's whims to be able to block anything, and act as gatekeepers for anything that gets voted on. Issue by issue, the Musk Voting Bloc can singlehandedly determine the voting outcome of EVERY bill, by throwing their support behind whichever major party most closely aligns with Elon Musk's desires, and along the way, get that party to shape the details of every piece of legislation to align with his wants. After watching the backflips the GOP did to get Lisa Murkawski's vote last week, does anyone think they won't sell their sole to appease Elon's desires?
In fact, the only way to prevent utter tyranny of the Musk minority would be for Republicans and Democrats to align together in opposition to Musk, and what are the chances that those two caucuses would come together in that way? Germany's Parliament did it to block the modern day Nazi Party (the AfD, which unsurprisingly, Musk backed financially and publicly) from attaining power, but does anyone believe Democrats and MAGA Republicans can or would do the same? Parliaments build coalitions like that all the time, but not the U.S. Congress, yet that is exactly what a significant number of Americans long for.
In the end, the most plausible path for Elon Musk's 3rd Party, one that might get enough voter support based on current public sentiment, is also the most dangerous. Whether it kills MAGA or the GOP entirely is irrelevant because regardless of that, it WOULD absolutely make Elon Musk not only the richest man on the planet, but also give him more unilateral control over our country than anyone, including the President.
And all of that leaves us one massive step closer to the fever dream of guys like Curtis Yarvin, tech bros like Peter Thiel, and others who embrace fascism that want to see democracy die and be replaced with a single subservient dictator who is only accountable to the oligarchs, just like a CEO to the Board of Directors. To those folks, democracy is the obstacle that needs to be eliminated, and Musk's 3rd Party plan might just be the vehicle to make it happen.