In the wake of a successful effort to kill a year-end spending bill and replace it with more limited legislation to keep the government open, Elon Musk declared victory last week on X (formerly Twitter), the social media platform he owns:
“Your actions turned a bill that weighed pounds into a bill that weighed ounces!” he crowed. “You are the media now. VOX POPULI VOX DEI.”
The stopgap funding measure will largely delay major spending decisions until after Donald Trump’s inauguration, keep the government open through the holidays and at least temporarily delay the most indefensible spending that was crammed into the scale-tipping bill. But those who believe the indefensible spending won’t end up back in the budget are endearingly optimistic.
The most interesting political takeaway from the drama is that the Republican Party now has two masters with different goals. Musk’s stated mission was to impose fiscal restraint and greater efficiency on government (though his unstated motives are a matter of speculation). Trump’s objective was to avoid the hassles of a debate over raising the government borrowing limit early in his term, freeing him to rack up more debt through spending and tax cuts.
Based purely on the political result, Musk won and Trump lost. Although the bill does spend less than the earlier version, it does not raise the debt ceiling.
A case can be made for both goals. I think Musk is indisputably correct about the need to cut spending. And although I don’t want Trump to be able to amass more debt, fights over the borrowing limit are reckless because they put the full faith and credit of the United States in doubt. The challenge for Republican legislators is that they are caught between the agendas of two figures who are very popular on the right, and those agendas — and perhaps others — are in conflict.
We’ll have to wait to see how the politics play out. In the meantime, I also want to address the more philosophical problems with Musk’s position.
First of all, literally weighing the value or profligacy of a piece of legislation by the ounce, as Musk proposes, is not exactly logical. The National Industrial Recovery Act — the foundational legislation of the New Deal — comes in at an economical 18 pages, but that hardly gives one a sense of its massive impact on the economy.
Then there’s the idea that Musk’s minor budget victory proves his X followers are “the media now.” Huh?
The standard conservative complaint about traditional media is that they mislead the public in the service of an ideological or self-serving agenda. But Musk rallied his virtual mob with a host of false claims about the bigger-spending bill. Now he is suggesting that misleading the public in the service of the agenda of the owner of a media platform is a glorious triumph. It’s certainly a triumph for if-you-can’t-beat-them-join-them hypocrisy.
Lastly, Musk’s oft-repeated motto “Vox populi, vox dei” — “The voice of the people is the voice of God” — is theological nonsense. Its use by British Whigs to challenge monarchical power in the 18th century was politically defensible, but it doesn’t take a divinity degree to understand that, taken literally, the phrase argues that God is subservient to the passions and vicissitudes of public opinion. It’s very difficult to find anything in the Old or New Testament to back up that idea.
If a poll were all it took to change God’s mind, Sodom and Gomorrah would have been fine, Noah wouldn’t have needed a boat and Jesus wouldn’t have had to ask God to “forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
One of the earliest mentions of the Latin phrase is found in the writings of Alcuin of York, an advisor to Charlemagne. Alcuin told the first holy Roman emperor to ignore such declarations of public godliness “since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.”
Musk started using the phrase “Vox populi, vox dei” to validate the verdicts of his own Twitter polls. When users voted to reinstate Trump’s account two years ago, Musk declared that the result he clearly wanted amounted to a divine statement. We can only guess what this says about Musk’s God complex and its compatibility with his role as Trump’s Alcuin.
But my main objection to Musk’s assertion is that it’s a dangerous lie. The idea that the largest mob has God on its side is even more pernicious than the notion that legislation should be measured in pounds.
