It’s surprising the degree to which technology issues have NOT been a part of the presidential race.
That was not the case in 2000. Remember Al Gore “invented the Internet”? And George Bush talked a great deal about broadband deployed across the country and the many benefits of the Internet.
It’s true that technology, particularly the Internet, is being used in campaigns like never before, especially to better facilitate more immediate feedback and fundraising.
But it turns out that the technology industry and the public policy issues most important to it have thus far been all but neglected in the presidential primaries.
This is odd, of course, because our economy increasingly relies on the technology industries for growth. And, right now, our economy could use some growth.
For instance, the tax credit provided for companies who invest in research and development done in the United States was allowed to expire because of inaction in the Senate. Since three current senators are in the race, and given the importance of this credit to the economy, one would think there would be some discussion about the need to extend this tax credit immediately—or indeed, of why it wasn’t extended already.
Or how about a conversation about the value of intellectual property to our economy? We are, after all, the innovators of the world. This is where we are globally dominant. And the intellectual property of U.S. companies is under attack around the world, through piracy, threats to patent protection, and outright theft of U.S. patents by foreign governments. Shouldn’t the next president be a defender of the interests of U.S. innovators?
Many countries are seeking to wrest control of Internet governance away from a non-governmental body and put the Internet under the political control of governments. And we’re talking Russia and China here—not Lower Nowhere. Where do the candidates stand on international political control of the Internet?
How about a plan to get the broadband revolution rolled out to every American citizen by harnessing market forces instead of government subsidies? A model exists—it’s called Connect America. Are the candidates in favor of it? Have they ever heard of it? And should the FCC be slowing the rollout of broadband with new threatened regulations?
Speaking of regulation, does a new resident in the White House mean much more regulation in the area of content, ownership concentration, network management and “net neutrality,” wireless regulation, age verification on social networking sites, etc. Shouldn’t we at least be asking?
No, technology is not a real part of any of the campaigns or the debates, for either those who believe in pervasive government regulation, or for those who trust the marketplace. Who would have thought that the “knowledge economy” would not even be on the radar screens of the presidential candidates?