A. Why wouldn’t they? By definition, they are right-wing.
B. The headline implies that they are “taking over.” If so, from who? Perfect centrists? Leftists? Were they impartial themselves?
B. From people who represent mix of left, right, center, whatever
You can be right-wing but still be in support of democracy and decency. That's the crucial issue to be had with Musk and Thiel - both for example are vocally opposed to the free press, with Elon having auto-reply poop emoji on press enquiries and Thiel outright bankrupting Gawker in revenge for outing him as gay via financing Hogan's lawsuit (not that I support that kind of tabloid journalism, but since it wasn't wrong it doesn't warrant tanking the entire medium).
There's many people who manage to be conservative or right-wing but still value the constitution and its principles and are willing to put country before party and people.
Whether it's blatant lies like the fine people hoax or the koi fish feeding, or more subtle manipulation like constantly and endlessly sensationlizing the commons into fear and rage, I detest all of it. Free press is good, but "journalism" as it stands is a cancer upon human society.
Thank Fox News and the other Murdoch rags for setting off the spiral, and social media / clickbait mechanisms gave media at large the rest.
...a free press that is incredibly politically partisan, polarizing/radicalizing, spreads misinformation/disinformation, and doxxes people (e.g. NYT doxxing Scott Alexander, CNN doxxing a minor because they misunderstood his political beliefs and proceeded to spread misinformation about him) is the literal opposite of democracy or decency - supporting them erodes both of those things.
> with Elon having auto-reply poop emoji on press enquiries
Twitter having an auto-reply poop emoji on press inquiries is also irrelevant to, well...anything. No company is required to have a dedicated line to respond to press inquiries.
> but still value the constitution and its principles
Musk, at least, values free speech (I'm not going to defend Thiel, because that story is pretty bad for all parties involved), which is an actual right enumerated by the Constitution, far more than any of the media companies that he dislikes. Before he took over Twitter, Twitter actively colluded with the US Government to censor speech, which absolutely infringes on the spirit, if not the letter, of the first amendment.
They appear to be set to move more power to the executive branch from the other branches of government while at the same time undermining both independence and impartiality of the other branches.
Granted, this has been happening steadily over the last couple of decades. Even the SCOTUS has been part of this by expanding the powers of the president. But with appointments that are only loyal to a person (Trump) and not the nation, the US is entering into new territory.
The US is already rated a "flawed democracy". It hasn't been a "full democracy" for several years. The next stop down is "hybrid regime". If Trump et al do what they say they intend to do, this is what the US will become.
The scary bit is that we now have at least one generation, possibly two, where a huge number of people will shrug and go "so what?".
Correct. The USA is recognized as an anocracy for a few years.
(Not that any foreign official will refer to the USA in that way of course)
Musk didn't, of course. Neither did any of the cabinet members win an election for that position. Neither did any of the cabinet members or advisors of any previous administration.
But Musk being appointed is a consequence of Trump's election, just like all cabinet members, advisors, and so on for every previous administration. You elect the person, you get their crew.
So people like Musk are "taking over" from other people who did not themselves win an election, but were put in positions of power by those who did win elections.
If you're going to argue that Musk wasn't elected (and he wasn't), then you also have to note that every person that is getting replaced by a Trump appointee is also someone who wasn't elected.
I may not like the people Trump is putting in position - they, um, don't seem like A players - but this particular criticism is unfair. Trump won a democratic election; he appoints his people just like all previous administrations did.
Them being appointed to cabinet positions (or cabinet adjacent) is not in of itself bad / against democracy.
The potential for this may have been latent all along, but it's incorrect or disingenuous to say that this is anything like the normal allocation of cabinet roles.
What does "private citizen" mean, exactly? The majority of people in every political campaign are US citizens, if that's what you're getting at.
I was assuming that I was speaking to more-or-less literate adults who can infer a reasonable meaning for words without me having to define them precisely.
In any case what I mean "exactly" is someone not a career politician or bureaucrat, nor with stated aspirations to become one.
But the problem these special committees always run into is that they have no actual constitutional authority to do anything. They can't pass legislation, they can't codify federal regulations. All they can do is make recommendations. (The president may give those recommendations the force of orders, but the president could have issued those same orders without the committee.)
So I don't think this that different from normal.
> a new government department with novel scope and power would be created for them to control.
But it's not. Despite the name, it's not actually a department - that requires congressional approval. It's just a committee. And the only power it has is issuing recommendations to actual departments. And those recommendations only have the power that Trump gives them - which also is nothing new.
Absolutely. And I do worry. I worry about the people Trump is appointing. I worry about him destroying checks and balances. I worry about his repeated "joking" about a third term.
It's just that this particular thing doesn't seem that irregular to me... so far. Once details emerge, that could change.