The rise of JD Vance to the vice presidential nomination on the Republican ticket, with ardent support from technology investor and major donor Peter Thiel, seems unlikely given the technology sector's longstanding role in Democratic Party fundraising.
But Thiel's support for Vance reflects a broader backlash against the ability of established technology corporations within the United States. As some tech-friendly Democrats bristle on the Biden administration's antitrust efforts and Republicans nominate a former Silicon Valley enterprise capitalist who has championed those self same efforts, it's clear that the tech sector is becoming more politically fragmented.
Vance's rise reflects the ability of deep-pocketed tech leaders who outspokenly espouse the principles of techno-libertarianism, the concept that tech corporations ought to be largely exempt from government interference. That view is gaining political power and influence within the Republican Party. Thiel got Vance a job at his Silicon Valley enterprise capital firm and gave Vance's successful Senate campaign in Ohio $15 million – the most important amount ever donated to a single Senate candidate, Politico reported in 2022. He also put Vance in contact with former President Donald Trump. Meanwhile, tech billionaire Elon Musk supports Trump financially through his America PAC.
Division in Silicon Valley
This represents a shift from the tech sector's fame as a bastion of the Democratic Party. Many startup founders are based on the progressive West Coast, particularly in California, and for years there was a revolving door of Democratic officials leaving Washington for high-level positions in Silicon Valley. Against this backdrop, the tech sector has largely promoted Democrats' interests – including by serving as campaign contributors, offering digital expertise and emerging as a significant donor.
But because the sector has grown, the backlash against Big Tech has grown, as have calls from voters and politicians on either side for regulation of the industry. Antitrust efforts, including those by current Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, have raised alarm bells for tech corporations trying to retain market share. For his part, Musk has blamed “overregulation” and the state's liberal policies, and announced this month that he would move the headquarters of X (formerly Twitter) and SpaceX from California to Texas, highlighting the growing divide between the techno-libertarian wing and the Democratic mainstream.
Complicating the image is Vance calling Khan “one of the few people in the Biden administration who I think is doing a pretty good job.” Khan has brought antitrust lawsuits against major corporations like Amazon, so it might sound that Vance supports regulation and oversight. More likely, though, his position reflects a pro-competition stance aimed toward maximizing the variety of corporations that may compete with the large guys. In fact, Thiel has argued that Google is a monopoly, and he donated to then-Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley across the time he launched an investigation into Google (though Hawley denied any connection between the campaign donations and his investigation of the tech giant).
The Techno-Libertarians
So evidently the Vance-Thiel alliance is aimed toward difficult those corporations which are seen as potential monopolies and now represent an institution that takes power away from emerging corporations that hope for minimal oversight (reminiscent of the startups Thiel is investing in and the electrical vehicle sector Musk desires to dominate). Thiel and Musk, as key figures within the techno-libertarian movement, expect their regulatory environment to be way more permissive under a second Trump administration. At the identical time, nonetheless, they’ve signaled that they’re open to policies that weaken the dominant corporations.
By electing Vance, Trump has successfully won the support of a number of the wealthiest politicians. But the brand new fault lines in Silicon Valley politics are harder to predict. If Trump gets his way, his administration could bypass or at the least roll back regulations – apart from those corporations and individuals that his and Vance's allies find too threatening.
Originally published:
image credit : www.mercurynews.com