Historians Debate Scale of Elon Musk's Political Power Amid Midterm Elections

Elon Musk's political influence has intensified ahead of the midterm elections, prompting historians to compare his current power to that of late 19th century industrialists. This month, SpaceX temporarily restricted Ukraine's access to the Starlink satellite system, a move that caused some Ukrainian drones to fall. The decision drew criticism from Kara Swisher, a longtime tech journalist who argued on Morning Edition that no private citizen should make wartime decisions. David Nasaw, an emeritus history professor at City University of New York, agreed with Swisher's assessment.

Nasaw, who wrote a biography of Andrew Carnegie, stated that while wealthy individuals have always exercised influence, there has never been anyone like Musk. He cited Musk's status as the first person to cross the trillionaire threshold and his oversight of the Department of Government Efficiency, which dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development. Nasaw described the situation as an unholy alliance, noting that Musk uses profits to keep friendly politicians in power.

Musk's companies, including SpaceX and Tesla, have received more than $30 billion in federal contracts, subsidies, loans, and tax credits. In the current election cycle, Musk has donated more than $400 million to Republican causes, a sum that exceeds the combined Democratic donations from Michael Bloomberg and George Soros, according to media reports. NPR contacted Musk for comment but received no reply.

Nasaw argues that the current democratic system cannot check such power and calls for Congress to raise taxes on billionaires and limit campaign spending. He warned that without these changes, democracy is in a death spiral toward oligarchy. However, Richard White, an emeritus history professor at Stanford, contends that Musk's influence is not unique in historical terms.

White compared Musk to J.P. Morgan, the dominant banker of the Gilded Age. In 1895, Morgan helped the U.S. avoid defaulting on gold debt, which gave him considerable influence. White noted that Morgan viewed himself as a co-partner with the government. That influence lasted until President Teddy Roosevelt broke up the Northern Securities Company, a railroad monopoly created by Morgan.

Marian Tupy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, offers a different perspective. He argues that non-conformists like Musk drive economic growth and that conformity stagnates societies. Tupy views political spending as a constitutional right and opposes limits on campaign contributions. He suggested that wealthy individuals who have participated in the global economy may have better views on growth than the median voter.

Despite massive spending, financial investment does not guarantee electoral success. Last year, Musk spent more than $20 million on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, but his candidate lost by 10 percentage points. White believes that if Democrats gain power, Musk could face increased scrutiny. He stated that a president and Congress opposed to Musk could break him within a year because SpaceX relies on government funding.

Democrats are already discussing investigations into Musk if they win the House in the upcoming midterms. In response, Musk posted on X, his social media platform, stating that those who pick fights with him should understand he will find out who is pulling the strings and come for them. H.W. Brands, a historian at the University of Texas at Austin, says this debate highlights long-running tensions between democracy and capitalism.

Brands notes that democracy is based on equality and one person, one vote, while capitalism is based on inequality. He observed that capitalism surged ahead of democracy in the late 19th century, creating figures like Morgan and Carnegie. In the early 20th century, progressives responded by breaking up trusts and banning corporate donations. Brands believes the U.S. is headed for another era of democratic reform following the current political cycle.