vox--2020-02-03--How the US became the center of global kleptocracy

How the US became the center of global kleptocracy Share All sharing options for : How the US became the center of global kleptocracy Critics of President Donald Trump frequently use the word “ kleptocracy ” to describe his leadership , administration , and imprint on American policy writ large .
Before 2016 — before Trump ’ s election and presidency flipped assumptions about America ’ s liberal democratic project on its head — the word , which literally means “ rule of thieves , ” was mostly only used by academics and foreign policy wonks .
Thanks to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kleptocracy ” is having an unprecedented moment .
It ’ s not hard to see why .
As Vox ’ s Zack Beauchamp argued in 2017 , “ Trump ’ s kleptocratic instincts ” share significant overlap with post-Soviet dictators and autocratic strongmen elsewhere , from his nepotistic corruption to his insistence on targeting opponents with all the levers of power at his disposal — as seen most obviously in his attempt to strong-arm a foreign government into trying to investigate a political rival .
All of that is , of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his predilection for inserting and expanding corruption wherever he can , is hardly a secret .
But this administration is merely the culmination of the US ’ s decades-long slide toward becoming the center of modern kleptocracy .
The US has become the world ’ s greatest offshore haven , allowing the crooked and the criminal to launder and stash their ill-gotten gains across the country — money ransacked from national treasuries and prone populations abroad .
For despots and their families , human traffickers and gun runners , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least when it comes to hiding their finances from prying eyes , both at home and abroad .
All told , the US has become the key cog in the machine of modern kleptocracy worldwide , allowing illiberal regimes everywhere to flourish — and threatening America ’ s democratic experiment in the process .
How US states became masters of the shell game The biggest single provider of anonymous shell corporations in the world isn ’ t Panama or the Cayman Islands .
It ’ s not the financial secrecy stalwart Switzerland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bahamas .
It ’ s Delaware .
And the main reason is federalism .
Thanks to the US ’ s federal structure , company formation remains overseen at the state level , rather than in Washington .
So if you ’ re a budding autocrat interested in a bit of easy money laundering , you don ’ t turn to federal officials in Washington .
Instead , you look to state officials in Dover , Cheyenne , or Reno to help construct anonymous shell companies to funnel and clean your illegitimate money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advantage .
Since there are no regulations in the US requiring that shell companies identify their true owners — known as “ beneficial owners ” – American states have been under no compunction to try to peel back who may be behind the anonymous shell companies mushrooming across the country .
These states and their constituents are raking in fees — at last check , Delaware made some $ 1.3 billion annually from its company formation industry — so whenever , say , a human trafficker or extremist network sets up an anonymous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City , they have little incentive to try to figure out who may be behind the companies .
Unsurprisingly , the anonymous company industry has been staggeringly profitable for these states .
The revenues that Delaware , which pioneered targeting corrupt officials as potential clients for its anonymous shell company industry , continues to make represent about a quarter of the state ’ s annual budget .
For the world ’ s warlords , criminals , and autocrats , there ’ s no gift finer than an anonymous American shell company Nevada , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Delaware of the West ” in the early 1990s , directly linked company formation fees to funding teachers ’ salaries .
And Wyoming , which invented the limited liability company ( LLC ) in 1977 , has been only too happy to capitalize on allowing shell companies to flourish in the state , generating millions of dollars for its general budget — yet another small state all too willing to participate in this “ race to the bottom.
” All you need is 15 minutes , a bit of money — Delaware offers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change for the crooked and corrupt racing to the state — and a willingness to conceal your identity , and an anonymous American shell company can be yours .
It ’ s easier than getting a library card .
And what better way to purchase American real estate , perfectly anonymously — which almost all of the US ( outside of a few major metro areas ) continues to allow — than via an anonymous American shell company ?
The criminal and corrupt of the world have taken notice .
“ Merchant of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prolific illicit arms dealer of the past few decades , used anonymous American shell companies to smuggle missiles and rocket launchers to rebels in Colombia .
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko , who once joined Indonesian dictator Suharto and Serbian genocidaire Slobodan Milošević among the ranks of the world ’ s most corrupt leaders , relied on a network of anonymous shell companies in Wyoming to plunder Ukraine .
Even the ongoing impeachment saga in the US hinges in large part on anonymous Delaware shell companies , which Rudy Giuliani ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into American elections .
