Ambition, as Gordon Gekko may have said, is good. The drive that makes individuals excel in their chosen field and life is essential to change the world. In a globalized world, where corporations can be wealthier than many nations by economic measure, the oversized influence that the leaders of these corporations may have on any world or national issues is a given. But while ambitious corporate leaders may want to influence the destiny of nations, the objectives of corporations –survival in a competitive world and maximizing profits for its shareholders— are not necessarily compatible with the objectives of any given nation or lead to its most positive outcomes.
Smaller nations overall may end up with the short end of
the stick when a global corporation has an interest in a particular resource in
that country, be it a commodity, its market, or its talents, yet individual
nationals aligning with those foreign interests will thrive. And then there is
the U.S., the largest economic, soft and military power in the world. A country
in which national interests are mostly not subjected to the particular economic
interests of a single or reduced group of corporations – mostly. The competing
interests of each corporation or industry group achieves a messy
balance, brokered by the government and the party in power’s own political
interests, a balance that energizes business, social creativity, and renewal. Managing
the balance of competing interests between the economic power of corporations through
the political power of the government has made the U.S. the most advanced
economy in the world, churning innovation in all fields of human endeavor. This
competition of interests is key to the power of America.
As intrinsic to the power of America is the separation of Church
and State, so is the separation of Business and Governance, creating the conditions
which allow that creative churn of competing enterprises. Just like Church and
State coexist and support and rely on each other, it is natural that Business
and Governance also do. But the nature and objectives of a businessman catering
to his customer base are different than those of a government functionary
catering to a citizenry. The Constitution essentially enshrines the necessity of
that separation and recognizes that difference by virtue of its Emoluments
Clause.
The illusion of the successful businessman running a country
efficiently is just that, an illusion. None, historically, has done so. It is a persuasive
argument, in particular for those with a penchant for the control of a bureaucratic
order; but societies are not an organization chart with replaceable (fireable) subordinates.
In the U.S. the particular case of Donald Trump stands out, presenting himself
as a successful businessman that could run the country better than any
politician.
Leaving aside his multiple bankruptcies and well documented financial
and fiscal shenanigans, there is no question that Trump has established himself
as a brand in the business world. That,
by itself, is a measure of success and has created personal wealth for him, if
not necessarily for his companies. He has personal success, but his business successes
are questionable. He has parlayed his personal successes as positive qualifiers deserving of political power, but he seems to have Impostor Syndrome regarding
his business successes, delving into selling the oddest branded merchandise. Enter
Elon Musk.
Elon Musk was born in South Africa. His father had interests
in an emerald mine and airlines, among other endeavors and was a serial entrepreneur, a
trait his son picked up upon. Young Elon, in search of a bigger pond, went to the United States via Canada (his mother is Canadian). In 1992,
after graduating with double degrees from the University of Pennsylvania (physics and business, from Wharton), he was
admitted to Stanford. While still on a student visa he dropped out and started his
first true company, Zip2, an online map guide which was eventually sold to
Compaq, netting Musk in excess of $20 million. He describes his immigration status at
the time as a “grey area.” In 2002, ten years later, he became a U.S. citizen.
Musk has been a successful serial entrepreneur, founding or
seeding companies and selling them to reinvest in increasingly bigger and complex
ventures. His ambition and entrepreneurial spirit makes him impatient with
obstacles to his vision, so he often clashes with regulations or organizations
which he believes impede such vision. These clashes have led to multiple legal confrontations,
suits and countersuits.
Musk is a savvy businessman and entrepreneur, something that
Trump admires and wishes he could be, just as he admires and wishes he could emulate
strongmen like Putin, Xi, Kim, or Ornan, even possibly Maduro if it were not politically inconvenient. Musk’s attention on Trump is
flattering and, notoriously susceptible to flattery, Trump has embraced Musk as a genius
because he supports him, directly and indirectly, (starting by “unbanning” Trump
from Twitter, now X). To Musk, however, Trump is an investment that can return
great power to him over all the regulatory and procurement agencies of the U.S.
affecting his other businesses. Musk has found in Trump a useful idiot to
achieve his goals expeditiously. Leaning
on Trump, Musk can go places, even Mars. With Trump, Musk can be the most powerful
man in America and the world; or so he thinks.
Running a country like a business is not realistic. A
business is (or should be) focused on market segments and its customers, as well as competing for
those customers with its rivals. Government is focused on all of a nation’s citizenry, not a
segment of it. Companies are a relatively short-term propositions fulfilling a market need
and which succeed when they adapt to competition, market shifts, and new
technologies within an established regulatory framework; successful nations are
long term propositions, permanently laying foundations for generations to come,
including structures and frameworks which allow the creative churn of capitalism and freedom to thrive, and the renewal of its governmental institutions to occur.
Trump governed and runs his campaign as businesses, seeking
profit for his principal shareholder (himself) and focusing on “his” market
segment, ignoring and demonizing the “competition” to the extent that he brands
his supporters as Americans and his non supporters as non-American. That is why
he claims that if only “true” Americans voted he would win unquestionably.
Musk doesn’t care. He wants what he believes will further
his own long-term vision for the world, a world in which he sees climate change
as an existential threat, advocating for a carbon tax and of course, electric
cars; solving the immigration policy stalemate as a market and population solution; a
place for government in the regulation of AI; a new world in Mars, where government
is by “direct democracy” of empowered citizens; and many other positions that
clash with Trump’s (stated populist) views. With Trump as “his president,” Musk
may even believe that his businesses will thrive and his world vision can be
implemented. Trump, however, has demonstrated time and time again, that his
loyalties and interests are a one-way street, leading to himself only. Like all zero sum businessmen, he believes that anyone that thrives under him, is beholden to him and his authority. That all authority rests on him as the leader, and that all responsibilities can be deflected as he sees fit. It is
probable that Musk will find once again this to be the case. The long list of
brilliant people that were once close to Trump and now see him as a threat to everything
America represents and its future may soon include Elon Musk.
Carlos J. Rangel
