Can Iran Save AI?
Wokeness as an anti-democratic mechanism.
Bernie Sanders is at war with AI. On the right, James Fishback has issued less extreme criticisms, but given that he is disproportionately popular with young Republicans, he acts as a rough bellwether for the direction of the party.
The left has correct descriptions, and bad prescriptions. Bernie is correct: AI has the capacity to replace 50% of all white collar jobs over the next 10 years, or even 10 months! Bernie claims that this is a bad thing, because white collar work is “fulfilling.”
Who has a better chance in the 2028 primary? An anti-AI Democrat, or an anti-AI Republican?
The Polymarket prediction market doesn’t tell us the expected percentage of the vote that a candidate will gain. Historically, here’s how the populist left has performed:1
Without getting too deep into the weeds, populist-socialists have had three major victories over the last 100 years:
FDR ruled America for 12 years, but the Democrat Party moderated itself in the aftermath of his sweeping reforms.
Johnson’s Civil Rights bill and War on Poverty could also be considered major victories for socialists.
George McGovern won in 1972, but got crushed by Nixon.
Sanders in 2016 had the best performance of a single candidate since FDR, but in 2020, the far-left share of the vote regressed toward the historical average.
When trying to track support for the “far left” over time, it’s important to distinguish between “gay anti-racism” and communism. The right-wing likes to conflate these two elements, but they work against one another, more often than not.
This is the “MAGA communist” thesis: that “woke capital” used transgenderism, pronouns, Latinx, BLM, and other irrelevant culture war issues to distract from widening wealth inequality.
The question is this: was America a more dynamic and innovative society between 1913 and 1933, or between 1945 and 1973? If you’re focused on the production of automobiles, airplanes, and other “finishing touches” on the industrial revolution, then the pre-FDR period was clearly more dynamic. If you’re focused on the development of information technology (computing, automation), then the post-1945 period is clearly more dynamic.
My argument would be that the post-1945 period was aided by America’s monopoly on industrial capacity due to the ravages of WWII. Therefore, American growth and prosperity in that period is not as impressive.
I could make this argument in other contexts as well. In Europe, prior to socialist reforms, it was a much more dynamic society. After socialist reforms, it began to stagnate.
It’s reasonable to argue that, in the 1400s, Europe had relatively low levels of wealth concentration, yet also had high levels of innovation. There are arguments for and against the concentration of wealth. However, it’s important to remember that the bottom 90% of Europeans in 1400 were subsistence farmers and had no innovative capacity at all — there are hard limits on wealth inequality when food is expensive.
Mass Democracy
If everyone has their basic needs taken care of, it is not apparent to me why we would want the bottom 90% of society to have a greater share of resources. This is democratic thinking, since money is power; it is the idea that each individual, by virtue of their existence, should have equal power.
There are two ways to undermine this presumption:
Directly, through an aristocracy;
Indirectly, by increasing the salience of cultural issues.
Traditionally, aristocracies are justified on a hereditary basis. In America, where hereditary titles were abolished, property requirements remained until 1855 in North Carolina. Presidential primaries did not begin until 1912; prior to that, presidential candidates were chosen by delegates at a party convention. Literacy tests continued to exclude uneducated voters until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
This transition from limited democracy to “full democracy” was faciliated by the rise of political television.
The ability of cable news to dominate political debates, and the power of large newspapers to control opinion, helped shape the “Overton Window.” Even as more people were allowed to vote than in the 19th century, the 20th century saw media emerging as a means of exercising elite control over the masses.
The transition from limited democracy to mass democracy meant that everyone had a vote; however, the emergence of radio and television as “opinion making” machines meant that the masses were more tightly aligned to elite opinion.
With the decline of the “fairness doctrine” and the rise of conservative radio and Fox News, political opinion became fragmented on partisan lines. This was accelerated by the open internet and social media, resulting in Bernie and Trump.
At this juncture, it seems unlikely that America could institute anything approaching “aristocratic” measures to reduce socialist fervor. Limiting the franchise with property or literacy requirements is out of the question. Additionally, limitations on social media have proven difficult to enforce. Even in 2021, when social media companies had free reign to censor conspiracy theorists under Biden, there was no shortage of dissident right and dissident left growth.
Rather than trying to restrict or eliminate the dissident socialists by restricting their access to voting rights or social media, an alternative tactic is to distract them and to “suck up the energy” with culture war issues.
Culture War as a distraction.
During Mamdani’s election, Israel was not a prominent issue for voters.
The top issues for voters were crime, affordable housing, inflation, healthcare, and racial inequality. At most, up to 7% of Jewish voters claimed their top issue was “something else,” which could have included Israel.
Dissident socialists often argue that culture war issues distract from the more pressing material interests of the working class. For example, working-class Trump voters might have more to gain by voting Democrat, but they choose not to, because they prioritize immigration, trans issues, and anti-white rhetoric. Dissident socialists wish to de-emphasize the salience of wokism, so that the Democrats can refocus on economic issues, like “affordability.”
On economic issues, Democrats are more popular, but they have a culture war handicap. On social issues, Republicans are more popular, but they have an economic handicap. Dissident socialists seek to instantiate more aggressive economic reforms by removing the culture war handicap. To this end, they might see Graham Platner and James Talarico as positive developments — less woke, but more aggressively socialist.
The dissident socialists are correct: the way to beat Republicans in 2026 in swing states (Maine and Texas) is to focus on “affordability” while neglecting culture war issues. This will remain the case in 2028.
From a pro-market standpoint, Republican tariffs and immigration restriction is harmful enough that some level of increased government spending might be a decent tradeoff.
Ideally, however, Democrats would be able to run purely on culture war issues. In 2008, Obama’s victory came about as a result of the 2007 recession and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2028, high gas prices and a War in Iran could recreate those conditions.
Conclusion
The greatest threat to AI development comes from the far left, like Bernie, and the far right, like Fishback. Assuming that Vance or Rubio wins the 2028 primary, this limits the short-term threat to the left. How can this threat be diffused and overcome?
Ideally, Democrats can be distracted from AI by focusing on Iran and gas prices. Anti-Zionist rhetoric, in particular, could serve the same purpose that gay marriage, BLM, and transgenderism provided in the era of “woke.”
I am not suggesting that woke is “over”; rather, it has been so successful that now Trump is endorsing transitioning children “with parental consent.” Because Republicans have stopped fighting the left on trans kids, gay marriage, and because BLM no longer exists, pro-AI Democrats need to amplify a new “culture war” issue to distract from dissident socialism.
Regardless of whether or not Israel is a legitimate state with a right to exist, amplifying anti-Israel narratives can help “suck up the energy” that would otherwise allow dissident socialists to attack AI. Pro-market Democrats should see anti-Zionism as an opportunity to distract from socialism.
These numbers are aggregated; if there were multiple far left candidates, I combined their vote percentages together.
Eugene McCarthy and Kennedy together; Hubert Humphrey was selected by delegates at the convention, which led to riots.
@DeepLeftAnalysis🔸 Personally, I’m shilling for lab grown meat snd gene therapy to be developed over the coming 10-15 years from now. AI is a bit more conflictive for me, but not many strong opinions yet.