The concept of disruption applies differently to technology and politics.
Elon Musk’s disruptive innovations—Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink—have revolutionized industries by challenging norms and pushing technological progress forward. His disruptions are largely seen as positive, creating new opportunities and driving efficiency.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, represents disruptive politics. He upended traditional political norms, challenged institutions, and polarized public discourse. Unlike technological disruption, which is often measurable in terms of innovation and efficiency, political disruption carries unpredictable consequences—sometimes empowering marginalized voices, other times deepening divisions.
Now that Musk and President Trump had teamed up, the outcome would depend on their objectives. If their disruption focused on technological advancement in governance—such as using AI for better policymaking or revolutionizing infrastructure—it could be beneficial. However, if their disruption leaned toward political upheaval without a clear direction, it could lead to instability.
To some degree, former President Rodrigo Duterte was also a political disruptor, shaking up the establishment and defying traditional power structures. His approach to governance—whether through his war on drugs, foreign policy shifts, or unfiltered rhetoric—challenged the status quo. The establishment must have been so threatened that he had to be contained. Where this leads is still unfolding.
Disruption isn’t inherently good or bad—it depends on whether it leads to constructive transformation or reckless chaos.
#WeTakeAStand #OpinYon #OpinYonColumn #RedTapesAndRedFlags