For the world ’ s warlords , criminals , and autocrats , there ’ s no gift finer than an anonymous American shell company .
Of course , other places — territories like the Cayman Islands or the Isle of Man , or countries like Panama or St. Kitts and Nevis — have sprouted their own anonymous shell company industries .
( Many of which are , perhaps unsurprisingly , specifically modeled on their American precedents . )
But what separates the US is the sheer magnitude of operations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million companies were formed annually in the US , a greater pace than any other country or jurisdiction .
Still , it ’ d be too facile to blame the US ’ s collapse into a mecca of offshore secrecy on the states alone .
While Washington hasn ’ t been able to capitalize ( or crack down ) on anonymous shell companies spreading like fungus across the country , Congress recently figured out another way to accelerate America ’ s evolution into a corrupt official ’ s best friend : taxes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to welcome as many cheats , crooks , and criminals as you ’ d like .
While the US has been busy over the past decade making headlines for slapping debilitating fines on foreign banks actively participating in money laundering , all while prying open offshore jurisdictions like Switzerland , a lesser-known transformation has taken root in the US .
After all , all that dirty money the US targeted elsewhere — in Latvia , in Estonia , in Germany — had to find a new home somewhere .
Why shouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its arms to a flood of shady foreign money might seem counterintuitive , given the US ’ s previous role ( thanks to things like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ) as a leader in the fight against corruption .
But while the US targeted dirty money — and those enabling its flow — abroad , it simultaneously rejiggered its own finance-sharing regulations to try to attract much of that same money , turning the US into a behemoth in the world of tax havens .
This isn ’ t technically a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described the US as the “ largest and possibly the most alluring tax haven in the world.
” The Tax Justice Network , a UK-based anti-offshore advocacy organization , traces America ’ s transformation into a financial secrecy haven even further back , to the early 20th century .
But what really kicked things into overdrive was a law passed in 2010 , under the Obama administration : the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act ( FATCA ) .
This law all but assured the US ’ s role as a giant magnet for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FATCA reads like a basic , multilateral approach to financial transparency .
A range of US allies had already enacted something called the Common Reporting Standard , which allows governments to share information on foreign nationals who open bank accounts in other countries .
According to the Obama administration , FATCA did much the same — and as such , the US didn ’ t need to join the Common Reporting Standard .
But there was one hitch : Whereas FATCA forced foreign governments to reveal American accounts abroad , the US was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to share information on non-Americans opening up accounts in the US proper .
So while the US would gain deep , detailed information on where Americans were opening bank accounts abroad , Washington was not going to reciprocate for governments elsewhere .
It didn ’ t take long for those tracking financial transparency to realize the bait-and-switch that had happened — and what it portended for where dirty money would suddenly start flocking to .
“ Washington ’ s independent-minded approach risks tearing a giant hole in international efforts ” at financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the result as a “ disaster.
” Bloomberg summed up the result in 2016 , saying that the US — before Trump ever set foot in the White House — had become the “ leading tax and secrecy haven for rich foreigners , ” with some referring to the US as “ the new Switzerland.
” Little surprise , then , that the Tax Justice Network , which described FATCA as “ only slightly better than useless , ” now ranks the United States second worldwide in its annual Financial Secrecy Index , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like FATCA , they wrote , the US now accounts for nearly a quarter of the global market in offshore financial services .
The US ’ s development into the world ’ s leading offshore haven — one recent estimate placed the total offshore wealth in the US at $ 800 billion , if not more — was the result of a series of clear , concerted decisions from policymakers across the country .
The Trump administration , of course , has further cemented America ’ s role as a pioneer in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back the US ’ s anti-corruption safeguards along the way ) .
But Trump inherited a country that was already drowning in illicit funds , pilfered loot , and blood-soaked finances first swiped by authoritarian and autocratic governments and networks elsewhere .
When it comes to the US ’ s role as a massive laundromat for dirty money , the Trump administration is simply continuing a trend years in the making .
But that doesn ’ t mean that trend will continue in perpetuity .
Ironically , Trump ’ s bombast and transparent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress toward finally cleaning up some of these American offshore vehicles and policies .
For instance , the House passed a bill late last year that will finally eliminate anonymous shell companies from coast to coast .
Several of the top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have also put anti-kleptocracy measures at the heart of their foreign policies , and worked to highlight the threats the US ’ s role as an offshore mecca plays not only to national security , but to global stability writ large .
