CNN Panel Avoided the Punchline as They Pushed to Strip Elon Musk of His Wealth
Two words surfaced on CNN Friday regarding Elon Musk’s successful SpaceX IPO. A third word actually encapsulates it all. Together they explain almost everything about why the modern left cannot abide the existence of Musk.
The first word was honest. The second was a costume. The third was the one nobody at the table was willing to say out loud, even though it sat underneath the entire conversation.
The occasion was Musk crossing the line into history as the world’s first trillionaire, a threshold reached after SpaceX went public and lifted his paper wealth past $1.26 trillion. There is no vault. There is no mountain of confiscated coins. There are ownership stakes in companies that launch rockets, build cars, beam internet to remote villages, and aim at a colony on Mars. And the reaction from the CNN NewsNight panel was not curiosity about how a man built all of that. It was something closer to mourning.
Jennings Named the First Word
Scott Jennings refused to play along with the grief. He had spent the day watching the same spectacle the rest of us had, and he described it without flinching.
All day long, I’ve been listening to liberals, count and spend Elon’s money for him. This envy, jealousy, hatred of success. Why is it immoral? Why is it wrong for somebody in our system, our capitalist system, in the greatest nation on earth, to go out and build a company, build companies, build technologies, go into space, aim to go put a colony on Mars, give internet to half the world, all the things he’s doing?
Envy. That was the honest word, and Jennings was right to plant it in the center of the table. The rest of the panel had spent the segment performing a familiar ritual, the one where people who have built nothing of consequence appoint themselves stewards of what someone else built. Cari Champion delivered the purest version of it, announcing that people “shouldn’t be allowed to have a trillion dollars.”
Jennings answered the only way a free man can.
Rich people in this country pay the vast majority of taxes, and I hear people today saying, “Oh, it’s time that we tax the rich.” Folks, I got news for you. We already tax the rich. But is it for us to sit around and say, “There’s a limit on what you can build, there’s a limit on what you can earn,” and it’s now my job to tell you what to do with your money?
Then Came the Costume
Bakari Sellers was too sophisticated to say what Champion said. He reached instead for a gentler word, one that arrives wrapped in the language of virtue.
I’m not saying that I’m mad at him for being innovative enough for creating an IPO that creates wealth or many others. What I am saying, however, is that there has to be some nature of altruism.
Altruism. It sounds lovely. It sounds like generosity, like a heart turned outward toward the suffering of others. But listen to the construction of the sentence. There has to be. That is not a description of charity. That is a demand. Genuine altruism is a gift freely given by a man who owns what he gives away. What Sellers described is an obligation he believes Musk owes to someone, enforced presumably by someone else, measured by a standard set by people who happen to disagree with how Musk spends his own fortune.
When Generosity Becomes a Demand
This is the sleight of hand. Strip the warmth from the word and what remains is a claim on another man’s property dressed in the robes of moral concern. Musk already gives in ways his critics conveniently ignore. He beams Starlink connectivity to disaster zones and war-torn regions, he employs hundreds of thousands of people, and he has built the most consequential private space program on the planet.
None of that satisfies the panel, because the panel was never measuring generosity. It was measuring obedience.
Altruism extracted by pressure is not altruism. It is a tax wearing a halo. And the moment a society decides that a productive man’s wealth belongs morally to the collective, and that the collective gets to decide how much he is permitted to keep, it has accepted a premise far older and far darker than anything Sellers said aloud.
The Word Nobody Would Say
Strip away the envy and the costume, and the third word stands exposed. Marxism. Not the cartoon version with banners and bread lines, but the load-bearing assumption beneath all of it. Wealth is treated as theft. Success is treated as evidence of guilt. The man who builds is recast as a man who took. And the state, or the mob, or the panel, becomes the rightful redistributor of what he never had any business keeping. From each according to his ability, to each according to the grievances of people who envy his ability.
That is the engine humming under the polite vocabulary. Champion gave it away when she declared that people should not be allowed to accumulate too much. Sellers softened it into a moral suggestion. But the destination is identical. Both arrive at a place where a committee decides the ceiling on a human being’s ambition, and where the act of building something extraordinary is greeted not with gratitude but with a bill.
For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
Scripture understood the danger of envy long before Karl Marx was born. Envy is corrosive precisely because it cannot create. It can only resent what others have made and scheme about how to seize it. Dress it as altruism, and it grows respectable. Codify it into policy, and it grows lethal.
The confusion it breeds is exactly the confusion that filled that CNN studio, a roomful of people unable to tell the difference between a man earning a fortune and a man committing a crime.
So watch the three words the next time the left circles a successful American. Envy is the honest one, the feeling that actually animates the outrage. Altruism is the disguise, the word that makes covetousness sound charitable. And Marxism is the destination, the system that turns private envy into public confiscation. Jennings was right to call the spectacle what it is.
Success is not a sin, building is not theft, and no panel of professional resenters gets to set the limit on what a free man is permitted to achieve.
Be sure to check out my hand-curated conservative and Christian news aggregator, jdrucker.com