In an interview with The Economist’s editor-in-chief Zanny Minton Beddoes — who opened by declaring that Musk supports “not just the populist right, but the far right — in fact, very fringe parties in some countries” — Musk responded with the kind of clarity that makes the entire media apparatus sputter:
“It’s just normal people. Here are the principles, and tell me, which of these sound terrible. That we should have secure borders? That we should have safe cities? That we should have sensible spending? Which of those three are far right fringe?” he asked.
Beddoes couldn’t answer. Nobody in the mainstream press can answer. Because the honest answer is: none of them are. Secure borders, safe cities, and responsible spending are positions that the majority of Americans in both parties have held for most of American history. Musk said so plainly — go back 10 or 15 years and these policies were completely normal. He’s right. The positions haven’t moved. The political labeling has.
This is the core dishonesty of the “far right” smear that the legacy media has been running for years, and Musk named it with surgical precision. The tactic works like this: find someone who holds a position that was mainstream last decade — controlling immigration, protecting national culture, opposing the Islamization of Western Europe, demanding fiscal sanity — and apply the “far right” label, which carries an implicit association with Hitler and fascism without requiring any evidence that the person actually holds fascist views. It’s a smear that is simultaneously legally unactionable and politically devastating, which is exactly why the press loves it.
The examples of its abuse are legion. Pim Fortuyn — the openly gay Dutch politician who held left-wing positions on virtually everything except mass Muslim immigration — was “far right.” Geert Wilders, whose party platform aligns with the European left on most issues, is “far right.” Rupert Lowe, the British MP whose apparent sin is wanting to slow the demographic transformation of his own country, is “far right.” Anyone who notices that open borders combined with a welfare state creates predictable problems: “far right.” Anyone who points out that Islamic jihad is a real and ongoing threat: “far right.”
The label has been so overused and so dishonestly deployed that it has become essentially meaningless as a descriptor — useful only as a weapon, not as a category. Which is precisely what Musk called out. “Absurd characterization,” “false and misleading and nonsense” — his words, directed at The Economist’s editor-in-chief, on camera.
The establishment media has been running this playbook because it works. Name-calling is cheaper than debate. “Far right” forecloses argument before it begins. If you can make someone radioactive through label rather than evidence, you don’t have to actually engage with what they’re saying.
Musk just declined to be made radioactive. He asked three questions instead.The press is still trying to figure out how to answer them.