Click Here to Save Tech Policy from Populist Discontent
The recent vote by the Federal Communications Commission to re-classify the Internet as a public utility has been hailed as a momentous victory for the online activists who flooded the agency with millions of comments urging the strongest-possible rules on net neutrality. But the truth is it was just the latest skirmish in a broader populist attack on rational, fact-based technology policy.
On issues ranging from drones to digital copyright, techno-populists have overrun technology debates in recent years, transforming what was once a staid, technocratic process of iterative deliberation into a volatile political battlefield where sound bites and slogans trump facts and reason. Showing little interest in pragmatic solutions to advance the public interest, these techno-populists hurl accusations with minimal regard for truth or accuracy — the more sensational the assertion, the more likely it is to be retweeted. A casual observer could thus be led to believe Congress is one vote away from breaking the Internet, selling out consumers to greedy cable companies, or ending American democracy altogether.
While this populist fervor is a recent phenomenon in technology policy, it has deep roots in U.S. politics, typically pitting the rights and powers of common people against those of privileged elites in an “us-versus-them” dichotomy based on fear and distrust. Historian Richard Hofstadter, in his 1964 Harper’s article “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” described it as a “sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy.” This neatly describes the current fear mongering in tech policy debates such as those around net neutrality, digital copyright, and privacy. In each case, government agencies or large corporations are suspected of abusing technology to advance their own, nefarious interests at the public’s expense.
Populism comes from both the left and the right. On the left, populists want to police and limit big business, such as Internet service providers and Hollywood studios. On the right, populists want to rein in big government by banning technologies such as red light cameras. Regardless of party, populists myopically focus on their own interests (for example, being able to avoid traffic tickets, or download movies for free) and ignore the broader public good (such as making roads safer or fairly compensating workers in the creative industries). To be clear, the problem with these debates is not that they have become more open and participatory, but rather that many who choose to engage do so from a position of fear, anger, or misunderstanding.
The answer to populism is not to veer right toward laissez faire or left toward over-regulation, but instead to embrace a centrist tech progressivism that is guided by pragmatism and reason. Recognizing that technological innovation is a fundamental force for progress and good, we must optimistically look to the future, encourage innovation, and embrace the role of both government and business in generating societal progress.
It is important to recognize that we should not ignore legitimate policy concerns related to new technologies, but neither should we simply ban technologies, as some populists would have us do. We must instead address technology issues head on. For example, while populists object to policies that increase automation because of concerns about job losses, the progressive path is to embrace efforts to boost productivity while also strengthening programs like unemployment insurance and workforce training so workers can adjust to technological innovation and change.
It is time to turn the page on the corrosive ideology of populism and embrace a new path forward. The loudest voices (or the ones that generate the most FCC comments) are not always the ones that are right. Policymakers and members of the media should be wary of populist demagogues and demand that debates be grounded in facts and reason, not spin and distortion. If the United States allows the techno-populist uprising to keep gathering momentum, the result will be less innovation, which will hurt everyone — including the techno-populists standing in the way.
