Two weeks ago, I attended the Democratic National Convention. The primary reason I did so was to try to promote impartiality in our coverage of politics as it relates to the election and Bitcoin here at Bitcoin Magazine. Earlier this year, we were invited to the Republican National Convention at the last minute, after David Bailey’s coordination with the Trump campaign began prior to his keynote address at the Bitcoin 2024 conference in Nashville in July.
It bothered me that people involved in this company took such a one-sided stance against the Republican Party, despite the fact that in fact far more Republican politicians support Bitcoin than Democrats. The Republican Party even formally integrated Bitcoin into their public policy platform at the convention. The Democrats have not.
That’s not to say that there aren’t Democrats who support Bitcoin. Nationally, Representative Ro Khanna of California, Ritchie Torres of New York, and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, also of New York, are outspoken Bitcoin advocates in Congress. These politicians exist, they’re outspoken, but they don’t seem to have the same resonance with the rest of the party or their voting base that they do in the Republican Party.
The first day I attended, Bitcoin was not mentioned once. It was not a prominent topic at the RNC, but it was mentioned. It was included in the party policy platform. There was no such inclusion at the DNC. The focus of the first day was on the upcoming election, Kamala versus Trump.
I will say that there wasn’t much policy discussion. It was mostly rhetorical, focusing on general issues affecting Democratic voters, interspersed with the kind of rah-rah language you might expect at an event focused on the selection of Democratic candidates this election cycle.
While no explicit policies were touched upon, many of the issues Democrats care about were. Minority inclusion, women’s rights, good-paying jobs and union safety, health care (especially as it relates to Covid, which is still circulating, even if people aren’t putting the same emphasis on it), and the perceived effort by Republicans to roll back the progress Democrats made on many of these issues.
Several union leaders spoke in person or by recorded message during the first day of the convention, the Arizona Pipefitters and Pumbers Union, the Communications Workers of America Union (CWA), the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). They all had a lot to say on the topic of job losses during Covid and the jobs recovery that has taken place under the Biden administration. Another big issue was union pension funds. Union jobs are generally sought and coveted for the benefits and retirement security that come with them, not just the good base pay.
Notice anything? Maybe the fact that Bitcoin can actually synergize and help achieve these goals that Democrats seem to care about?
Bitcoin can absolutely help minorities who are struggling economically, at least in the long run. If we ignore the aberration of this current market cycle, people who have held bitcoins for a long time have absolutely benefited from increased purchasing power. While it obviously costs money to make money, and people who start with less will realize less in terms of appreciation, anyone with money to save has historically gained purchasing power in the long run. This won’t help people in poverty as much as it will help people with a large surplus of money to invest, but it will help.
Bitcoin could also help women maintain access to health care services that are increasingly banned in parts of the US. Financial institutions are increasingly censoring financial transactions that are deemed culturally problematic, despite their legal status. There’s no reason to think that this activity will only affect people on the right side of the political spectrum. Bitcoin is an alternative to traditional financial institutions. And I shouldn’t have to tell people that it can even function for services that are considered outright illegal.
Employee pension funds have also recently begun to cautiously invest in bitcoin. Looking at long-term historical performance, this could be a major advantage in solving the long-term solvency issues that pension funds across the country are facing.
Bitcoin could even be a huge boon for renewable energy, something liberals are very concerned about when it comes to mitigating the effects of global climate change and preserving our natural environment. Bitcoin miners are in a very unique position, with AI operators only recently filling a similar niche, to be buyers of stranded renewable energy before it is connected to the grid. This provides revenue once these projects are completed, rather than having to wait for them to be connected to the grid by residential energy consumers.
That’s to say nothing of the general open access nature of Bitcoin, and how it can advance the philosophy of freedom and inclusion globally by giving people an option in the face of fighting and resisting totalitarian regimes worldwide. Bitcoin fits perfectly with many of the stated beliefs and principles of Democrats.
So why is there no attention from the Party in general? Why is it not being talked about or included in their policy platform, like the Republicans?
It’s the base. The recent US Bitcoin Research The Nakamoto Project showed us that Bitcoin ownership is a bipartisan issue, that it is not concentrated on the right as is generally perceived by the public. So why does that perception persist? Narratives. Stories. Messages. The reason the Democratic Party doesn’t care as much about Bitcoin as a policy issue is not because Democrats and liberals don’t use or own it, but because of the broader narratives. The perception is that Bitcoin is a right-wing cause. associations made between Bitcoin and important issues come across as right-wing.
Democratic politicians in general will not care about Bitcoin in terms of policy, and will accommodate Bitcoiners with positive policies unless those narratives and associations change. This is the reality of politics, politicians focus on their constituents. They generally do not take forward initiatives on their own unless they see some benefit in terms of positive voter reaction and perception towards that initiative. This is politics.
Yelling at politicians won’t change that, demonizing them for being apathetic or negatively reactionary to the perception of being right wing in a polarized political climate won’t change that. You have to reach the voter base. That’s the only thing that will change the attitudes and actions of Democratic politicians. People on the left need to show that Bitcoin is something that aligns with their political goals and agendas and can advance them in the same way that broader perception has been spread on the right.
It will certainly be an uphill battle given the baggage of past and current perception, but this is the only way that the increasingly fixed perception that Bitcoin is a right-wing cause can be pushed back. Without a concerted effort to demonstrate and build narratives that show left-leaning folks that Bitcoin can, and does, align with their values, Bitcoin is doomed to be forced into a left/right partisan paradigm.