Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to attend the Democratic National Convention. My primary goal was to advocate for impartiality in our political coverage concerning Bitcoin and the upcoming election at Bitcoin Magazine. Earlier this year, we received a last-minute invitation to the Republican National Convention following David Bailey’s coordination with the Trump campaign prior to his speaking engagement at the Bitcoin 2024 conference in Nashville this July.
I felt uneasy witnessing individuals associated with our company taking a remarkably biased stance in favor of the Republican Party, especially considering the reality that a greater number of Republican politicians endorse Bitcoin compared to their Democratic counterparts. The Republican Party has even officially included Bitcoin in their public policy platform at the convention, something the Democrats have not accomplished.
However, that doesn’t imply that there are no Democrats who support Bitcoin. At the national level, Congressman Ro Khanna from California, Congressman Ritchie Torres from New York, and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, also from New York, have emerged as vocal advocates for Bitcoin in Congress. While these politicians are vocal, they seem to lack the same resonance within their party or among their voter base, in contrast to the Republican Party.
On the first day of my attendance, Bitcoin wasn’t mentioned even once. Although it wasn’t a major topic at the RNC, it was at least acknowledged and included in the party’s policy platform. Conversely, there was no such acknowledgment at the DNC. The primary focus of the first day revolved around the upcoming election, pitting Kamala Harris against Trump.
It’s worth noting that there wasn’t much emphasis placed on policy discussions. Most of the dialogue was rhetorical, centered around general concerns for Democratic voters and filled with the kind of enthusiastic rhetoric typical of events dedicated to candidate selection for the Democratic Party this election cycle.
While explicit policies weren’t discussed, many of the issues critical to Democrats were addressed, such as minority representation, women’s rights, well-paying jobs and job security in unions, healthcare (especially related to COVID, which, although still present, isn’t receiving as much attention), and the perceived Republican attempts to reverse progress on these issues from the Democratic viewpoint.
Several union leaders, including representatives from the Arizona Pipefitters and Plumbers Union, the Communications Workers of America (CWA), the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), shared their insights on the job losses during the pandemic and the recovery efforts that occurred under the Biden Administration. Another significant topic was the state of union pension funds. Union jobs are often prized due to the benefits and retirement security they provide, in addition to competitive base salaries.
Does anything stand out to you? Perhaps the fact that Bitcoin has the potential to synergize with and further these Democratic goals?
Indeed, Bitcoin can contribute positively to the economic struggles faced by minorities over an extended period. Setting aside the anomalies of the current market cycle, holders of Bitcoin over time have enjoyed increased purchasing power. While it’s true that wealth is required to generate more wealth, and those starting with less will see a lesser appreciation, anyone with capital to save has historically witnessed improved purchasing power in the long run. This may not assist those living in poverty as significantly as those with a surplus to invest, but it does provide some relief.
Moreover, Bitcoin can help women maintain access to healthcare, particularly as certain regions in the US face increased restrictions. Financial institutions have been increasingly censoring transactions considered culturally sensitive, despite their legality. There is no reason to believe that this trend will continue to impact only those on the political right. Bitcoin offers an alternative to conventional financial systems and can facilitate services deemed illegal.
Pension funds for workers have started to explore conservative investments in Bitcoin, which, looking at long-term historical performances, can provide substantial benefits in addressing the solvency challenges faced by pensions across the country.
Additionally, Bitcoin could significantly enhance renewable energy, a concern that many liberals feel passionately about regarding combating global climate change and protecting the environment. Bitcoin miners are uniquely positioned to purchase stranded renewable energy before it’s integrated into the power grid, enabling them to generate revenue immediately upon project completion, rather than waiting for connection to retail energy consumers.
This doesn’t even take into account the inherently open-access nature of Bitcoin, which may promote freedom and inclusion worldwide by offering individuals options amidst the struggle against totalitarian regimes. Bitcoin aligns well with many of the values and principles espoused by Democrats.
So, why isn’t there more attention from the Party as a whole? Why is Bitcoin not mentioned or integrated into their policy platform, unlike the Republicans?
It all comes back to the voting base. The recent American Bitcoin Survey conducted by the Nakamoto Project revealed that Bitcoin ownership transcends partisan lines, and isn’t as predominantly concentrated on the right as commonly perceived. So why does this misconception persist? It’s all about narratives, stories, and messaging. The Democratic Party’s apparent indifference to Bitcoin as a policy matter isn’t due to the fact that Democrats and liberals don’t use or possess it; it stems from the prevailing narratives. The perception is that Bitcoin is a right-wing commodity. The associations linked to Bitcoin and critical issues often appear right-leaning.
Democratic politicians generally won’t prioritize Bitcoin from a policy perspective or cater to Bitcoin advocates unless these narratives change. This reflects a fundamental reality of politics: politicians respond to their constituents. They rarely pursue forward-thinking initiatives spontaneously unless they perceive potential positive reactions from their voters regarding those initiatives. This is politics.
Expressing frustration at politicians won’t alter this dynamic. Vilifying them for their indifferent or negative reactions to the perception of Bitcoin as right-wing, especially in a polarized political environment, won’t result in change. Engaging with the voting base is crucial; this is the only way to influence the attitudes and actions of Democratic politicians. It’s essential to educate those on the left about how Bitcoin aligns with and can advance their political objectives, similar to how the prevailing narrative has been cultivated on the right.
It is undoubtedly a challenging endeavor, given the historical and current misconceptions, but this is the only path to countering the entrenched belief that Bitcoin is a right-wing asset. Without a dedicated effort to construct and share narratives showing that Bitcoin resonates with progressive values, it risks being relegated to a partisan left/right divide.
