Reflecting on the situations four years ago, who would have thought that American political leftist would be labelling others peculiar? It was during the year 2020, a period calling for police defunding and an attempt to portray ‘White Fragility’ as a logical literature, that the progressives started painting themselves as the eccentrics in societal affairs. This turning point coincides with when comedian Dave Chappelle started mocking them, making it clear that politics follow the stream of culture.
The way the Republicans have allowed the narrative to change over time is something that warrants an investigation. And perhaps, this inquiry might commence from Palo Alto. If President Donald Trump doesn’t emerge victoriously from the presidential election, his courtship of the tech industry, or their acceptance of him, may not be seen as superior as it was perceived during its inception. Regardless of the considerable campaign contributions from this segment, the Republicans’ perceived oddity appears to stem from the same source.
The peculiar nature of tech usually revolves around two features. One attribute is an intellectual fascination. The primary concerns of tech enthusiast are typically valid – demographic decrease is a serious concern, freedom of speech is undermined, but these issues receive an excessive amount of attention than the average voter’s preference. The other feature is the tone. There is a rampant, almost adolescent, inclination to incite reactions that is incompatible beyond podcasts and online chat platforms.
JD Vance, mentored by Peter Thiel, embodies both these anomalies. It’s hard to visualise him as a potential running mate before the tech-trump alliance. The GOP ticket required someone more akin to Mike Pence, another comforting delegate for suburban moderates. However, the person who emerged was someone restrained by Trump. If this frightens enough voters in sufficient states, none of the donations would have been worth it.
A comparison can be drawn between the mindset of Palo Alto and Wall Street, another influential body and moulding force in US politics. Financial markets are reactive to occurrences – a sudden spike in oil price, a foreign uprising, a crop failure – those involved in these markets have at least a basic connection to tangible reality. They barely make profits from theoretical contemplation and have limited time for it (with hedge funds being a slight exception). This practical approach is reinforced by the fact that financial centres are located in bustling cities where human interaction is constant and real-life chaos is the norm.
A considerable portion of the technology sector is concentrated within the business parks and secluded residences of Santa Clara Valley, and increasingly in Texas. The revenue model of this sector depends upon individual, substantial projects that require years of development or programming, as opposed to constant real-time judgements based on public events. An influx of highly-skilled mathematicians and engineers works on these projects, so it’s not surprising if certain eccentric and oblivious traits were to emerge. As a wealth generating machine, the US tech industry has been exceptional. However, when it steps into the political realm, it often proves clumsy.
The alignment of Big Tech isn’t towards the right; they remarkably funnel huge sums into the Democratic coffers. Still, an argument could be made that there isn’t a more ‘woke’ invention this century than Microsoft’s Ignite video from 2021, which catalogues all the native tribes who once populated the location of their studio. The issue lies not in the political inclinations of Big Tech, but in the adoption of extreme stances, be they left or right. Any disturbance in the UK is initially seen as a stepping stone towards civil war by individuals like Elon Musk; a strikingly alarmist attitude considering the UK has avoided civil war during events like the Corn Laws dispute, the Battle of Somme, or its decline as an empire. This kind of apocalyptic thinking, prevalent in Northern California, is not just peculiar but often wrong and unverifiable.
It’s essential to note that the relationship between the Republicans and the tech industry goes beyond financial contributions and candidates; it extends to the very products they produce. For a long time, conservatives felt disregarded on platforms such as Twitter. However, far from being a downfall, this compelled the right to engage with the wider world whilst the left isolated itself through specialist language and mutual commendation. The conservatives pushed back, and on the surface, they appeared victorious. But at what cost? How much has the ‘Muskified’ platform benefited the Republicans? Judging from the jubilant tweets from tech magnates celebrating the Vance appointment, it’s clear that the right is now the self-congratulating clique, oblivious to how their actions are perceived by undecided voters.
Naturally, eccentricity can lead to success. Presently, I perceive the Democrats as possessing a level of self-assurance equivalent to the Republicans a few weeks ago. The crux of the matter is if Trump’s probability of success has been positively or negatively affected by his famous endorsement from Silicon Valley. On the whole, I believe it has deteriorated. The birth of The Apprentice happened in what we nostalgically refer to as the pre-digital era of 2004. A man whose political rise was fuelled by conventional television didn’t necessarily require the unexpected support from these trailblazing yet strange new supporters. – The Financial Times Limited 2024 copyright.