Tuesday night was a disaster for the Democratic Party and democracy in general. Thanks to a bevy of technical challenges, we still don’t know the results of the Iowa caucuses. Most of the blame has centered around an app created by — and I am not making this up — Shadow Inc., which was supposed to be utilized in tabulating the results. Seriously, a script like last night’s would be thrown out of the Veep writer’s room for being too unrealistic.
Shadow’s app was also supposed to be used in the upcoming Nevada caucuses, but officials there have already ditched those plans after the Iowa chaos. But even as those in charge scramble to figure out how to get relatively simple vote-tabulating technology to work, many of the Democrats relying on the app want to put the government in charge of regulating or even running far more complicated technologies.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle have suggested the government do everything from breaking up the largest tech firms to regulating how specific tech platforms work. Many have also called for the government to be an independent arbiter and ensure that technology companies prove they are free from political bias. If companies fail to meet this impossible test, a company could lose its crucial speech protections that allows the internet as we know it to function.
But when put in charge of creating just a simple app, the party representing many who hold these ideas failed on a grand scale.
The public is rightly skeptical of the federal government’s ability to solve issues with technology. It was recently reported that a mere 35% of the public put a great deal of trust in the federal government to handle domestic problems, the lowest level in two decades. By contrast, almost 3 in 4 adults believe major technology companies have been more good than bad in their personal lives, while over 60% say the same for their impact on society. Congress should be rightfully jealous of these numbers.
It’s no wonder so many people hold these views. Over the last 20 years alone, entrepreneurs have provided access to information never available before in human history, put supercomputers in our pockets, and allowed us to connect with people like never before.
When the government has tried to take charge of technology and innovation, history has proven it to be a complete failure. Look no further than the launch of healthcare.gov. Why should we believe our technology would work better if algorithms or websites were run like government utilities, as some suggest?
During the Iowa disaster, Democratic candidate Andrew Yang wryly tweeted, “It might be helpful to have a President and government that understand technology so this sort of thing doesn’t happen.” While Yang is correct that having a president who understands the basics of technology can be of benefit, he is simply wrong in his assessment that this would prevent future issues.
The government doesn’t have the know-how or the expertise to create, much less run, the technology sector. Rather than a president who understands specific technologies, we need a president, Congress, and state elected officials who understand that a light touch to technological regulation is what has created a booming technology sector. We’re talking about an industry that contributes more than 10% to our nation’s gross domestic product and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs.
So, the next time you hear a politician on the campaign trail roll out a big government plan to micromanage the technology sector, just remember one word: Iowa.
Eric Peterson (@Eric_Peterson_) is director of public policy at the Pelican Institute in New Orleans.
