Now it seems like a lie, but in 2021 time named Elon Musk Person of the Year. Admittedly, that designation does not necessarily equate to a seal of approval. But the magazine’s coverage of Musk at the time was very favorable, almost flattering, highlighting his statement that “Mars and cars are my calling.”
Many people today would disagree with that statement. Of course, Tesla and SpaceX are still big companies. But for many, Musk is largely defined by the way he has changed X, the site formerly known as Twitter, by creating more space for right-wing extremists, including a sizable number of pro-Nazi accounts, and his own embrace of theories. of the anti-Semitic and racist conspiracy.
Musk’s turn to the right is not universal, nor even typical: press reports suggest that, even with the turn to the right of several relevant names, Silicon Valley remains majority Democratic. Political contributions from the internet sector, in particular, continue to lean heavily toward Democrats. But right-wing technocrats are exerting a significant and, I would argue, malign influence on the political landscape.
Consider the case of JD Vance, senator from Ohio and Donald Trump’s vice presidential candidate. How did you get to where you are? He is an exceptional campaign man; that is, exceptional in the sense that he seems to be incredibly bad at it. I’m not going to repeat the “cat ladies” incident, except to say that it contributed to what will probably go down in history as one of the worst vice presidential candidate presentations of all time. Who chose this guy?
The answer, it seems to me, is a handful of tech moguls led by billionaire Peter Thiel, who, in effect, bought Vance a Senate seat by overwhelming his rivals with an avalanche of money.
And in doing so, they have put someone who has transformed into an unsavory extremist on a path that quite possibly puts him one step away from the presidency: keep in mind that it was Vance who was responsible for spreading the claims about Haitian immigrants in Springfield , Ohio, who stole and ate neighbors’ pets, and has continued to willingly perpetuate these claims even though they appear to be completely unfounded.
Then there are cryptocurrencies, which are not exactly like other parts of the technology sector. Regardless of what one thinks of Musk, Tesla produces a real product with real uses; The same goes for PayPal, the initial source of Thiel’s immense wealth. Cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, remain a solution in search of a problem.
But a couple of months ago, Bernie Moreno, the Republican candidate for Ohio’s other Senate seat and a supporter of cryptocurrencies, asked at a bitcoin convention: “Aren’t you sick of those politicians who say that bitcoin is used for trafficking with drugs and money laundering?” Not really: I’m tired of the most obvious and easy uses of cryptocurrencies being drug trafficking and money laundering, after having tried and failed to find relevant legal uses.
However, cryptocurrencies are marketed as a revolutionary technology, and some of its main drivers are among the tech brosor tech executives, who have been lurching to the right, so it makes sense to put the political role of cryptocurrencies in the same basket.
And cryptocurrencies play a big role in the 2024 election. Axios writes that, according to an August report from Public Citizen, “the cryptocurrency sector accounts for nearly half of the money contributed by corporations to political action committees in 2024.” ″. Why is the cryptocurrency sector spending so much? He clearly fears regulation: Gary Gensler, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, has argued that cryptoassets should be considered and regulated as securities, which could harm or even nullify their value by undoing some of the hype.
Beyond that, a growing portion of cryptoassets consists of stablecoinsor stable cryptocurrencies, issued by institutions that peg their value to traditional currencies, such as the dollar. However, we already have a name for institutions that issue liabilities that promise to redeem for hard currency when requested: banks. And centuries of experience tell us that banks must be regulated to ensure financial stability.
But stablecoins are not regulated like banks, and it is not clear that they would be able to compete if they were.
So the political spending of cryptocurrencies appears to be clearly motivated by financial interest, while the rightward shift of others tech bros It could reflect a sense of common cause with Trump, who, like them, believes he should not be forced to play by the rules. (I would add that very rich men are sometimes prone to conspiracy theories because they are too often surrounded by people who tell them what they want to hear, and who laugh at their jokes even when they are not funny.)
Whatever their motivations, political spending by tech executives could have a huge impact on American politics. Those Ohio elections alone could determine control of the Senate, with enormous implications for federal policy on many fronts.
In short, the tech bro style has emerged as a major force in American politics, a force that, in my opinion, brings our democracy closer to catastrophe.
#techno #bro #style #politics