Building a new US political party from scratch is a daunting task, even for the world’s richest man. However, that is what Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said he plans to do in the wake of his falling out with US President Donald Trump. Musk on Saturday last week announced the birth of the “America Party” — which he said was dedicated to defeating Republicans who backed Trump’s massive tax-cut and spending bill.
Musk described his new party on his platform X as tech-centric, budget-conscious, pro-energy and centrist, with the goal of drawing disaffected Democrats and Republicans. Musk has criticized the tax-cut bill, which is forecast to add about US$3.4 trillion to the US’ debt.
Breaking the two-party system’s grip on US federal elections would take tremendous resources and a long-term commitment, political experts said. Similar attempts have failed, underscoring how difficult it is to gain a foothold in a country where elections are organized on a state-by-state level.
“There are just very, very significant barriers to the creation of a viable third party,” Boston College political science professor David Hopkins said.
Challenges include building party infrastructure, organizing volunteers and qualifying for the ballot, he said.
David Jolly, a former Republican representative from Florida who left the party over Trump, said Musk can provide what has long been required for such a push: money.
“What the independent space has been lacking has been resources,” Jolly said. “It’s more than filing with the Federal Election Commission. It’s really starting 50 state parties. You’re talking about US$100 million just to enter the space with real serious intent.”
Jolly said he considered returning to politics as an independent, but concluded that staying within the two-party system would be a more effective way to reach unhappy voters. He is now running for governor of Florida as a Democrat.
In 2016, former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, another billionaire, made a similar conclusion, rejecting the idea of running for president as an independent, saying that such a candidate would have “no chance of winning.” Jolly estimated it would take Musk 10 years and perhaps US$1 billion to build a viable national party — and said Musk’s recent history with the US Department of Government Efficiency suggests the billionaire might not be in it for the long haul. Musk left the department after just a few months in Trump’s administration, having delivered little of the savings he promised.
“What we have seen is an Elon Musk who is not disciplined ... enough to change American politics,” Jolly said.
Musk’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
Tesla shares closed nearly 7 percent lower on Monday, as Musk reignited investors’ worries about his focus on the company.
Musk could have chosen a more traditional path, using his political action committee to back Republican challengers to incumbents in the party primaries ahead of next year’s midterm elections, which would determine control of the US Congress. He was the largest donor in last year’s campaign cycle, making nearly US$300 million in contributions, mostly focused on helping Trump return to the White House. Not all his political efforts have paid off. He poured millions of dollars into a Wisconsin Supreme Court election in April, only to see his preferred candidate fail. His efforts to convince Republicans in the US Congress not to pass Trump’s tax bill also fell flat.
It is unclear how effective he would be in backing independents in a handful of competitive US House of Representatives races.
As it is, the roughly three-dozen races deemed competitive by nonpartisan analysts are often already swamped with cash from political parties and outside fundraisers, and the candidates themselves typically are ideologically more moderate — which would make it harder for Musk’s candidates to differentiate themselves.
Historically, congressional candidates outside the two parties have struggled to overcome disadvantages in local efforts to organize and get out the vote. More often, independents have served as spoilers — siphoning away votes from either the Democrat or Republican.
In last year’s election for a House seat in Ohio, independent candidate Dennis Kucinich, a former Democratic representative, captured more than 12 percent of the general election vote. The Republican, Max Miller, won by 15 percentage points.
Trump mocked Musk’s efforts on Sunday.
“Third parties have never worked, so he can have fun with it, but I think it’s ridiculous,” he told reporters.
Complicating Musk’s plans is that many voters dislike him. Any role he plays in an election is sure to become part of the debate.
Musk is viewed less favorably than Trump by the US public at large — just 36 percent of respondents to a June Reuters/Ipsos poll had a favorable view of Musk compared with 42 percent who viewed Trump favorably, while 59 percent of respondents have an unfavorable view of him compared with 55 percent who viewed Trump unfavorably.
His biggest liability might be that he is trying to challenge Trump politically while relying on support from Trump’s own voters. Musk enjoyed his strongest level of support — 78 percent favorability — among people who voted for Trump in November last year.
“Musk himself is not very popular, and his appeal has a huge overlap with the existing Republican coalition,” Georgetown University political scientist Hans Noel said. “There really isn’t an unrepresented movement that he’s speaking for ... he’s unlikely to elect many America Party candidates.”
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS