How a dynamist and a populist could make or break modern America

Beneath all the furore around Donald Trump’s appointments – Matt Gaetz down and out, Pete Hegseth down but maybe coming back, the Kash Patel drama waiting in the wings – the most important figures in this administration’s orbit have not changed since election day. Besides the president himself, the future of Trumpism is still most likely to be shaped and stamped by two men: J.D. Vance and Elon Musk.

Not just because of their talent and achievements, and not just because Vance is the political heir apparent and Musk would be one of the world’s most influential men even if he didn’t have the ear of the president-elect. It’s also because they represent, more clearly than any other appointee, two potent visions for a 21st-century right, and their interaction is likely to shape conservatism for the next four years and beyond.

Musk is the dynamist: a believer in growth, innovation and exploration as the lodestars of American civilisation. His dynamism was not always especially ideological: the Tesla and SpaceX mogul was once a Barack Obama Democrat, happy to support an active and sometimes spendthrift government so long as it spent freely on his projects. But as Musk has moved right, he has adopted a more libertarian pose, insisting on the profound wastefulness of government spending and the tyranny of the administrative state.

Vance, meanwhile, is the populist, committed to protecting and uplifting those parts of America neglected or left behind in an age of globalisation. Along with his support for the Trumpian causes of tariffs and immigration restriction, this worldview has made him more sympathetic than the average Republican senator to certain forms of government investment – from long-standing programs such as social security to new ideas about industrial policy and family policy.

Despite this contrast, the Musk and Vance worldviews overlap in important ways. Musk has moved in a populist direction on immigration, while Vance has been a venture capitalist and clearly has a strong sympathy for parts of the dynamist worldview, especially its critique of the regulatory state. Both men share a far-sighted interest in the collapsing birthrate, a previously fringe issue that is likely to dominate the later parts of the 21st century. And there is modest but real convergence between the Muskian “tech” worldview and Vance’s more “neo-trad” style of religious conservatism, based on not just a shared antipathy towards wokeness but also similar views about the intelligibility of the cosmos and the providential place of humankind in history.

So you can imagine a scenario, in Trump’s second term and beyond, where these convergences yield a dynamist-populist fusionism – a conservatism that manages to simultaneously aim for the stars and uplift and protect the working class, in which economic growth and technological progress help renew the heartland (as Musk’s own companies have brought jobs and optimism to south Texas) while also preserving our creaking social compact.

That’s the potential Musk-Vance synthesis. But the potential tensions here are also important, as are the ways in which each man’s worldview can fail. Populism without a strong commitment to dynamism can easily yield stagnation: the combination of tariffs and immigration restriction and the Trump-Vance pledge to protect Social Security and Medicare threatens a certain kind of sclerosis unless it’s matched by libertarian efforts in other areas of the economy, war on red tape and cartels, deregulation in various forms. And the spirit of populism, its political psychology, needs a dose of the libertarian impulse, an element of American entrepreneurial can-do, to avoid becoming a purely defensive and zero-sum worldview.

But by the same token, a dynamism that imagines itself capable of waving a magic wand over the government and making much of the welfare state somehow disappear will end up meeting the same fate as the Tea Party and the Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan presidential campaign – fracturing the Trump coalition and shedding downscale swing voters for the sake of unrealistic libertarianism.