Elon Musk Serves as the 2024 Equivalent of Steve Bannon
In 2011, political agitator Andrew Breitbart forecasted to a group of Fox News hosts that if America wasn't vigilant, Donald Trump could one day become President. Regrettably, Breitbart passed away in 2012, and his long-time associate, the billionaire sycophant Steve Bannon, assumed control of Breitbart's cherished website. Bannon would leverage the site to help Trump achieve this very goal.
Upon assuming control of Breitbart in 2012, Trump was only contemplating a presidential bid, encouraged by discussions he'd had with David Bossie, the president of Citizens United (an organization that successfully challenged the FEC to release dark money into the U.S. political arena). Bossie was also a pal of Bannon, and Citizens United received substantial financial contributions from Bannon's associate, billionaire Bob Mercer. In fact, Bannon initially met Trump through Bossie. As Trump prepared for a presidential campaign funded partly by Mercer and coordinated by Bannon, Breitbart (which also received funding from Mercer) began releasing a steady flow of conservative content, claimed some commentators, that served to bolster the MAGA movement.
A study released by the Columbia Journalism Review in 2017 suggested that, following its rise to prominence, Breitbart had become the "backbone" of a conservative media ecosystem that facilitated the transmission of a hyper-partisan viewpoint to the world. The study argued that this perspective was unquestionably "pro-Trump." Eventually, Breitbart's own journalists denounced the site, describing it as having forsaken its "editorial independence" and become a mouthpiece for Trump. Indeed, in 2016, following Trump's electoral victory, Kurt Bardella, a former Breitbart spokesman, informed reporters, "It will be the propaganda arm of the administration." He added that the site's purpose was to "create conflict, controversy, and divisiveness" and that it would be used to prop up Trump. Benjamin Shapiro, now a Trump apologist, claimed that Bannon had transformed Breitbart into "Trump's personal Pravda."
In 2022, Elon Musk obtained Twitter. The transaction was controversial, dramatic, and, for the most part, incomprehensible. Why did the world's wealthiest man—a man who already owned numerous businesses—desire to acquire one of the world's largest social media platforms? Various theories circulated, but no definitive answers emerged. Shortly following the acquisition, Musk dismissed the bulk of the site's staff and renamed it "X." Since then, the site has noticeably shifted to the right and, leading up to the presidential election, allowed Musk to algorithmically promote numerous unhinged conspiracy theories and misinformation that bolstered the Trump campaign's messaging. The challenge for Musk, however, has been that "X" is not profitable. The site seems to have no long-term business strategy other than losing a substantial amount of money.
Yet within the context of the 2024 presidential election, Musk's Twitter acquisition finally appears to have a certain rationality to it. Indeed, if one of the primary objectives of the acquisition was to convert the platform into a globally-scaled propaganda megaphone for the Trump campaign, then Musk's other decisions while running the site seem more justifiable. The payoff wasn't the site's actual revenue (which has plummeted by 80% since Musk took over) but rather a Trump political victory, which would grant Musk unprecedented access to the major branches of the U.S. government. It also explains Musk's increasingly erratic behavior, as it can be viewed as part of an overall propaganda effort. From a business standpoint, telling the site's advertisers to "go fuck themselves" makes no sense. From the perspective of an individual who seeks to present himself as an advocate for "free speech," however, (and thus win over a significant portion of the public to his political cause) it does make sense. In the days since Trump's victory, Musk's personal net worth has increased by $20 billion.
In both 2016 and 2024, the play by the conservative political movement seems remarkably similar. From this writer's point of view, the strategy is this: organized money, backed by right-wing billionaires, hijack a media platform, which then goes on to churn out a deluge of hard-right content. In several instances, the content appears to be designed to provoke particular segments of the electorate, thus compelling them to back a favored political candidate (in both cases, Donald Trump). In Breitbart's case, the site still ostensibly produced news. In the case of X, Musk discarded even the vestiges of legitimate news content and proceeded to leak a veritable torrent of propagandistic drivel into what had once been regarded as America's "digital common area."
While there's no conclusive evidence that Musk's motivation for the Twitter acquisition was to aid Donald Trump's election, it's difficult to refute that this is what Musk did with the platform once he was running it.
Similar to 2016, the 2024 Trump campaign ignited its supporters with a blend of fury, animosity, and suspicion. To achieve this, Musk's X amplified a relentless stream of over-the-top racist conspiracy theories pertaining to immigration and the current administration. Trump additionally leaned on the alternate media ecosystem, which thrives on podcasts and social media platforms, predominantly favored by young males—a significant demographic that significantly contributed to his victory. Many of these podcasts were even acknowledged swiftly following Trump's win this week.
The unmistakable conclusion from the aforementioned scenario is that the conservative right excels at exploiting media and technology for their electoral gain. Intriguingly, many media tactics introduced by Bannon during Trump's 2016 campaign seem to have been advanced or intensified by Musk in this election.
It's worth mentioning that, in 2016, Bannon's relationship with Cambridge Analytica, formed by the SCL Group, a longstanding defense contractor with ties to the U.S. Department of State, which specializes in psychological warfare, played a significant role.
One could contend that Twitter, acting as a platform, provided Musk the combined capabilities of what Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica had offered Bannon: functioning as a media bullhorn and a means to gather and centralize data on the American populace, which could then be utilized to bolster an overall electoral strategy. (It's unclear whether any of this data was beneficial or not, naturally.) Back then, during Bannon's campaign, Facebook was instrumental. Cambridge Analytica gathered data on various American segments for political advertising purposes, in a case that resulted in Congressional hearings. In Musk's case, he obtained a service similar to Facebook and made it private, thereby evading any form of external scrutiny.
Towards the end of last year, I suggested that Twitter remained unchanged under Musk than it did under Dorsey. However, the situation has significantly evolved since then. I still think that Twitter was never an exceptional website, and the initial version should not be idealized as a public platform. On the other hand, the fact that Musk eliminated the existing safeguards and molded the site in his likeness—apparently, a characterized by hostility and arrogance—cannot be denied.
The intriguing question now is: what next for Musk? Bannon exited Breitbart in 2018, shortly after Trump assumed office, and never looked back. Whether Musk continues his role at X or distance himself from the platform remains to be seen. The site would undoubtedly serve as a powerful messaging tool for Musk and other Trump supporters during the upcoming administration. However, the financial health of the site is a concern that will have to be addressed if the propaganda machine is to continue running.
In the future, the use of technology in political campaigns could become even more prominent, with platforms like Twitter serving as powerful propaganda megaphones for political figures. As technology continues to evolve, so too will the methods used to manipulate public opinion and sway elections.
Furthermore, the relationship between wealthy individuals and media outlets could become even more intertwined, as tech moguls and billionaires continue to invest in and control media platforms, using them to promote their political agendas and candidates. This trend could have significant implications for democracy and public discourse, as it raises questions about the influence of money in politics and the potential for media manipulation.
