Think Small, Elon
Consider Changing the Congressional Climate
If Elon Musk really wants to leave a lasting impact on our politics, he should put aside his dreams about the White House and emulate and improve the strategy employed by the Tea Party– elect a modest number of candidates who can effectively take control of the House of Representatives, which retains the power to take control of our system.
Recent history suggests it is near impossible to create a new national party that can elect a President in its first attempt. That would be like betting that the first rocket launch could put a man on the moon. Electing a dozen Members of Congress tied to a basic agenda wouldn’t be a slam dunk, but it is probably easier than scoring a hole in one.
Today it appears that power in the coming Congress will again be closely divided, which maximizes the potential of suh an insurgent group.
Recall what the Tea Party has done to the House of Representatives, ousting a series of speakers before backing the incumbent, who has effectively ceded most of his powers by giving the dissidents control over the still-powerful Rules Committee and exercising control by having an authoritarian President intimidate them into voting for legislation they find deeply flawed, if not repugnant
Supporters of the Tea Party and its budget-balancing priorities were sweet-talked into supporting a candidate who shared their view about breaking the rules, but lacked their fiscal focus, ultimately convincing them that his new priorities effectively trumped their old ones.
That made it possible to roll over the remaining Tea Party members who are apparently sipping the Washington Kool-Aid argument that continued service beats profiles in courage performances that court involuntary retirement.
But among those who learn lessons it is possible to dream of a small, cohesive group of House members lashed to the mast on a few basic issues (deficit reduction, humane immigration controls, responding to climate change) who were willing to stop the music until they got what they wanted.
They could threaten to close down the government to get what they wanted in pursuit of their priorities and such threats in support of issues with broad public support would be taken very seriously.
But the process need not end in such a dramatic fashion. Merely deciding which party controlled the House and who occupied the Speaker’s office could result in atmospheric change and, perhaps paradoxically, even break today’s paralyzing partisan atmosphere.
Change seldom comes easily and this may be yet another impossible dream, but it strikes me as a more attainable one than attempting to create a new President from a new party, who would still risk being thwarted by a Congress not very different from the one we enjoy today.
It would take a big change of heart for Musk and other visionaries to think in such a small, but more strategic way. But if winning power in the long run is truly more important than gaining daily headlines now, this might be a more sensible way to win.
Jim,
This is a truly savvy column. I like the values you propose: deficit reduction, humane immigration controls, responding to climate change. Not sure they are Musk's goals, though. Seems to me his are subsidies for his companies, ending investigations into them (and him), and destroying the federal government. Not sure how many people would sign up for that or for another party controlled by a billionaire.
The leader would have to be someone who worked as a waitress (an AOC not from New York) or served in the military. Or maybe a down-to-earth, plain talking person like Katie Porter.
The other question I have is that you are clearly on target for a closely divided House. A handful of members could have enormous sway. But in 2018, the GOP lost 40 seats. That was when Republicans thought they were in good shape because of the tax cut, which, it turned out, was invisible to all but billionaires. They're using the same playbook now and most voters not only won't benefit from the tax cuts but also will balk at cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, food assistance, farm assistance, and FEMA and despicable farm, high school, and restaurant deportation raids. Republicans will be lucky if they lose only 40 seats in 2026.
I saw one analysis saying it's not a slam dunk for Democrats because they didn't fare so well in states that didn't expand Medicaid. That ignores behavioral economics, which proves that loss aversion is twice as powerful as the prospect of a gain. People don't want what they have taken away. Republicans will very likely pay a price.
If that happens, your small group won't have so much clout. But what you propose is critical for the long game. The future at some point may hold another closely divided House, and this group will be influential. And even in the interim, advocating the policies you suggest will be constructive.
Stan
Why not both--recognizing that the top of the ticket is what could draw down--in a limited number of cases--the "bottom" (and real object) of the ticket.