When it comes to the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for dirty money , the Trump administration is simply continuing a trend years in the making Former Vice President Joe Biden , who represented Delaware in the US Senate for more than three decades , has publicly broken with his state ’ s track record as an offshore epicenter and called for the US to finally eradicate anonymous shell companies .
Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2018 specifically linked “ the struggle for democracy… with the struggle against kleptocracy and corruption , ” and has called for everything from an end to anonymous perpetual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effectively hide their finances in perpetuity — perhaps the next frontier in American offshoring , as South Dakota has so gleefully illustrated — to expanding the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act .
And Sen. Elizabeth Warren recently issued the most comprehensive anti-kleptocracy plank any American candidate has ever authored .
Her proposal runs the gamut of recommended fixes , from barring shell company formation to eliminating anonymous real estate purchases to expanding data collection for cross-border financial flows .
Warren ’ s plan even specifically targets Americans — such as accountants , realtors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crooked and corrupt of the world take advantage of in the US .
It ’ s far too early to say that the worst days of America ’ s pioneering role in the world of offshoring is over .
But there ’ s a swelling awareness of the unending damage the anonymous shell companies in Nevada and Delaware , anonymous real estate purchases in New York and California , anonymous trusts in South Dakota , and tax havens across the country have caused — and of how Trump , cresting a wave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what ’ s in store if action isn ’ t taken soon .
Casey Michel is a writer based in New York , whose work has been featured in Foreign Affairs , the Atlantic , the Washington Post , and the New Republic , among others .
Find him on Twitter @ cjcmichel .

How the US became the center of global kleptocracy
Share All sharing options for: How the US became the center of global kleptocracy
Critics of President Donald Trump frequently use the word “kleptocracy” to describe his leadership, administration, and imprint on American policy writ large.
Before 2016 — before Trump’s election and presidency flipped assumptions about America’s liberal democratic project on its head — the word, which literally means “rule of thieves,” was mostly only used by academics and foreign policy wonks.
Thanks to Trump’s reign, though, “kleptocracy” is having an unprecedented moment.
It’s not hard to see why. As Vox’s Zack Beauchamp argued in 2017, “Trump’s kleptocratic instincts” share significant overlap with post-Soviet dictators and autocratic strongmen elsewhere, from his nepotistic corruption to his insistence on targeting opponents with all the levers of power at his disposal — as seen most obviously in his attempt to strong-arm a foreign government into trying to investigate a political rival.
All of that is, of course, true: Trump’s illiberalism, and his predilection for inserting and expanding corruption wherever he can, is hardly a secret.
But this administration is merely the culmination of the US’s decades-long slide toward becoming the center of modern kleptocracy. The US has become the world’s greatest offshore haven, allowing the crooked and the criminal to launder and stash their ill-gotten gains across the country — money ransacked from national treasuries and prone populations abroad.
For despots and their families, human traffickers and gun runners, there’s no better friend than the US, at least when it comes to hiding their finances from prying eyes, both at home and abroad.
All told, the US has become the key cog in the machine of modern kleptocracy worldwide, allowing illiberal regimes everywhere to flourish — and threatening America’s democratic experiment in the process.
How US states became masters of the shell game
The biggest single provider of anonymous shell corporations in the world isn’t Panama or the Cayman Islands. It’s not the financial secrecy stalwart Switzerland, or a traditional offshore haven like the Bahamas.
It’s Delaware. And the main reason is federalism.
Thanks to the US’s federal structure, company formation remains overseen at the state level, rather than in Washington.
So if you’re a budding autocrat interested in a bit of easy money laundering, you don’t turn to federal officials in Washington. Instead, you look to state officials in Dover, Cheyenne, or Reno to help construct anonymous shell companies to funnel and clean your illegitimate money.
And these states have taken full advantage. Since there are no regulations in the US requiring that shell companies identify their true owners — known as “beneficial owners” – American states have been under no compunction to try to peel back who may be behind the anonymous shell companies mushrooming across the country.
These states and their constituents are raking in fees — at last check, Delaware made some $1.3 billion annually from its company formation industry — so whenever, say, a human trafficker or extremist network sets up an anonymous company in Wilmington or Laramie or Carson City, they have little incentive to try to figure out who may be behind the companies.
