Why politicians won't talk about technology

"It was not so long ago that technology policy was a high-profile political issue in the US," writes Jonathan Weber in a comment article about why politicians won't discuss technology.  Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s the conventional wisdom held that Japan Inc. and the Asian Tigers were gradually overtaking the US (not to mention Europe) in technological prowess, and that something had to be done.

Click here to read the full article

It was not so long ago that technology policy was a high-profile political issue in the US. Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s the conventional wisdom held that Japan Inc. and the Asian Tigers were gradually overtaking the US (not to mention Europe) in technological prowess, and that something had to be done. Democrats – and Eurocrats – tended to favor "industrial policy" efforts that included substantial government support not only for research and development, but also for applied technology and the technology industry in general. "Competiveness" was a buzzword of the day.

But things did not evolve in the way that conventional wisdom anticipated: the US economy, led by the tech and internet industries, roared back in the second half of the 1990s, and Japan began to feel the ill-effects of an over-managed and increasingly corrupt economic and political system. Some now sound the alarm about prospective Chinese economic dominance, but it seems a distant threat.

Thus discussion of technology and industrial policy is all but absent in the run-up to the elections next week. And indeed it's hard to argue that tech issues are more important than Iraq, or civil liberties, or economic policy in general. Yet there are still many important and unresolved questions relating to government involvement in the tech sector, and they deserve more explicit scrutiny.

First off, there are critical technological competiveness questions embedded in the emotional debates over immigration and security policy. The US has, understandably enough, become much more vigilant in screening visa applications of all kinds, including those for students and skilled workers. As anyone who has spent any time in Silicon Valley knows, though, the vibrancy of the American tech economy has a lot to do with non-Americans.

If the best and the brightest from around the world are no longer allowed in to work and to study, that could have a big impact on the international balance of tech power. But neither Democrats (whose labor wing is anxious about foreign workers) nor Republicans (who are playing to fears of both non-white immigration and terrorism) have made anything of this issue.

Second, there is the question of government spending on technology development and how it is allocated, which has pretty much gotten lost in Washington business-as usual. Here in Montana, for example, there is a very tight Senate race in which three-term Republican incumbent Conrad Burns is fighting for his life. A key plank in the Burns campaign is that he delivers a lot of federal dollars to Montana thanks to his seniority and his seat on the appropriations committee.

The nascent tech industry in this state has certainly benefited from the senator’s largesse; TechRanch, a business incubator in Bozeman, and the Burns Technology Center at Montana State University, and the Inland Northwest Space Alliance at the University of Montana are among the entities that would probably be poorer – or non-existent even – were it not for Senator Burns.

But it's a bit odd that the policy questions surrounding federal government underwriting of technology development are completely absent from the debate. Senator Burns, from the party which would view pork projects like the Inland Northwest Space Alliance as highly suspect, is lauded for bringing home the bacon. His opponent tries to say he'll be able to bring home the bacon too. No one talks about the best way to stimulate and support tech development and entrepreneurship that would bring good jobs.

Third, there continue to be very important issues surrounding telecommunications regulation, anti-trust law, intellectual property, and tax policy that will have a huge impact on innovation over the long run. The "net neutrality" debate, for example, could determine whether small media companies like New West are able to compete on a level playing field with the big boys. Copyright laws, likewise, can either defend the status quo or open the door for newcomers. These issues are arcane for most voters, however, and thus being fought out among corporate lobbyists rather than the electorate.

My personal disappointment in all this as a new media entrepreneur is that everyone pays lip service to supporting companies like mine, but nobody does much about it. Somehow a lot of the assistance that is out there has a way of flowing not to entrepreneurs but to big companies: here in Missoula, Montana, DirecTV got a $20 million subsidy package to create a call center, but I don't know any small businesses that have received anything like that. And that, alas, is one of the things that's not at stake in this election.