Language in politics is, well, a bit more than just words. It’s about perception and what your audience actually hears. After working with various brands and campaigns over the years, I can honestly say a poorly crafted message can derail even the best ideas. Take Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s American Party, for instance—it’s a perfect example of how not to foster trust through communication.
I’ve seen these dynamics play out before. My early days were spent working on the Los Pero campaign, where I learned the importance of using the right words to galvanize movements. Ross Perot succeeded by engaging voters with straightforward, relatable language. He highlighted issues with broken systems in a way that inspired belief in possible change.
In contrast, Musk seems to communicate in a haze of confusion, lacking a real grasp of what trust means in politics. This makes his American Party seem like yet another fleeting attempt at a third-party movement that’s unlikely to gain traction.
Language of Confusion vs. Language of Trust
Let’s examine his approach. Musk claims it’s “time for a new political party that actually cares about people” and mentions goals like “reducing government spending” and embracing AI modernization. These phrases feel more like trendy buzzwords than genuine beliefs, aimed more at stirring emotions than convincing anyone.
The issue is that Americans are, quite frankly, overwhelmed by distrust. They’re skeptical of politicians and political institutions in general. So, when a billionaire with impulsive Twitter behavior suddenly professes to care about people, skepticism naturally arises. Musk’s rhetoric seems to echo populism, but it often feels inauthentic.
Slogans can play a role in building trust, but true trust relies on meaningful, resonant language that addresses real concerns. Perot, also a billionaire, knew how to communicate with everyday people in a way that felt credible.
Musk, however, appears to address a concept rather than individuals.
The Pitfalls of Startup Populism
There’s a lot of high-tech jargon in his messaging, which overlooks the human element. While innovation may excite some, many voters are anxious about their jobs, healthcare, and their kids’ futures. The language of startups might appeal to venture capitalists, but it misses the mark for the average American.
Perot was another tech entrepreneur, yet he simplified complex issues for his campaign. His message about cutting regulatory red tape was straightforward: “If you see a snake, kill it. Don’t form a committee.”
I Care About You. You’re Fired
Once, clients wanted to launch campaigns showcasing how much they cared about their audiences. The slogan “We care” flopped because the actions didn’t match the message. This disconnect also applies to Musk. He claims to want a party that “actually cares about people,” but his language often feels calculated, not genuine. It reflects an intention to disrupt rather than an effort to build trust.
Words like “confusion,” “modernization,” and “efficiency” sound more like corporate speak than what voters are genuinely concerned about. If a candidate can’t answer crucial questions like “Do you understand me? Do you care about what I care about?” through their messaging, they’re already at a disadvantage.
Conclusion: Words Are More Important Than Ever
It’s uncertain whether Musk is aiming to create something new or simply reacting against Trump. However, if he wants to have an impact, he needs to do more than point out flaws—that part is easy.
Perot recognized that the system was broken, but he articulated the problem and framed the solution as attainable. He made complex issues relatable and inspired the public to engage. At the height of his campaign, nearly 39% of voters indicated they might support him.
Despite considerable changes since 1992, establishing a third party in the U.S. continues to be a daunting challenge. To succeed, one must craft a message that fosters hope and optimism while addressing the real concerns of many Americans.
Interestingly, in a poll where Perot was leading, 65% of respondents expressed reluctance to vote for candidates who profited from government contracts. So perhaps, not as much has shifted as we might think.