Unsurprisingly, the anonymous company industry has been staggeringly profitable for these states. The revenues that Delaware, which pioneered targeting corrupt officials as potential clients for its anonymous shell company industry, continues to make represent about a quarter of the state’s annual budget.
For the world’s warlords, criminals, and autocrats, there’s no gift finer than an anonymous American shell company
Nevada, which actively marketed itself as the “Delaware of the West” in the early 1990s, directly linked company formation fees to funding teachers’ salaries. And Wyoming, which invented the limited liability company (LLC) in 1977, has been only too happy to capitalize on allowing shell companies to flourish in the state, generating millions of dollars for its general budget — yet another small state all too willing to participate in this “race to the bottom.”
All you need is 15 minutes, a bit of money — Delaware offers packages for around $100, pocket change for the crooked and corrupt racing to the state — and a willingness to conceal your identity, and an anonymous American shell company can be yours. It’s easier than getting a library card.
And what better way to purchase American real estate, perfectly anonymously — which almost all of the US (outside of a few major metro areas) continues to allow — than via an anonymous American shell company?
The criminal and corrupt of the world have taken notice. “Merchant of Death” Viktor Bout, the most prolific illicit arms dealer of the past few decades, used anonymous American shell companies to smuggle missiles and rocket launchers to rebels in Colombia.
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko, who once joined Indonesian dictator Suharto and Serbian genocidaire Slobodan Milošević among the ranks of the world’s most corrupt leaders, relied on a network of anonymous shell companies in Wyoming to plunder Ukraine.
Even the ongoing impeachment saga in the US hinges in large part on anonymous Delaware shell companies, which Rudy Giuliani’s Ukrainian-born bag-men used to funnel foreign funds into American elections.
For the world’s warlords, criminals, and autocrats, there’s no gift finer than an anonymous American shell company.
Of course, other places — territories like the Cayman Islands or the Isle of Man, or countries like Panama or St. Kitts and Nevis — have sprouted their own anonymous shell company industries. (Many of which are, perhaps unsurprisingly, specifically modeled on their American precedents.)
But what separates the US is the sheer magnitude of operations. At last check, some 2 million companies were formed annually in the US, a greater pace than any other country or jurisdiction.
Tax Haven, USA
Still, it’d be too facile to blame the US’s collapse into a mecca of offshore secrecy on the states alone. While Washington hasn’t been able to capitalize (or crack down) on anonymous shell companies spreading like fungus across the country, Congress recently figured out another way to accelerate America’s evolution into a corrupt official’s best friend: taxes.
Specifically, a tax loophole big enough to welcome as many cheats, crooks, and criminals as you’d like.
While the US has been busy over the past decade making headlines for slapping debilitating fines on foreign banks actively participating in money laundering, all while prying open offshore jurisdictions like Switzerland, a lesser-known transformation has taken root in the US.
After all, all that dirty money the US targeted elsewhere — in Latvia, in Estonia, in Germany — had to find a new home somewhere. Why shouldn’t it be America?
The US opening its arms to a flood of shady foreign money might seem counterintuitive, given the US’s previous role (thanks to things like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) as a leader in the fight against corruption. But while the US targeted dirty money — and those enabling its flow — abroad, it simultaneously rejiggered its own finance-sharing regulations to try to attract much of that same money, turning the US into a behemoth in the world of tax havens.
This isn’t technically a new phenomenon: In 1984, Time magazine described the US as the “largest and possibly the most alluring tax haven in the world.” The Tax Justice Network, a UK-based anti-offshore advocacy organization, traces America’s transformation into a financial secrecy haven even further back, to the early 20th century.
But what really kicked things into overdrive was a law passed in 2010, under the Obama administration: the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). This law all but assured the US’s role as a giant magnet for suspicious finance.
On its face, FATCA reads like a basic, multilateral approach to financial transparency. A range of US allies had already enacted something called the Common Reporting Standard, which allows governments to share information on foreign nationals who open bank accounts in other countries. According to the Obama administration, FATCA did much the same — and as such, the US didn’t need to join the Common Reporting Standard.
But there was one hitch: Whereas FATCA forced foreign governments to reveal American accounts abroad, the US was under no compunction, legal or otherwise, to share information on non-Americans opening up accounts in the US proper. So while the US would gain deep, detailed information on where Americans were opening bank accounts abroad, Washington was not going to reciprocate for governments elsewhere.
It didn’t take long for those tracking financial transparency to realize the bait-and-switch that had happened — and what it portended for where dirty money would suddenly start flocking to.
