It’s always about power and it’s never about America. Progressives, as ever, are more interested in defending those who hate us than supporting those who love us.
“It was interesting yesterday I was watching a video of an interview of Elon Musk with someone where he said that the Italians should stay in Italy and the Chinese should stay in China, my question to Elon Musk is what the hell are you doing here in America?” Democratic Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez said outside the HUD recently. “Go back to South Africa,” she added. “Mr. Musk has just been here 22 years,” Democrat Representative Marcy Kaptur explained even earlier. “And he’s a citizen of three countries. I always ask myself the question, with the damage he’s doing here, when push comes to shove, which country is his loyalty to? South Africa? Canada? Or the United States? And he’s only been a citizen, I’ll say again, 22 years.” Former Republican Representative and long-time foe of President Donald Trump, Liz Cheney tweeted something similar recently, claiming that Mr. Musk couldn’t possibly understand the US role in ending the Cold War because he wasn’t a citizen at the time. “Damn right, @Elon. I’m proud of what America did to win the Cold War, defeat Soviet communism, and defend democracy. Our nation stood for freedom. You may be unfamiliar with that part of our history since you weren’t yet an American citizen.” In a similar vein, The New York Times wants everyone to know that Mr. Musk is South African and that is, not surprisingly, a bad thing. Late last month, they opined, “Elon Musk is South African. We Shouldn’t Forget It.” In a bizarre combination of biography and editorial, Bill Cutting began, “Born in Pretoria in 1971, Mr. Musk had an upbringing typical of the white South African elite. The family was wealthy, despite his parents divorcing when he was young, its economic standing shaped by a system designed to assist whites. Mr. Musk doesn’t appear to have enjoyed his elite education — there are stories of bullying and loneliness — but he still benefited from the advantages it conferred. Though his father, an engineer, was for a time a member of the anti-apartheid Progressive Party, there is little evidence Mr. Musk inherited his political convictions. Like many white South Africans, Mr. Musk left the country before the collapse of racial rule, settling in 1989 in Canada, where his mother was born. He never returned, but South Africa clearly stayed with him.” In this view, “Mr. Musk is one of a number of reactionary figures with roots in Southern Africa who found an unlikely home in Silicon Valley and now wield disproportionate influence in shaping American and global right-wing politics. These men, such as Peter Thiel and David Sacks, emerged from a historical tradition that revered hierarchy and sought to sustain racial and economic dominance, only to find themselves in a world where that order was unraveling. Their politics reflect an instinct to preserve elite rule, cloaked in the language of meritocracy and market freedom, while channeling resentment toward new power structures they view as threats to their position. For them, southern Africa is never very far away.”
Taken together, the message couldn’t be more clear: Mr. Musk doesn’t belong here because he’s brought strange and dangerous ideas, tinged with white supremacy and fascism from his home country. Perhaps needless to say, many conservatives, myself included, believed statements like these were more than a little hypocritical considering progressives have spent decades insisting we should not “other” immigrants by any means. Telling someone to go back to their home country was one of the worst offenses imaginable, racist to the core and contrary to American values. Back then, as in before President Trump and Mr. Musk became political allies, the situation was so dire that even academics got in on the act. As late as 2023, Nurcan Akbulut and Oliver Razum, in an article posted to the US government’s PubMed site, were claiming, “‘Migrants’ and ‘refugees’ are often categorized as Other, in a process called Othering…We consider Othering as a social process that constructs and classifies differences in such a way that certain groups become socially visible as essential Others. On one hand, the process of Othering operates through a discursive practice that constructs differences, thereby transforming individuals into visible Others. On the other hand, it is based on a power asymmetry that enables the categorization of people, thereby marking them as different. Othering is not solely based on negative attitudes of individuals or groups.” Considering Mr. Musk’s many contributions to America, there is reason to find this sudden change of affairs at least somewhat strange. Once upon a time, he was Time’s Person of the Year and was regularly compared to comic book hero Tony Stark, who moonlights as Iron Man. While those accolades might have been an exaggeration, Mr. Musk currently employs over 120,000 workers across Tesla and Space-X, has created well over a trillion dollars in wealth, and revolutionized several industries. He has, of course, chosen to do so in the United States, but now because he has also chosen to ally with President Donald Trump, taking a political side they detest and participating in a political project they loathe, he must be punished for these positions, othered the same way they claim is offensive applied to anyone else. To some extent, this is simply politics in action. The opposition opposes and must use the tools they have available to do so. Mr. Musk, in this view, is fair game and whatever criticism Democrats feel might be effective, are fair as well. It’s an unfortunate view from the perspective of the average citizen, but one that politicians have never been above and one that Republicans regularly engage in themselves. Personally, I wasn’t a huge fan of Mr. Musk until he became an advocate of free speech, and my appreciation for him only increased further after he teamed up with President Trump, meaning my own feelings about him have been influenced by his political positions. If I can expect no more from myself, I should expect no more from my political opponents.
