Commentary

They Just Called Him a Traitor. Then They Mentioned the Electric Chair.

Posted on by Bill McCarthy

A New York University professor went on stage with a fellow commentator and labeled Elon Musk a “traitor to the West.” He then reminded the audience that the United States had lined up the Rosenbergs and executed them for espionage. He said Musk should be held to the same standard as every other traitor. The room applauded. No one has produced a formal indictment, a trial, or even a criminal complaint. The charge is political. The remedy he invoked is the one reserved for people the state has already decided must disappear.

What the Words Actually Were

Scott Galloway made the remarks on the Pivot podcast with Kara Swisher around the time of the midterms. He argued that Americans have fallen into an unhealthy idolatry of innovators and that Musk has been allowed to live by a different set of rules. He called him a traitor to the West, compared him to Charles Lindbergh’s pre-war isolationism, and then said, “We lined up the Rosenbergs against a wall. This is a traitor to the West, and you should be held to the same standards as every other traitor in the West.”

The Rosenbergs were convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage for the Soviet Union and executed in 1953. They were not shot against a wall; they died in the electric chair. The historical detail is secondary. The point of the reference was the penalty. Galloway did not say the words “execute Musk” in sequence. He called him a traitor and immediately invoked the people the government put to death for treason. Viewers and commentators on both sides understood the implication. Some outlets framed it as an explicit call for execution. Others noted that he stopped short of a direct demand. The sequence itself did the work.

The underlying grievance appears to be Musk’s decisions about Starlink and its military counterpart Starshield in Ukraine, where connectivity was reportedly restricted for certain Ukrainian drone operations. Galloway treated that as betrayal. Musk has also spent hundreds of millions supporting Republican candidates and has warned that Democratic control of the House, Senate, and White House would end meaningful democracy. Those are political acts. They are not the transfer of nuclear secrets to a wartime enemy.

How the Tactic Works

Labeling an opponent a traitor removes the need for ordinary political argument. Once the word is attached, ordinary disagreement becomes disloyalty, and disloyalty carries the old penalties. The left has used versions of this language against Musk for years—over his free-speech policies on the platform he owns, over his spending cuts during the efficiency review, over his refusal to keep subsidizing certain foreign conflicts. After the midterms handed Democrats both chambers of Congress, the volume increased. Members have already signaled interest in investigations into his government contracts, his role in the efficiency effort, and the Ukraine communications decisions. The “traitor” framing is the rhetorical advance team for those investigations. It tells the audience that the target is not a rival with different priorities; he is an enemy of the system itself.

This is not new. In the 1930s the Soviet leadership under Stalin turned the same language into an industrial process. Old Bolsheviks, military officers, engineers, and ordinary citizens were accused of wrecking, sabotage, and treason against the revolution. The accusations required little evidence. A confession extracted under pressure, a past association, or simply the need to meet a quota of enemies was enough. The Great Purge executed hundreds of thousands and sent millions more to camps. The stated purpose was to protect the state from internal enemies. The practical effect was to eliminate anyone who might challenge the leader’s control or simply occupy a useful position. The language of traitor did the work before the bullet or the camp ever arrived.

The American version so far stops at the podium and the podcast. No one has ordered Musk arrested. No tribunal has been convened. The difference in scale is obvious. The similarity in method is not. Once a political opponent is defined as a traitor rather than a rival, the ordinary limits on state power begin to look optional. The applause in the room suggests a portion of the audience is already comfortable with that shift.

What Happens Next

Musk has answered past threats with his own language about living by the sword. He has the resources to fight investigations in court and the platform to answer in public. A Democratic Congress can still demand records, hold hearings, and attempt to restrict contracts. Those tools exist under the Constitution. The “traitor to the West” formulation is an attempt to short-circuit them. It treats political disagreement as a capital offense and invites the audience to accept the old remedy. The Rosenbergs were spies who passed atomic secrets during the early Cold War. Musk is a businessman who built rockets, cars, and a communications network and then spent money on candidates. The two cases have almost nothing in common except the word some people now want to apply to both.

Help American Liberty PAC in our mission to elect conservatives and save our nation. Support – American Liberty PAC