Recently, billionaire Elon Musk spoke about the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) during an interview, stating that DOGE had "achieved some success" in cutting government spending. However, he then shifted his tone, emphasizing that he would no longer take over the project. He said, "Rather than dealing with DOGE, I'd rather work at my company so they won't burn the cars."

Musk's statement reflects the helplessness of a tech magnate towards political reality. Initially, he had ambitious plans to take on this project aimed at reducing government spending, but now he admits he was "in a fantasy," and clearly states he will not take on similar work again.

This incident is not just a personal setback, but also a microcosm of the American political landscape, revealing the deep-seated issues of polarization and division in contemporary U.S. politics.

Musk's Political Adventure and Setback

When Musk took over the DOGE project, he approached it with typical Silicon Valley thinking: believing that through technological innovation and management optimization, one could solve the problem of inefficient government operations. This entrepreneur, known for disrupting traditional industries, had successfully driven changes in the electric vehicle, space exploration, and renewable energy sectors, and naturally held confidence in reforming government agencies. However, the logic of political operations is entirely different from that of the business world.

In the business world, Musk could drive change through clear vision, fast decision-making, and technological breakthroughs; but in the political sphere, he encountered complex interest networks, deeply entrenched bureaucratic systems, and ideological conflicts between the two extremes. The DOGE project ultimately failed to achieve substantial progress, instead dragging Musk into a political quagmire, even leading to the arson attack on Tesla vehicles by political opponents.

Musk's political disillusionment reflects the naivety of technical elites toward politics. Technical solutions often assume that problems are linear and can be optimized, but political issues are essentially a dialectical process of value conflicts and power distribution. When Musk said, "I'd rather work at my company so they won't burn the cars," he actually admitted that the harshness of political struggles far exceeds commercial competition.

The Structural Roots of U.S. Political Polarization

Musk's experience highlights multiple dimensions of U.S. political polarization:

Ideological Bipolarization: In recent years, the middle ground on the American political spectrum has been shrinking, with liberals and conservatives becoming increasingly opposed on many issues. This division is not only reflected in policy preferences but also extends to identity and cultural values. Musk attempted to approach government reform with a technologically neutral stance, but in a highly polarized environment, any action would be interpreted as supporting a particular position, leading to fierce reactions from the opposing side.

Consolidation and Opposition of Interest Groups: Various interest groups in U.S. politics—including business tycoons, unions, environmental organizations, and gun rights advocates—form complex alliances and rivalries. These groups maintain their own interests through lobbying, campaign donations, and public opinion influence, making any substantive reform face numerous obstacles. It is unsurprising that Musk's efforts to promote government efficiency reforms would provoke resistance from those with vested interests.

Fractionalization and Opposition of Media Ecosystem: With the decline of traditional media and the rise of social media, the United States has formed a highly fragmented information environment. People with different political stances live in their own "information cocoons," with vastly different interpretations of facts. This environment exacerbates social divisions, making rational dialogue and compromise difficult. As a public figure, Musk's words are interpreted and presented differently across various media, further complicating his political attempts.

Distorted Incentives of the Electoral System: The two-party system and primary election system in the United States often reward extreme positions rather than moderate compromises. Candidates need to appeal to the base voters within their party during primaries, who are usually more extreme than the general electorate; while in general elections, candidates must also win over swing voters. This institutional design leads to political figures often being inconsistent in their statements and policy positions, increasing the uncertainty and distrust in the political environment.

Impact of Political Fragmentation on Governance Ability

American political polarization has already significantly affected the country's governance capacity:

Frequent Legislative Stalemates: Congress frequently fails to reach consensus on major issues, causing important legislation to stall. Key topics such as government budgets, immigration reform, and infrastructure construction often become victims of partisan struggle, and even when passed, they are often compromised versions.

Low Administrative Efficiency: Frequent changes in political appointments, self-protection of bureaucratic institutions, and interference from different political forces in administrative processes have seriously affected the efficiency of government operations. This is exactly the issue that Musk tried to address through the DOGE project, but he found that political resistance was far greater than technical challenges.

Political Judicialization: The appointment process of Supreme Court justices has become increasingly politicized, and judicial decisions are often interpreted as reflecting partisan tendencies. This has undermined the credibility of the judiciary as the final arbiter of social conflicts.

Social Trust Crisis: Political polarization has spread to the societal level, resulting in decreased mutual trust among people with different political views, even affecting family relationships and friendships. This erosion of social capital further weakens the country's ability to address major issues.

Implications of Musk's Political Disillusionment

Musk's experience provides several important insights into understanding the current state of American politics:

Limitations of Technological Solutionism in Politics: The "solutionism" prevalent in Silicon Valley culture — the belief that technology can solve all social problems — faces challenges in the political domain. Political issues are fundamentally about the allocation of values, power, and resources, involving complex trade-offs and compromises that cannot be resolved through simple technological optimization alone.

Difficulties for Business Leaders in Politics: Successful business leaders often overestimate their influence in the political arena. Business decisions are typically based on data analysis and efficiency considerations, whereas political decisions require balancing multiple interests, considering symbolic meanings, and historical contexts. Political attempts by business leaders often fail due to a lack of political sensitivity and patience.

Systemic Barriers to Political Reform: Even influential external figures like Musk find it difficult to challenge the systemic structures of the U.S. political system. These structures include interest group networks, bureaucratic inertia, and the logic of electoral politics, forming powerful path dependencies that make substantive reform extremely difficult.

Cognitive Gap Between Elites and the Public: Technical elites and political elites often live in different realities compared to ordinary citizens, creating a cognitive gap that leads policies to be detached from reality, exacerbating public dissatisfaction and the rise of populism.

The Future of American Politics

Faced with such deep political polarization and social fragmentation, how will the American political system evolve? Possible directions include:

Continued Polarization and Periodic Crises: If the current trend continues, American politics may become even more polarized, leading to more governance crises and policy fluctuations. This pattern will weaken America's international competitiveness and domestic cohesion.

Resurgence of Centrist Forces: Extremism may trigger a backlash from centrist voters, promoting the revival of moderate political forces. However, this requires overcoming structural barriers in the electoral system and the tendency of the media environment toward extremism.

Structural Reforms: Some informed individuals may push for reforms in the electoral system, campaign finance rules, or legislative procedures to reduce the incentives for polarization. But these reforms themselves require political consensus, which is difficult to achieve in a highly polarized environment.

Innovation and Experimentation at the Local Level: In the face of gridlock at the national level, policy innovation may occur more at the state and local levels. These local experiments may provide models for nationwide solutions.

Catalytic Effect of External Shocks: Major economic crises, security threats, or natural disasters may force political forces to temporarily set aside differences and seek cooperation. However, such cooperation driven by crises is often temporary.

Musk's political disillusionment is a symbolic event, revealing the gap between individual ideals and political reality, and reflecting the deep-seated difficulties of the American political system.

In an increasingly complex and divided world, how to rebuild political dialogue, restore governance effectiveness, and balance diverse interests is a common challenge facing not only the United States but many modern societies.

Although the political participation of technical elites has been hindered, their influence will continue, and the key lies in whether they can learn from their failures and develop methods more aligned with political reality.

Perhaps, Musk's experience will ultimately prompt more business and technology leaders to realize that political reform is not simply about efficiency optimization, but rather a complex art requiring a deep understanding of human nature, history, and institutions.

Only when different elites — from technology, business, humanities, and politics — can transcend boundaries and engage in sincere dialogue and collaboration can society find the wisdom to address challenges. And this is precisely the quality most lacking in today's American politics.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7582395025640653350/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.