At the same time, the “othering” of Mr. Musk is occurring simultaneously with a situation involving another immigrant, where the Democrats are essentially taking the opposite position. Mahmoud Khalil is a permanent resident of the United States, a graduate of Columbia University, and a radical pro-Palestinian activist. Over the past several years, Mr. Khalil has been a key player in the anti-Israel protests that have wracked and at times shut down key events at Columbia University including their in-person graduation last year. He has personally met with university officials as part of “Apartheid Divest,” a group that seeks to “challenge the settler-colonial violence that Israel perpetrates with the support of the United States and its allies.” “We reject the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency’s weaponizing of the United States’ racist immigration laws to prevent our international comrades and peers from speaking up,” the group wrote. “We reject the violence of the Israel Defense Forces-trained, police-industrial complex that chokes our communities and disproportionately enacts brutality against people of color.” He has interned with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, a number of whose employees were directly or indirectly involved in the Hamas-perpetrated massacre of Jews on October 7. According to the Department of Homeland Security, he has posted “antisemitic and hateful” content to social media. In 2024, he appeared to condone antisemitism at these protests by telling CNN, “What we are witnessing is anti-Palestinian sentiment that’s taking different forms, and antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism (are) some of these forms,” even as he claimed “There is, of course, no place for antisemitism.” At the very least, some of the protests he has personally organized have featured content that can only be described as virulently antisemitic and at times anti-American using loaded words like “intifada.” Also at the very least, some of these protests have clearly broken the law and school policy, either by occupying spaces they weren’t permitted to enter, refusing to comply with university officials, and intimidating other students. When school opened last September, a Jewish student claimed, “I spent that morning with my friend, silently counter-protesting on 116th and Broadway as we were berated by masked protestors.” “It’s tense on campus, we seem to have picked up where we left off,” explained another. “It can be eerily calm and quiet,” she continued, though no one can mistake the presence of fliers with pro-Hamas messages and calls to attack Zionists. “It’s very anti-West and anti-American.” According to the Times of Israel, “In the first 72 hours of the fall semester, which began September 3, anti-Israel protesters poured viscous red paint on the Alma Mater statue, an important campus landmark, several students said. Masked and keffiyeh-clad student protesters affiliated with Columbia University Apartheid Divest also staged an unauthorized sit-in inside the lobby of the School of International and Public Affairs and handed out pamphlets urging the severing of ties with Israeli universities. CUAD and Columbia’s Jewish Voice for Peace branch advertised the protests on social media.”
Recently, Mr. Khalil was arrested for his part in an unlawful protest at Barnard College, where he and others trespassed into the library without permission. As a result, the Trump Administration claims that he has engaged in activities “aligned to Hamas,” a designated terrorist organization, and is seeking to have him deported, and as a non-citizen, the State Department has the authority to remove him from the country as a potential threat to national security. One might disagree with that judgement, but considering he has clearly broken laws, has made statements and supported causes that are antisemitic and anti-American, and has participated in events actual students at Columbia have said makes them feel intimidated, it is a judgement not without basis. Rather than accept this reality, however, stating that they disagree with the decision to deport while understanding the situation, Democrats have suddenly turned Mr. Khalil into a cause celebre for free speech, an essential part of the American experiment, treating him as the opposite of Mr. Musk, a person we must welcome, even as he hates us. Thom Hartman, writing for Common Dreams, declared that “U.S. President Donald Trump and his police-state goons are trying to frighten people who dare even come close to people protesting his or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies. This is how dictators intimidate citizens, how freedom dies, and is a clear violation of our Constitution. And, in all probability, this is just the beginning of what historians will someday define as a very ugly episode in American history.” The New Republic opined on the “The Chilling Endgame to Trump’s Illegal Detention of Mahmoud Khalil,” claiming “The president has made it abundantly clear that this is just a prelude to a much broader assault on free speech in America.” The Atlantic declared it a “trial” run while The Guardian insisted his “treatment should not happen in a democracy.” At least 14 Democrats in the House of Representatives have demanded his release, calling him a political prisoner. “Mahmoud Khalil must be freed from DHS custody immediately. He is a political prisoner, wrongfully and unlawfully detained, who deserves to be at home in New York preparing for the birth of his first child,” the lawmakers wrote. “Universities throughout the country must protect their students from this vile assault on free thought and expression, and [DHS] must immediately refrain from any further illegal arrests targeting constitutionally protected speech and activity,” they added. Of course, they are entitled to their opinion, but I’m equally entitled to comment on their extreme cognitive dissonance: They want the richest man in the world, one of the largest contributors to American business in recent years, and a US citizen to leave for political reasons. At the same time, they insist a non-citizen being deported for legitimate reasons, using legitimate powers, who has broken the law and cannot be described as an American enthusiast by any means, is a crime against humanity. Further, they are saying both these things at the same time. An enterprising reporter should ask them about the disconnect, but that’s not going to happen anytime soon in an industry bereft of fairness and objectivity.
In the meantime, we can glean two important lessons. First, as ever, it’s always about power. They will say whatever they want at the moment, even when they disagree with themselves for political purposes. Second, it’s never about America. They are more interested in defending those who hate us than supporting those who love us.
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 