Whether or not Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsm survives Tuesday’s recall election may depend in part on a small but vocal group of Silicon Valley power players who have thrown their weight behind attempts to oust him, including some former Democrats. Were supportive.
To better understand what happened, we recently spoke with political economist and Stanford Business School professor Neil Malhotra about research done in 2017 on the political elite’s political stance – and why some felt so quick to turn to news this year. Our conversations have been lightly edited for length.
TC: How did you get into this line of work?
NM: It was inspired by a historical perspective. While you see a lot of big changes in American politics and parties, most of them have been driven by major business interests and sources of wealth. The robber baron, including Leland Stanford at the turn of the century, is a good example. And it looks like we’re going through the same period right now.
TC: Based on your research, how do the attitudes of the people of Silicon Valley differ from the population of California as well as the national population in general?
NM: To be clear, I use Silicon Valley as a metaphor. Many of these are also located in other areas of the country, such as Boston, Austin, Research Triangle, Los Angeles, etc. But in general, I think the attitude of this group of technically elite class is unique and you don’t see that in other parts of the population. I have called them liberal-terriers. To distinguish them from libertarians, they are very liberal on social issues and issues related to globalization, such as immigration and free trade. And they support redistribution, so they have a lot of support for universal health care. But they are against government regulation. So the difference between redistribution and regulation is that it makes this population very unique, even among the very rich people in the United States.
TC: Meaning regulation around labor? Is this U.S. It’s about limiting the number of skilled educated immigrants that can come or gig workers. . .?
NM: They are very, very supportive of immigration, and also very supportive of gig workers, and against the ability to restrict the labor market in any way.
They are very, very anti-union, which sets them apart from others in the Democratic Party as well. I think the common belief they have is letting the market work and then redistributing money through taxes and social programs, because they think this will make the pie the biggest and still allow equality instead of putting a lot . Restrictions in place Priority, Which will shrink the novelty, shrink the pie.
TC: There are many people in technology who talk about redistribution of assets but in practice protect their assets or the assets of their companies. Any thoughts on how sincere they are about this based on your research?
NM: They are very helpful for income tax. But perhaps it is self-service, although much of their wealth comes from capital gains, and it is very possible that they will support capital gains tax less, not because it will rob them of their wealth, but because they will feel that it is an innovation. Obstructs.
Chamath Palihapitia, one of Silicon Valley’s leading tech figures, said California’s high taxes were one reason they were supporting the recall.
TC: Do you think that in general, recall supporters were considering taxation an issue or are there other issues that were further ahead?
NM: Covid restrictions [were also top of mind]. I think these tech entrepreneurs really identify with entrepreneurs, even if they are not elite entrepreneurs, and that includes small business owners, restaurant owners, gym owners, small homeowners. They feel that the government is punishing these people during the epidemic. Next, I think that in addition to being against unions, they are generally against public sector unions like teacher unions. And so I think the restrictions on school opening also struck with this population.
TC: The news camp has raised some money compared to its recall opponents. Do you think the money raised in this recall effort will have a significant impact on turnover?
NM: I think everything makes a difference on the margin. All that money goes to the announcement of voting efforts. But at the end of the day, if there’s a real movement, it can’t really take it away. Hillary Clinton raised Trump tremendously, and I’m sure all that money will help. But the big question is, who is excited to come out, who is going to encourage, and who might need $ 70 million to persuade those who aren’t excited to vote in this election to vote to save them.
TC: A number of tech winners who have supported this recall. How do they benefit if Newsome loses? Looks like they’re betting on chaos in a way.
NM: I think this is a good test case [congressman] Ro Khanna. Mike in his first campaign against Honda [in 2014], He ran as a Silicon Valley technocrat and got support [Facebook COO Shery] Sandberg and all these tech winners, and he lost the election. Then he moved on and became the person of Bernie Sanders and I think, Bernie Sanders was the national co-chair of the campaign, and now this is the half “squad” member who is on the far left. I think it’s really interesting. It’s almost like the micro-world of the Democratic Party that first embraces the tech community, and then now opposes it. This recall could potentially reshape those connections,