The Idea Behind the Comparison

Naughton argues that while Elon Musk is not America’s monarch, he is becoming a central figure in its political, social, and economic landscape, much like Cromwell did in his time. Cromwell was a strategist who wielded significant power behind the throne, helping to shape policies and decisions that were not always visible to the public but deeply impactful. Similarly, Musk’s influence, although not through formal political office, is becoming ever more potent, especially with his acquisitions and leadership in fields like electric vehicles (Tesla), space exploration (SpaceX), and social media (via his ownership of Twitter, now rebranded as X).

Cromwell’s Influence and Musk’s Growing Power

Cromwell’s ability to control the machinery of power, while technically not being the king, is a key parallel to Musk’s role today. As Naughton suggests, Musk is not the president of the United States, but his actions and decisions hold immense sway over the direction of American society. Musk’s ability to shift public opinion, influence technological advancements, and even affect stock markets puts him in a unique position of power.

This dynamic shift in influence is exemplified through his ownership of Twitter (X), where he has been able to reshape the platform’s policies, shape public debates, and influence political discussions in ways that mirror how powerful advisers like Cromwell played crucial roles behind the scenes in influencing monarchs' decisions.

Why the Cromwell Comparison Holds

One of the reasons Naughton draws the comparison to Cromwell is because of Musk’s ability to transcend traditional boundaries of corporate leadership. Unlike earlier figures in the business world, Musk’s impact extends beyond the products he creates or the companies he leads. He has become a political and cultural figure, using platforms like Twitter to openly engage in and often instigate national debates. In this sense, Musk is becoming a figure that both conservatives and liberals alike view as a kind of unofficial power broker—a shadow leader, much like Cromwell was to Henry VIII.

Additionally, Musk’s public behavior often seems unrestrained, and in many ways, he challenges norms much like Cromwell did in the court of the English king. Musk's controversial stances on various issues, from politics to artificial intelligence, echo Cromwell's ability to push boundaries and make bold decisions, often creating a stir in the process.

The Risk of Such Power

Naughton’s article also highlights the potential dangers of such concentrated power in the hands of a single individual. Cromwell's rise, and eventual fall, serves as a historical reminder that power without accountability can be dangerous. While Musk’s innovations are undoubtedly transformative, his increasing influence over political discourse and the tech industry poses significant questions about the concentration of power in the hands of private individuals.

In America, a nation founded on checks and balances, Musk’s growing influence challenges the ideal of democratic governance. If Musk or any other individual becomes too central to the public discourse and the direction of national policy, it can raise concerns about fairness, transparency, and the potential for misuse of power.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Naughton’s comparison between Musk and Thomas Cromwell serves to highlight the increasing concentration of influence and power that Musk wields, not through traditional political channels, but through his business ventures and media presence. While Musk may not be the king of America, he is becoming a central figure who can shape the nation’s trajectory. However, as history has shown through figures like Cromwell, such power, unchecked, can have significant consequences. The article ultimately raises important questions about the intersection of technology, business, and politics, and how much power one individual should be able to exert in shaping the future of society.