We need to be as skeptical of Silicon Valley billionaires as we are of any other billionaire

Elon_Musk_gives_tour_for_President_Barack_Obama.jpg
Elon Musk meeting with President Obama, courtesy wikimedia.org

We all know billionaires have a disproportionately weighted amount of power and influence in our society. That’s no secret. Billionaires like the Koch brothers and the Adelson family have bought and influenced elections across the country for years. While I’d argue this influence needs to regulated and reigned in, it’s not new.

Some billionaires however – particularly the new class of Silicon Valley billionaires – seem to feel their wealth lays upon them a responsibility to change the world. Jeff Bezos bought the most influential political newspaper in the country, the Washington Post. Mark Zuckerberg has been mysteriously touring Iowa, which just so happens to be the most important state in the Democratic primary. Mark Cuban has also not ruled out a run for president.

Elon Musk is the perfect example. One of the founders of Paypal, and the founder of Tesla and SpaceX, he feels that since he has earned tremendous wealth, that he should do his part to fix the world’s problems. Musk is typically well loved among members of the public, and has used his wealth to take on a number of challenges from global warming, to the colonization of other planets, to traffic congestion in California. He feels that he should be using his wealth to make the world a better place.

Then we come to Peter Thiel. Another cofounder of PayPal with Musk, Peter Thiel feels that it is also his responsibility to use his billions to fix the world’s problems. Thing is, Thiel has a totally different worldview than Musk, and along with it, a totally different set of “the world’s problems” which need “fixing.”

15448437356_4a814db326_b.jpg
Peter Thiel, courtesy flickr.com

Thiel is notoriously a neoreactionary – which means that he believes our democracy and institutions have failed us, and that humanity needs an authoritarian strongman to lead it towards greatness. Thus it should be no surprise that he has supported Trump, and holds some of the same views against a free press that Trump holds. Thiel is largely responsible for taking down the website Gawker, either out of vindictiveness for stories published about him or out of motivations to curtail the perceived “bullies” of the free press, by funding the Hulk Hogan lawsuit against the company.

Can we not see how dangerous this thinking is? Believing that it is your responsibility to fix the perceived problems in the world is all well and good if your perceived “problems” align with the rest of our perceived problems. But what if they don’t? What if you perceive the “problems” in the world to be the first amendment and the people’s right to assemble and petition their government?

Being a billionaire does not give you authority – given that this was the fuel behind Trump’s candidacy for president, we see how flawed that argument can be. All it does is give you wealth and power. We the public need to be much more skeptical of these Silicon Valley billionaires. It is easy to want to see the founders of the devices and websites we love as leaders and heroes, but they don’t know any better about how to run society than you or me. And the more skeptical we are of Silicon Valley billionaires, just like any other billionaire, the better off we’ll be, and the less likely the left will get caught up in an all too familiar populist wave behind an incompetent leader.

If the plan was to undermine Comey’s credibility, it already failed

james_comey_testimony_gi.jpg
James Comey appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, courtesy dailywire.com

Today, Comey gave an unwavering, consistent, believable account of his interactions with the president and why it gave him pause. All of his stories and accounts line up with what we already know, none of it contradicts, and the intelligence community has his memos to back them up.

Trump’s plan (or at least, the RNC’s plan) was to undermine Comey’s credibility today to save face. To label him a showboat, question his motives, and try to give the American people a reason to doubt his testimony. However, Trump and the people defending him couldn’t help but push that they feel “vindicated” by his account of telling Trump he was not under FBI investigation.

Trump’s outside lawyer, Mark Kasowitz, today released a statement in defense of Trump’s actions. The point of the statement was to try to remove Trump from the appearance of wrongdoing, and he does this by using much of Comey’s testimony as evidence. He cites Comey’s own account of what took place, the exact quotes and wording Comey used, and that Comey told the president he was not under investigation personally, in order to try to paint a narrative. However, Kasowitz claims Comey, while telling the truth (even down to the exact wording) on the rest of his testimony, was lying about the part where Trump asked him to end the Flynn investigation.

