Er … why not? It’s possible to do both, at least if one doesn’t treat a massive political player as somehow sacrosanct and above criticism. On Monday, Elon Musk took a potshot at George Soros, which prompted an exchange with Brian Krassenstein over Soros’ impact on society:

Soros reminds me of Magneto

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 16, 2023

You assume they are good intentions. They are not. He wants to erode the very fabric of civilization. Soros hates humanity.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 16, 2023

I’ll skip the X-Men analogies, along with their tedious ‘universe’.  Musk followed up on his quip with a slightly longer-form criticism of Soros, this time without comic-book comparisons:

Perfectly said. Among other things, Soros astutely identified a massive arbitrage opportunity in district attorney elections, where a relatively small amount of money has outsized influence.

Soros’s instructions to his pet prosecutors were (essentially) to minimize prosecuting…

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 17, 2023

Perfectly said. Among other things, Soros astutely identified a massive arbitrage opportunity in district attorney elections, where a relatively small amount of money has outsized influence.

Soros’s instructions to his pet prosecutors were (essentially) to minimize prosecuting even violent criminals.

That’s why a criminal – someone who had already stabbed his roommate – could brutally assault Dave Chapelle on stage with that same deadly weapon and yet receive merely a misdemeanor!

That’s absolutely accurate. Soros’ campaign to elect progressive DAs has been thoroughly reported and understood for several years. So has its intent: to circumvent legislatures by electing DAs who make prosecutorial decisions based on concerns about “equity” rather than the rule of law. Politico reported that in 2016 as an explicit policy direction for Soros in funding candidates who would execute those policies, as David Sacks links:

While America’s political kingmakers inject their millions into high-profile presidential and congressional contests, Democratic mega-donor George Soros has directed his wealth into an under-the-radar 2016 campaign to advance one of the progressive movement’s core goals — reshaping the American justice system.

The billionaire financier has channeled more than $3 million into seven local district-attorney campaigns in six states over the past year — a sum that exceeds the total spent on the 2016 presidential campaign by all but a handful of rival super-donors.

His money has supported African-American and Hispanic candidates for these powerful local roles, all of whom ran on platforms sharing major goals of Soros’, like reducing racial disparities in sentencing and directing some drug offenders to diversion programs instead of to trial. It is by far the most tangible action in a progressive push to find, prepare and finance criminal justice reform-oriented candidates for jobs that have been held by longtime incumbents and serve as pipelines to the federal courts — and it has inspired fury among opponents angry about the outside influence in local elections.

Soros’ influence has been exercised openly and his intentions are well-known. He is no more immune from criticism for it than are the Kochs or Sheldon Adelson, the well-known GOP donor with a pro-Israel agenda. The rapid rise in crime in large cities strongly correlates with the election of Soros’ endorsed candidates for these positions and the implementation of Soros’ political agenda for crime and justice. Whether that amounts to a causal relationship is a matter for debate, of course, but that’s precisely why we have to be able to debate it.

And yet whenever anyone criticizes Soros’ attempts to “reshap[e] the American justice system” through an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, the media does not wait long to toss out accusations of anti-Semitism to shut that debate down.

That brings us to this CNBC interview, where David Faber makes a half-hearted attempt to level that insinuation. First off, Faber starts off by asking the owner of Twitter why he feels compelled to share his thoughts on social media, a clueless question given the fact that Musk spent $44 billion to ensure that privilege. Musk’s facial expression is perfect at that moment. Faber follows up with the A word almost immediately after that, using the hoary “people say” construct to avoid responsibility for it:

One of the most incredible interviews of a Billionaire in modern history

pic.twitter.com/qlbFkhWj9F

— E (@ElijahSchaffer) May 17, 2023

FABER: I’m trying to understand why you do, because you have to know it’s got a — It puts you in the middle of a partisan divide in the country, it makes you a lightning rod for criticism. I mean, do you like that? People today saying, “He’s an anti-Semite.” I don’t think you are —

MUSK: No, I’m definitely not. I’m like a pro-Semite, if anything.

FABER: [Laughs] I believe that probably is the case. But why would you even introduce the idea of that?

Ahem. Shouldn’t Faber be asking that question of himself? After all, it’s Faber “introducing” that idea in the interview, while attempting to distance himself from it with weasel wording (“I don’t think you are… that probably is the case”). Why did Faber bring it up at all, especially when Musk’s criticisms of Soros are on policy and politics?

Musk ends this clip with a rather stirring defense of open debate and free speech, not to mention a reference to the great film The Princess Bride. Faber wonders why Musk doesn’t just keep his mouth shut and count his money (a question that could also be asked of Soros, but has it ever?), and Musk quotes the climactic scene between Inigo Montoya and Count Rugen:

MUSK: There’s a scene in The Princess Bride — a great movie —

FABER: Great movie.

MUSK: — where he confronts the person who killed his father. And he says, “Offer me money. Offer me power. I don’t care.”

FABER: So you just don’t care? You want to share what you have to say?

MUSK: I’ll say what I want to say, and if the consequence of that is losing money, so be it.

Musk certainly has more of it to lose to free speech than most. That’s precisely why it’s important to see him stand up for free discourse in principle, even if Musk sometimes falls short of it in practice. Despite months of promises, the Twitter mechanisms that reward block lists and reporting campaigns remain in place, and people still get locked out of accounts for viewpoints and overwrought concerns over “safety.” Hopefully, Musk will get those sorted out by sticking to his free-speech bedrock principles in practice — even while the media make it as painful as possible for him when he speaks out.

Meanwhile, in case you don’t recall the final scene of Count Rugen in The Princess Bride, enjoy this reminder of it. It’s one of the finest crafted scenes of vengeance in modern cinema. The dialogue Musk quotes — well, paraphrases — comes at the very end.