Gen Z’s New Power Play: Why Musk’s Model Feels More Real Than Government
What new polling tells us about Gen Z men, their views on power, and Musk’s appeal.
The Backdrop
DOGE is not just an experiment in governance—it’s a direct challenge to traditional institutions and a glaring national security risk. It opens the floodgates to sensitive government infrastructure, granting unvetted young engineers access through loosely monitored recruitment pipelines. The scale and speed of this infiltration should alarm all of us, not just policymakers.
Yet, instead of focusing solely on its risks, we need to understand why so many Gen Z men seem drawn to it. Musk has tapped into something powerful: a broken system that makes young people feel shut out. He has given them an alternative—one that feels fast, impactful, and rewarding. Reducing these young people to mere 'Doge kids' oversimplifies a far more nuanced reality. There is a deeper story here—one that reveals legitimate frustrations with traditional institutions and offers lessons worth studying rather than ignoring.
In today's CBS/YouGov poll 49% of young Americans under 30 believe Elon Musk and DOGE should have at least some influence over the spending and operations of the government. In a SocialSphere poll that I fielded the weekend before the inauguration, we found that Musk holds a 54% favorable rating among young men, statistically tied with Trump (56%) and far ahead of the Democratic Party. And it’s not just about ideology. It’s about a generation looking for alternative pathways to power, influence, and impact.
Rather than debating whether this is right or wrong for America, we should be asking: What can we learn from it? How can we apply those lessons to strengthen our institutions?
Once again, Trump's party is reshaping the political landscape while Democrats struggle to keep pace, failing to anticipate and adapt to emerging dynamics in culture, politics, and government. DOGE resonates because it makes government feel like a startup—fast-moving, risk-taking, and unburdened by bureaucracy. If traditional institutions aim to re-engage Gen Z, they must address systemic inefficiencies and embrace a model that prioritizes agility, inclusivity, and tangible outcomes, they must match that sense of urgency, innovation, and engagement.
The real question isn’t whether DOGE should exist.
It’s this:
Why does a startup-style movement feel more empowering than the institutions meant to serve them? And how can we use that insight to make America stronger, provide opportunities for people, and protect the vulnerable?
My Takeaways ✨✨✨
Gen Z faces three major psychological and systemic barriers to civic engagement. DOGE—intentionally or not—addresses each of them in ways that traditional institutions and Democrats should pay attention to.
#1: Why Trust the System?
Virtually all research confirms that Gen Z has a historically high level of distrust in institutions, surpassing previous generations in skepticism:
Most have no confidence in Congress.
They don’t trust traditional media.
They don’t trust social media companies (even though they rely on them).
They hardly have any confidence in the Supreme Court.
If you don’t believe the system works, why would you participate in it? That’s the core dilemma of Gen Z’s engagement crisis.
DOGE capitalizes on this disillusionment. It presents itself as an outsider force, stripping away bureaucracy and inefficiency and replacing it with a high-stakes, startup-style approach to governance. To those who see government as broken, DOGE offers a compelling alternative—whether or not it actually delivers on its promises.
#2: Engagement Isn’t the Problem—Pathways Are.
Traditional civic engagement assumes young people just need encouragement to participate, but the data suggests otherwise:
Half of Gen Z say they don’t know where to start.
Two-in-five Zoomers believe local problems are too big to solve and think others don’t care about the same issues.
This isn’t apathy—it’s paralysis. The existing civic infrastructure doesn’t match how Gen Z consumes information, organizes, or takes action. It feels inaccessible, confusing, and ineffective.
DOGE, on the other hand, offers an easy entry point. Instead of navigating government bureaucracy, young engineers are sliding into Musk’s DMs, skipping the red tape, and getting to work immediately. Participation feels like an exclusive opportunity rather than a tedious obligation.
The takeaway for traditional civic institutions? If participation isn’t clear, easy, and rewarding, Gen Z won’t engage.
#3: Gen Z Wants to Solve Problems—Not Just Talk About Them.
Older generations see civic engagement as a duty—something you do because it’s expected. Gen Z sees it as a tool—something they use when it produces real results.
