[Looking at history and our area’s unique political and religious attitudes.]

Tiff. The term is almost an onomatopoeia, a word that sounds like what it means. Tiff is a petty quarrel which often gets blown out of proportion. A synonym, spitting match, is only slightly different sound. Recently, the world stage has seen a world class tiff between billionaire President Trump and mega-billionaire innovator Elon Musk. How did this event come to be? What about their characteristics made it very predictable?

Mr. Musk was brought in by President Trump to fix government spending. Unlike anyone ever before, Musk and his team were able to ferret into the government computers and very effectively identify waste, fraud, and abuse. While he was cleaning house, the courts were doing everything possible to stymie any changes. The court process is very slow for a mover like Musk, who wants to fix it now.

Musk is a practicing engineer and also has a degree in economics from the same school as Trump. He is intellectually brilliant and driven to solve problems like others in his engineering profession. I can relate where he is coming. A former state senate leader became an executive of a petroleum company, who was our client. After lunch we were relating when he made an observation. “Marc you are very good at engineering but you would have a difficult time in politics.” That is an interesting compliment. “You want to fix problems, and politics is not that way.” Professional politicians realized their problem with Musk very quickly.

Trump is an economist and renowned negotiator. He likes to throw out unreasonable demands to get the rebound from the other party. Then, he appears to give-in easily. In politics, that process is called walking back, but is the standard procedure in negotiations. Next, he negotiates to where he wants. Pundits, media, and political operatives are not used to such prowess. Consequently, they react to his first pitch as if it were his final offer. No one will get everything he wants, but reasonable people get reasonable results.

Congress came up with the ‘big beautiful bill’ as a budget, without adequately addressing all the issues that Musk and his team had documented. Trump pragmatically supported the bill, which is an amazing compilation compared to past Congressional activity.

Representative Massie of Kentucky is one of two Republicans to oppose the bill, on precisely the same grounds as Musk. Would you venture Mr. Massie’s profession? He is a quite successful engineer. The engineer propensity is to fix things. Politicians procrastinate, engineers cogitate. The other opponent was Representative Davidson of Ohio, a fiscally responsible businessman. The President made the same overtly derogatory comments against Massie as Musk. Political insiders of Trump, like Larry Kudlow, observed this is not the first time for Trump to react so strongly against his allies. Of course not.

When realities of politics prevented all his plans from being implemented, Musk, in his reactive passion, took on the President and Congress in a very public, X-platform way. His very personal invectives stirred the emotions and ire of the executive and legislative branch.

This is where the integrity of the low-key, calm, objective Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, comes in. To this tiff, Johnson smilingly advised “Policy differences are not personal.” That is the correct, cooling retort. We can disagree but still get along. But who among us can control our ego in a charged political discussion. When growing up we were cautioned, in order to stay out of arguments avoid discussing religion and politics. Better yet, follow Johnson’s candor.

Give this time to settle and be thought through. Trump has thrown out his normal, over-the-top first pitch. Musk has retorted. The negotiations have begun, even if rocky. It is difficult for a person of rational discipline like Musk to give ground, but if he will find a path, then they can have a profitable relationship.

The problem is not a question of ‘right or wrong,’ which is a rhetorical philosophy argument. For Musk, Massie, and other similarly disciplined, it is a matter of ‘correct or incorrect,’ which is mathematically rigorous. They absolutely know the answer. To change their position requires rejecting absolute truth, the equivalent to accepting that two plus two is five, for large values of two.

Think about it. ‘Right or wrong’ are philosophically debatable and negotiable values with ‘an answer.’ ‘Correct and incorrect’ are mathematically measurable truths with ‘the answer.’ How can mathematical rigor be circumvented? Those with political flexibility retort with “Yes, but…” There are other considerations.