In American history the intertwining of politics and business is a constant. Even George Washington had enormous personal capital, as he inherited an 8,000-acre plantation on Mount Vernon, and on top of that he owned more than 50,000 acres in what is now West Virginia. Closer to home, the Kennedy clan had a considerable fortune, given that Joseph Patrick (father of President John) was a financier who, among other things, had made important investments in construction.
It is certainly striking how, in recent weeks, a new informal ticket has emerged in US politics, uniting Donald Trump and the owner of Tesla, of X (formerly Twitter) and much more: Elon Musk. The latter is one of the richest people on the planet and if he cannot aspire to the White House, given that he was born in South Africa, he is nevertheless destined to play a leading role in the new US administration if the Republicans win.
Money moves votes
To approach the current situation, however, some preliminary considerations are appropriate. Those who study modern democracies know well that they are – also, but perhaps primarily – plutocracies, where it is not the people who decide, but money. This happens for numerous reasons and one of these is that those who have more money can influence the public debate more. Freedom of speech is fundamental, but in every society in which there is a sovereign power we must also accept that the expression of this or that thesis becomes a domain that intertwines politics, ideas and business. To get out of this (objectively dramatic) situation, in my opinion, the right to express oneself must not be limited in any way, but instead it is appropriate to ask how the decision-making centers can be constrained, so as to prevent opinions from generating rules that are harmful to rights. And in any case the existence of power itself, upon closer inspection, makes ideas and even riches dangerous.
Appearances are deceiving
Having said this premise, if we return to today’s America it is clear that, in this as in other cases, appearances are somewhat deceiving. The majority of large companies (including financial ones) are in fact aligned with the Democrats: even during the elections four years ago, roughly 65% of the aid went to Biden, while only 35% went to the outgoing and then defeated president. The reasons for this imbalance in “big business” are obvious, and have to do with ideology and interests.
In fact, in the so-called “rainbow capitalism” a culture in tune with liberal progressivism prevails. Keynesians in economics, often radical environmentalists, interventionists in foreign policy and generally averse to traditional values when discussing “civil rights”, the protagonists of finance and industry are at ease in the salons of the left in Washington. In addition to a meeting of principles and sensibilities there is more, obviously.
At least since the New Deal, in the United States as in Europe the large economic entities have learned how easy it is to obtain profits thanks to redistribution and regulation. Just to give an example, the “green transition” process which is at the center of the programs of the entire Western left certainly responds to choices of an ideal nature, but it cannot be denied that the new rules shift enormous quantities of resources from the pockets of some to those of others.
By virtue of the fact that the major communication players (television, newspapers, new media, etc.) are always owned by some large private entity, the result is that even in the USA – as in the rest of the West – we have a rather compact conglomerate that unites the major political players, the large economic groups and the most influential journalists and intellectuals.
If this is essentially the case (and anyone who has any doubts can go to the BlackRock website and read the “ethical code” of the financial giant), it is clear that – even despite the evidence – in Trump the real estate developer and in Musk himself we must recognize two outsider. Undoubtedly the owner of . But today things are like this.
It is difficult to say the reason for this choice of side of the two tycoons of the US right, which makes them – in a certain sense – “class traitors”. It can be assumed that in both there is some sincerity in adhering to an alternative framework of values compared to that of the democratic tribes of the Kennedys, the Clintons and the Obamas. It is equally possible, however, that first Trump and then Musk understood that – at a time when about half of US society is opposed to the radicalism embodied by the “New York Times” and the Ivy League universities – there was a free space to occupy.
There is a very clear and evident connection between money and politics, between the strategies of the American administration and the balance sheets of large companies listed on Wall Street. Even conflicts around the world must be read starting from here. All this, however, cannot be attributed to a single political party: neither to the one that defines itself as conservative, nor to that which defines itself as progressive.
