Musk is Pushing Western Democracy to the Brink

What stood out to me about the recent U.S. election was how it seemed heavily influenced by advanced technologies controlled by capital. While it is difficult for external observers like us to discern the specifics, it’s safe to say that the election was unusual. Rapid advancement of technologies, such as artificial intelligence and social media, is profoundly shaping human cognition and decision-making processes.

As these technologies become more integrated into our lives, they challenge not only US elections but electoral politics in general. Humanity may now be navigating a sea of fluid and distorted perceptions, where misperception can dynamically evolve and ultimately shape tangible political realities.

Even four or eight years from now, we may still not know exactly what happened during the months leading up to the 2024 election—just as with the 2020 or 2016 elections. However, these elections inevitably produce significant political consequences. In this case, Trump is seen as achieving a decisive victory, with far-reaching implications for the United States, China, and the world at large.

Trump gained in the battlegrounds and beyond, including traditionally Democratic areas.

This is how flawed or even wrong perceptions can ultimately shape tangible political outcomes—what I describe as “Misconceptions End Up Dictating Real Life Politics.”

As an observer, I was struck by the complexity of the forces shaping the political landscape, which has become increasingly opaque. The influence of capital, heavily discussed in earlier elections, was actually easier to trace —tracking who funded campaigns, which super PACs were formed, and the narratives they promoted. The common belief was that whoever spent the most money had the greatest influence and the best chance of winning. This clear cause-and-effect relationship provided a degree of predictability. However, this time, the dynamics feel far more intricate.

We knew all along that inflation and immigration would take center stage in this election. To put it another way, it was a “bread-and-butter” issue versus a class issue. While class divides society horizontally, identity-based issues divide society vertically, such as the identities of Black and White or men and women.

Of course, in hindsight, we can say that identity politics did not prevail over class-based concerns.

But does it imply there was a consensus before the election that bread-and-butter issues would overshadow identity-based concerns? No, I think opinions were divided prior to the vote. Many predicted a close election, with the outcome hinging on just a few thousand votes.

I think Elon Musk has been leveraging legal gray areas to potentially influence elections. While his actions may not be outright illegal, he may be exploiting ambiguities in the law.

In the election, there are likely many behind-the-scenes factors that the public is unaware of. For instance, there are speculations about Musk’s involvement with Twitter X, his own app, as well as Mark Zuckerberg’s apparent support for Trump on Facebook.

Additionally, we see reports of significant amounts of money being poured into betting websites, alongside discrepancies among the numerous polls conducted, raising questions about which ones are truly representative. It’s not as simple as one party engaging in false polling – both Democrats and Republicans may be leveraging information technology to shape public perception, and this may not be limited to the current election cycle.

I can’t stress enough the evolving relationship between technology and elections. Election result is deeply intertwined with the development of technology. For example, the principle of “one person, one vote” – while not fully realized in the US context – represents a form of mass democracy that is closely tied to the rise of mass media, newspapers, radio, and television, as well as modern transportation.

Think about the early days of the United States, only propertied white men were enfranchised to vote. This was not just a reflection of the political thinking of the time, but also the technological limitations. If a slave or a poor white man had been allowed to vote, they likely would have had no means to access information about elections, nor the ability to travel 20 or 30 miles to a polling place on horseback. Information and transportation have fundamentally shaped the nature of democratic participation in each era.

Electoral democracy that we are familiar with today has evolved in tandem with the development of mass media and modern transportation infrastructure. This includes the ability to establish polling places across many locations – all of which are enabled by technological support. As human enters a new era of information and technology, the traditional Western electoral systems naturally face new challenges. This is not a judgment on whether the system is good or bad, but rather an objective observation that the established “playbook” of elections is being confronted by emerging technological forces. I believe this is the key takeaway I have from this election cycle.

It is not limited to just this particular U.S. election, but applies to all elections going forward.

Ideally, elections should be established on the premise that all voters have access to similar information and knowledge. The two of us, for example, should be able to access the same set of information, and then make our voting decisions based on our own interests and values. However, we now live in an era of “alternative truths”, where the information you receive can fundamentally differ from the information I receive, shaped by distinct algorithms. If you are a Republican, you may harbor strong resentment towards Democrats, and vice versa. This undermines the common ground upon which the electoral process should be built.