“Washington’s independent-minded approach risks tearing a giant hole in international efforts” at financial transparency, one analysis read, describing the result as a “disaster.” Bloomberg summed up the result in 2016, saying that the US — before Trump ever set foot in the White House — had become the “leading tax and secrecy haven for rich foreigners,” with some referring to the US as “the new Switzerland.”
Little surprise, then, that the Tax Justice Network, which described FATCA as “only slightly better than useless,” now ranks the United States second worldwide in its annual Financial Secrecy Index, just behind Switzerland. Thanks to measures like FATCA, they wrote, the US now accounts for nearly a quarter of the global market in offshore financial services.
The looming backlash
The US’s development into the world’s leading offshore haven — one recent estimate placed the total offshore wealth in the US at $800 billion, if not more — was the result of a series of clear, concerted decisions from policymakers across the country.
The Trump administration, of course, has further cemented America’s role as a pioneer in the world of offshoring (and helping roll back the US’s anti-corruption safeguards along the way). But Trump inherited a country that was already drowning in illicit funds, pilfered loot, and blood-soaked finances first swiped by authoritarian and autocratic governments and networks elsewhere.
When it comes to the US’s role as a massive laundromat for dirty money, the Trump administration is simply continuing a trend years in the making.
But that doesn’t mean that trend will continue in perpetuity. Ironically, Trump’s bombast and transparent corruption has already spurred unprecedented momentum in Congress toward finally cleaning up some of these American offshore vehicles and policies. For instance, the House passed a bill late last year that will finally eliminate anonymous shell companies from coast to coast.
Several of the top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have also put anti-kleptocracy measures at the heart of their foreign policies, and worked to highlight the threats the US’s role as an offshore mecca plays not only to national security, but to global stability writ large.
(Trump’s latest brush with war, following America’s strike against Iranian figures in Iraq, only highlighted the link; Iranian officials relied on anonymous American shell companies, and anonymous American real estate purchases along the way, to spend years skirting sanctions and generating millions in revenue.)
When it comes to the US’s role as a massive laundromat for dirty money, the Trump administration is simply continuing a trend years in the making
Former Vice President Joe Biden, who represented Delaware in the US Senate for more than three decades, has publicly broken with his state’s track record as an offshore epicenter and called for the US to finally eradicate anonymous shell companies.
Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2018 specifically linked “the struggle for democracy… with the struggle against kleptocracy and corruption,” and has called for everything from an end to anonymous perpetual trusts, which allow trust owners to effectively hide their finances in perpetuity — perhaps the next frontier in American offshoring, as South Dakota has so gleefully illustrated — to expanding the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
And Sen. Elizabeth Warren recently issued the most comprehensive anti-kleptocracy plank any American candidate has ever authored. Her proposal runs the gamut of recommended fixes, from barring shell company formation to eliminating anonymous real estate purchases to expanding data collection for cross-border financial flows. Warren’s plan even specifically targets Americans — such as accountants, realtors, and lawyers — who offer the services the crooked and corrupt of the world take advantage of in the US.
It’s far too early to say that the worst days of America’s pioneering role in the world of offshoring is over. But there’s a swelling awareness of the unending damage the anonymous shell companies in Nevada and Delaware, anonymous real estate purchases in New York and California, anonymous trusts in South Dakota, and tax havens across the country have caused — and of how Trump, cresting a wave of rising authoritarianism, is a harbinger of what’s in store if action isn’t taken soon.
Casey Michel is a writer based in New York, whose work has been featured in Foreign Affairs, the Atlantic, the Washington Post, and the New Republic, among others. Find him on Twitter @cjcmichel.


vox--2020-02-03--Why Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn’t go first in the primaries anymore

Iowa and New Hampshire , two states widely seen as setting the tone for the presidential primary , have one major thing in common : They ’ re extremely white .
Both states ’ populations are roughly 90 percent white — a stark contrast with both the country , which is 60 percent white , and the Democratic Party ’ s base , nearly 40 percent of which is made up of people of color .
That discrepancy has always been a point of contention .
But now , particularly as the Democratic Party places a larger focus on representation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diverse field of candidates has narrowed to a slate of white frontrunners , it ’ s driving home a pointed question : Does the order of the early primary states discount voters of color ?
The data , as it stands , suggests that it does .
