With so many things coming together this week, we may be closer to a watershed movement than we knew. Many of them validate points I’ve been making. Ukraine launched well-planned attacks on military targets deep in Russia. That nation does have cards to play, much to Trump’s and others’ dismay. A bunch of expensive and irreplaceable bombers, along with essential bridges destroyed, bring the war home to Russia in the most embarrassing way. Enhancing Ukraine’s ability to continue to hit deep into Russia is the decision by European nations to remove restrictions on how the Ukrainians use the weapons they provide.

I pointed out how foolish it is not to support Ukraine’s ability to strike back at military targets anywhere in Russia. Why should Russia give an inch in any peace talks if little of theirs is at risk, while they can attack at will, not only military targets but civilians as well?

Bolstering the ever-increasing attacks on the homeland with new sanctions with teeth that may be in Russia’s future. Sen. Linsey Graham’s bill to target Russian oil already has bipartisan support, with 67 sponsors evenly divided between the two parties. Even with Trump’s foot-dragging on anything causing Putin pain, the Russian dictator will face increasing torment. The question is whether Trump will lean even more toward Putin.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is homeless. By that, I mean he’s lost his last political home. Like many highly educated individuals, he began his political journey on the left, establishing his businesses in the true-blue state of California. The Democratic Party stood up for our liberty, or so he thought. Dealing with the California bureaucracy and the government’s overt interference in free social networks and free speech altered his perspective. The migration of his enterprises to Texas followed. He bought Twitter and exposed the government agencies that distorted the flow of information.

It made sense for him to gravitate away from the big government Democrats to the party of small government and free trade.

He produced Autos both here and abroad, and his products required worldwide supply chains. He craved less regulation and interference. When the Democrats didn’t align with his needs, he moved to the only other choice, the Republicans.

I think the blowup with the Trump administration came about with Musk’s realization that just as the Democrats were for the little people and liberty was a myth, the picture of a small government, free trade, emphasizing liberty both here and abroad, doesn’t define today’s Republicans. Finding people like Steve Bannon and trade advisor Peter Navarro, who are long-time associates of Trump and remain close, should have been a clue. Musk ended up calling Navarro a moron.

When he mimicked Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, waving a chainsaw, Musk thought he was joining a party that would cut a swollen government down to size; he found that both parties were committed to big government. Each just wanted to use it to their favored ends.

This argument seems compelling until you consider the government at all levels, which accounts for over one-third of the country’s spending. Adding regulations and trying to avoid dealing with the government whenever possible can be a challenge. If you don’t take advantage of what the government offers, you can bet your competitor will. To entrepreneurs like Musk, the government has grown big to avoid. That’s the problem.

This argument seems compelling until you consider the government at all levels, which accounts for over one-third of the country’s spending. Add regulations and try to avoid dealing with the government whenever possible. If you don’t take advantage of what the government offers, you can bet your competitor will. To entrepreneurs like Musk, the government has grown big to avoid. That’s the problem.

When Elon Musk met Argentine President Javier Milei, they formed a friendship based on a shared economic philosophy. While the legacy media tends to lump Trump, Musk, and Milei in the same MAGA tent, this is highly inaccurate. Milei is an economist in the classical liberal tradition, quite at home with the policies of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Liz Truss. As a small government advocate in a nation defined by big government, he’s making meaningful cuts and opening the Argentine economy by lowering tariffs.

This program contrasts with the current MAGA program, which focuses on trimming, at most, a little off the edges of big government while leaving entitlements, the central part of the budget, untouched. Tariffs of up to fifty percent, as we now have on steel, close off parts of our economy rather than opening up to free trade.

Elon Musk may be like so many conservatives who voted for Trump based on his first-term tax and regulatory policies, coupled with his appointment of originalist judges. Because Trump suffered from censorship and lawfare, it’s easy to assume he’s against both. Aren’t the Republicans the opposition to big government?

Musk knows Mlie and found Donald to be no Javier; like so many Trump voters, detecting MAGA is inhospitable to their views on tariffs and our relationship with the rest of the world.

In response to Trump and his MAGA supporters’ attacks, Musk proposed starting a new political party. I hope he’ll explore this option. In my series on the Future Party, I made the point that we’ve been ill-served by the duopoly parties. Is Trump, Biden, and Harris the best we can do? Are there better ways of solving our problems?

Standing for certain foundation principles is a necessity. Forget the wishy-washy “third way”. If you share a kinship with Milei’s policies, then build a new party based on classic liberalism. We’re presently the most unrepresented group. Both Musk and Milei are correct. These principles created the abundance we have and promise more in the future.

As long as I’m giving Musk advice, either quietly support a new party personally with funds, or cut your association with public companies. If you haven’t already realized this, it’s unethical to take positions that harm your shareholders. Like any American, you have a right to your political actions, but not at the expense of whose interests you are bound to put first.

By jumping into the political fray, you harmed those who trusted you to look out for them. If you choose to distance yourself from your public companies and be highly active in a new party, be aware that you’ll have a selling job. Even though ample data shows that the classical liberalism motivating the founding fathers raised the people far better than anything else in history, that’s not taught. Remember, Reagan had to educate us on the principles of small government and classical economics. He was a great communicator and succeeded.

Someone must re-educate America on what made us succeed so well that millions risk their lives to try to join us. That’s the only way we’ll be able to apply these prescriptions both here and abroad. Is this a turning point?

I won’t hold my breath. We’ve seen wealthy people advocating for giving voters more choice through a third party, most recently with Starbucks’ Howard Schultz, and nothing has ever happened. While shepherding a new party would be quite a legacy, Elon Musk may have his hands full holding his Tesla business afloat. I’ve mentioned before that it may be a dead end, and Elon should’ve diversified motive power systems, like auto leader Toyota.

Still, if our innovators join Musk and conclude that big government is dictating to them rather than encouraging them, a third party might come about. Self-preservation is a great motivator. With the low standing of both parties, the timing couldn’t be better.

In a few months, we’ll have a clearer picture, one way or the other.