This helps explain why young Americans are:
Less likely to vote, contact an elected official, or discuss politics with family and friends, but
More likely to organize, attend events, and volunteer in their local communities.
DOGE plays directly into this shift. Instead of urging people to participate in the system, it offers an opportunity to fix it from the inside. Whether that’s true or not is beside the point—DOGE resonates because it makes government feel like a startup, not a bureaucracy. It gives young people a direct stake in reshaping the world around them.
The Bottom Line
DOGE’s model isn’t just lean, agile, and impact-driven—it’s a direct rejection of traditional bureaucracy. Whether seen as a visionary or a disruptor, Musk has given young people (especially men) an alternative to slow-moving institutions, and they are taking it. He has built a system that feels urgent, responsive, and rewarding—everything government does not.
Meanwhile, Democrats seem stuck relying on outdated strategies, failing to recognize that Gen Z isn’t waiting to be invited into a system that feels broken. They’re finding their own way, and unless civic leaders adapt, they will continue losing the next generation. This is a crisis of relevance, not just politics.
To win Gen Z, Democrats and civic leaders must compete on Musk’s terms—speed, accessibility, and tangible results. This requires abandoning outdated, bureaucratic models and adopting dynamic, responsive strategies that meet young people where they are. Here’s a place to start:
Make participation frictionless. Gen Z turns to DOGE because it’s easy to engage—no red tape, no barriers. Civic institutions need to build platforms that prioritize transparency, efficiency, and immediacy.
Launch high-energy, results-driven projects. Traditional government engagement is slow and uninspiring. Short-term, dynamic civic initiatives will show Gen Z their contributions matter.
Reframe the conversation. This isn’t just about opposing Musk—it’s about offering an alternative that is just as compelling and effective.
DOGE, despite its clear flaws, has proven that Gen Z is eager to engage when given the opportunity. The question is not whether a single leader like Musk is needed, but whether institutions can evolve to compete with his model. Musk’s appeal stems not just from his persona but from his approach—speed, calculated risk-taking, and direct empowerment of young talent. Traditional institutions have resisted these principles, leaving a void that DOGE fills. The key takeaway is not to counter Musk with another personality but to cultivate leadership that adopts his agility and decisiveness while upholding democratic and accountable governance. Governments and civic organizations must prove they can be just as dynamic, effective, and responsive.
10 High-Impact Strategies to Reclaim Gen Z Engagement
🔹 Civic Hackathons: Quick innovation challenges for policy solutions.
🔹 Rapid Voting Access Teams: Task forces fighting misinformation in real-time.
🔹 Community Microgrants: Fast funding for grassroots projects led by young activists.
🔹 AI Civic Engagement Tools: Real-time, personalized policy updates tailored to Gen Z interests.
🔹 Instant Volunteer Networks: App-based organizing for immediate action on urgent issues.
🔹 Pop-Up Debate Series: Interactive, issue-focused town halls designed for digital-native audiences.
🔹 Crowdsourced Policy Making: Direct input platforms that give young voters a voice in decision-making.
🔹 Digital Voter Mobilization: Gamified engagement and turnout incentives to drive participation.
🔹 Youth-Led Government Labs: Test-beds for public sector innovation, driven by young leaders.
🔹 Hyper-Local Advocacy Groups: Small, agile teams tackling city and state issues with real impact.If Gen Z sees a government that listens, moves fast, and delivers results, they will engage. The choice is clear—evolve or lose them for good. We don’t just need a Musk-like leader—we need a Musk-like movement, one that’s dynamic, agile, and designed to engage the next generation in shaping their future. The choice is clear—evolve or lose them for good.
Great analysis. I think you hit the nail on the head. The party that figures this out will be the dominant party for sometime. Most people are tired of government paralysis, but older people have occasionally seen government work. The problem is that it has not worked for some time now. If I were Congress, I would be doing something other than squabbling over passing last year’s budget. Maybe hold a hearing or two on the waste that has already been exposed.
If politicians didn't have to spend so much time raising money -- which GenZ is unlikely to approve pf or provide -- we would have a better chance of getting younger and more innovative people in office. Get money out of politics. Corporations are not people. Clear accountability... the opposite of what the current Republican administration wants. Cynical view? Absolutely, and with good reason.