The problem with all of this is if you’re using Comey’s testimony to defend yourself, even down to the exact wording he used, then you are inherently reaffirming his credibility. You are telling the American people that Comey had consistently told the truth throughout the entirety of his testimony.  Oh, except for that one thing – probably the only thing that, if true, means that Trump is guilty of a crime. That’s the one and only thing that we are supposed to believe was a lie.

So who are we to believe? A man who has shown professionalism, integrity, nonpartisanship (even when we all thought his treatment of Clinton was partisan), consistency, and reliability – whose story has only been corroborated by the people attacking him? Or a president who consistently lies and contradicts himself, sometimes in the same sentence?

Try to imagine how this would hold up in court, let alone the court of public opinion.

Ronald Reagan is rolling in his grave

rtx38lko.jpg
Donald Trump abandoning the Paris climate agreement, courtesy businessinsider.com
Ronald Reagan viewed America as a “shining city upon a hill.” His vision saw America holding the torch of liberty for the world to see – a shining example of the power and prosperity that can flow from freedom, liberty, and democracy. That our power comes from our freedom, not despite it, and that our power will be used to protect and project the truth to world, along with our democratic values.

You might call this a “right makes might” worldview. A worldview that has grown and flourished in the years following World War 2, its basic assumption is that America is powerful because its institutions – freedom, democracy, capitalism – are right and just.

Compare this to the worldview shared between autocrats like Vladimir Putin and the alt-right, who see the world as a proverbial game board where those with the power to do so have not only the right to bully the others, but the moral obligation. Those who share this worldview believe that a nation should project whatever power it has on the world stage, and that this strategy, when followed by all nations, brings about peace and prosperity.

The problem with this is that it isn’t new. This nationalistic, might-makes-right strategy, has already been tested. And it failed miserably. What inevitably happens when many powerful nations believe they have more sovereignty over less powerful nations is conflict – and after industrialization, conflict is more costly than it is worth. The world has benefited tremendously from what was envisioned by Woodrow Wilson and has evolved since 1945 – a globe of interconnected, cooperating nations that work together for the common good. Through this cooperation, nations can achieve together what they cannot do alone.

This was the basic premise of the Paris Agreement. A nonbinding voluntary “gentleman’s agreement” that laid the framework for all nations to make a conscious effort at reducing carbon emissions for the benefit of all. The success of this agreement, being nonbinding, relied on the most powerful countries to lead the way.

America was supposed to be one of the leaders. Leading the world into a 21st century energy economy would have been another opportunity for the United States to prove that it is still “a shining city upon a hill,” an example for the rest of the world to look up to and emulate. Instead, the president Thursday rolled back that leadership, leaving the world to look for a new leader – a new “shining city upon a hill,” which now looks like it could be Europe, or China, or whoever may step into the leadership void. It was a powerful signal to the world that we don’t care about you any more, and that you are on your own.

Even more than this however, Trump’s foreign policy reflects a pivot away from what has treated the world very well in the years since World War 2. Abandoning global cooperation, abandoning leadership by example in an attempt to bully the rest of the world in a might-makes-right approach to foreign policy is already beginning to backfire. We are alienating the allies that have helped us push for democracy, freedom, and capitalism throughout the world, against the forces of totalitarianism and communism. This isn’t some left-wing “sissy” view of the world. This used to be bipartisan, shared by Republican and Democrat leaders alike.

Evan McMullin, the conservative independent presidential candidate in 2016, had this to say about it, “We left this model behind after the great world wars and have benefited from a lack of their return since. Our system since has been rules-based in which all nations, no matter how weak or powerful, have the same claim to sovereignty and justice. The ‘might makes right’ philosophy, whether in foreign or domestic affairs, is an assault on truth. It presupposes that there is neither right nor wrong, but only political or military power. Where political or military power determine what is ‘right,’ there is no truth because power is dynamic and changes hands regularly. Where there is no truth, there is neither liberty nor equality, thus the reason authoritarians adopt populism so readily. There is truth!”

Reagan knew this, he knew the power of leading by example, of truth, of supporting and cooperating with our strongest allies. Why are conservatives abandoning the philosophies of their heroes, the same heroes whose name they still cite as examples of what is possible with conservative leadership?