Elon Musk & The Lord of the Flies

by Paul Johnson

Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur behind companies like Tesla, SpaceX, and X (formerly Twitter), has long been a polarizing figure due to his ambitious vision and controversial leadership style. Recently, his involvement in reshaping government efficiency has drawn significant attention, as he has implemented drastic measures to streamline operations, including cutting programs like USAID from 10,000 employees to 300, locking elected officials out of government buildings, and assigning small teams of young programmers to overhaul systems at key agencies such as the Treasury, OMB, EPA, and GSA. These actions invite a striking comparison to Jack Merridew, the antagonist in William Golding’s “Lord of the Flies”. Both Musk and Jack embody the complexities of leadership, ambition, and the struggle for control, but their actions also reveal the darker side of human nature when power is left unchecked. By examining their similarities in leadership style, ambition, and the consequences of their actions, we can better understand the parallels between Musk’s modern-day influence and Jack’s descent into savagery.

At first glance, both Elon Musk and Jack Merridew emerge as natural leaders. Jack, the charismatic choirboy, quickly establishes himself as a dominant figure among the boys stranded on the island. His confidence and assertiveness make him a compelling leader, much like Musk, whose bold vision and relentless drive have earned him a loyal following. Musk’s ability to inspire people with his futuristic ideas—such as colonizing Mars or revolutionizing transportation—mirrors Jack’s initial appeal as a hunter who promises food and security. However, both figures also exhibit a tendency to prioritize their own ambitions over the collective good. Jack’s obsession with hunting and control leads him to abandon Ralph’s democratic leadership, while Musk’s impulsive decisions, such as his controversial takeover of Twitter and his recent actions in government efficiency initiatives, often prioritize personal or ideological interests over the stability of the systems he influences.

Musk’s approach to reshaping government efficiency is emblematic of this tendency. By slashing the workforce of USAID, he has effectively dismantled a critical agency responsible for global humanitarian aid and development. While proponents argue that this move eliminates inefficiency and bureaucracy, critics warn that it undermines the agency’s ability to fulfill its mission, potentially leaving vulnerable populations without vital medical and nutritional support that could leave them vulnerable to disease and starvation. Similarly, Musk’s decision to lock elected officials out of government buildings undermines the checks and balances built into our constitution. Furthermore, assigning small teams of young, unvetted programmers to examine and overhaul systems at sensitive agencies like the Treasury, Office of Budget and Management, Environmental, and GSA reflects a top-down, authoritarian approach to governance. These actions mirror Jack’s authoritarian rule on the island, where he disregards democratic processes and imposes his will on others, often with little regard for the broader impact.

Ambition is another key trait shared by Musk and Jack. Both are driven by a desire to achieve dominance, whether it’s over an uninhabited island or the global market. Jack’s ambition manifests in his relentless pursuit of power, culminating in his transformation from a disciplined choirboy to a ruthless dictator. Similarly, Musk’s relentless pursuit of innovation and control has led to accusations of monopolistic behavior and a disregard for ethical boundaries. His involvement in government efficiency initiatives reflects his ambition to reshape systems traditionally resistant to change. While such initiatives could bring positive reforms, Musk’s approach often bypasses established protocols, leading to concerns about accountability and unintended consequences. For example, assigning this crew of young programmers who lack any prior government clearance or experience to overhaul complex systems at agencies like the Treasury or EPA may yield short-term gains in efficiency, but it risks overlooking the expertise of career professionals and the nuanced challenges of public governance. This mirrors Jack’s authoritarian rule, where his whims dictate the fate of the boys on the island, often with little regard for the broader impact.

However, the most striking similarity between Musk and Jack lies in the consequences of their actions. In the novel, Jack’s descent into savagery ultimately leads to the destruction of the island’s fragile social order and the death of several boys. While at present, Musk’s actions have not resulted in physical violence, his influence has had far-reaching consequences. His acquisition of Twitter has been criticized for amplifying misinformation and fostering divisiveness, and his involvement in public-sector initiatives has raised questions about the balance between innovation and accountability. For instance, his decision to drastically reduce the workforce of USAID risks undermining the agency’s ability to respond to global crises. Further, his takeover of federal buildings, and the barring of access to duly elected representatives undermines democratic oversight and transparency. These actions serve as a reminder of the dangers of allowing individuals to wield too much power without accountability, much like Jack’s unchecked authority on the island.

In conclusion, Elon Musk’s behavior bears striking similarities to that of Jack Merridew. Both figures exemplify the dual nature of leadership—charismatic and inspiring, yet potentially destructive when driven by unchecked ambition. While Musk’s contributions to technology and innovation are undeniable, his actions, including his recent efforts to reshape government efficiency, highlight the risks of prioritizing personal ambition over collective well-being. By drawing parallels between Musk and Jack, we are reminded of the importance of accountability and ethical leadership in preventing the descent into chaos, whether on a deserted island, in the realm of public-sector innovation, or in the modern world. Musk’s approach to government efficiency may yield short-term gains, but it risks undermining the very systems it seeks to improve, much like Jack’s authoritarian rule ultimately leads to the collapse of order on the island. As we navigate the complexities of leadership and power in the 21st century, the lessons of “Lord of the Flies” remain as relevant as ever.