Because of their position in the primary calendar , Iowa and New Hampshire have an outsized influence on the outcomes in later states and on the nomination process writ large .
According to one analysis by FiveThirtyEight ’ s Geoffrey Skelley , there was a 37-point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2004 .
Before he dropped out of the 2020 Democratic race , former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro was vocal in his opposition to the current primary order ; he raised it as one of his chief issues .
“ We can ’ t as a Democratic Party , continually and justifiably complain about Republicans who suppress the vote of people of color , and then turn around and start our nominating contest in two states , that even though they take their role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ color , ” Castro said during a campaign event last November .
Plenty of alternatives have already been floated : Other more representative states could vote earlier , for one , or entire regions could even rotate which one gets to vote first .
Existing state laws , however , complicate the ability to change the status quo .
While this question won ’ t be resolved in 2020 , it ’ s one that certainly isn ’ t going away .
Iowa established its status as a first-in-the-nation caucus in 1972 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with its primary since 1920 .
Although their positioning was initially just a matter of timing , both states began to take on growing importance after George McGovern and Jimmy Carter picked up momentum in the 1972 and 1976 elections , respectively , after scoring major victories in Iowa .
That power has only grown ever since .
“ The eventual nominee almost always wins Iowa or New Hampshire , or at least beats expectations in one of those two states , ” Kyle Kondik , the managing editor of Sabato ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Bill Clinton in 1992 remains the only candidate in the past three decades to secure the Democratic nomination without winning either state .
The sequential nature of the primary imbues Iowa and New Hampshire with particular weight : The outcomes there ultimately affect candidates ’ performances in other crucial early states like South Carolina and Nevada , given the momentum that candidates pick up from both the media and overall voter sentiment .
In 2008 , for example , Barack Obama ’ s victory in the Iowa caucuses helped address electability concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in South Carolina and eventual nomination .
In fact , the impact one voter has in either of the first two states is that of five voters on Super Tuesday , according to a 2011 study from economists Brian Knight and Nathan Schiff , who looked at how polls in later states changed after the earlier contests had taken place .
While there are advantages to having Iowa and New Hampshire so early in the primary calendar — they ’ re both easier for candidates to traverse compared to larger states , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both of which make it easier for an underdog to gain a profile — the skewed make-up of their electorates is a major reason to argue that they shouldn ’ t occupy this position .
The two states don ’ t represent the US or the Democratic Party Currently , Iowa and New Hampshire are a far cry from truly being representative of the Democratic electorate .
They don ’ t account for the party ’ s racial diversity , among other things , as Vox ’ s Dylan Matthews detailed in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this are wide-ranging : Not only does this schedule inadvertently devalue the role that different voters have in the primary , some experts see the focus on the early states also clearly determining the candidates that are considered more viable .
“ It is fair to say if South Carolina were voting first and not Iowa and not New Hampshire , we ’ re probably talking about Joe Biden ’ s situation and his viability in a different way , ” University of New Hampshire political science professor Dante Scala told Vox .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden continues to have a 13-point lead over the rest of the field in South Carolina ( where the Democratic electorate is 60 percent African American ) , while polls are closer in Iowa and New Hampshire .
Questions have also emerged about whether the order of the primary calendar has helped promote an overwhelmingly white field of contenders .
“ Someone could point to Barack Obama , he won Iowa , so how could you say candidates of color are disadvantaged ?
” says UC Riverside political science professor Karthick Ramakrishnan .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ these states , candidates of color have to run deracialized campaigns and that ’ s not helpful for the Democratic Party , which depends disproportionately on communities of color.
” Illinois has emerged as a potential contender for the coveted first spot , though other reforms have been proposed , too An analysis from FiveThirtyEight suggests that another Midwestern state might be a better option for the country ’ s first primary : Illinois .
Skelley examined the racial , ethnic , and education breakdowns of the country , and ranked the states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ splits .
The country as a whole is made up of 39.7 percent white voters with no college degree , 23.5 percent white voters with a college degree , 20.4 percent black voters , 8.9 percent Hispanic voters , and 7.4 percent all other voters , Skelley determines .
Illinois was the state that most closely aligned with this breakdown , he found .
The state is 37 percent white voters with no college degree , 23.7 percent white voters with a college degree , 22.1 percent black voters , 8.9 percent Hispanic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters .
Illinois is followed by New Jersey , New York , and Florida ; neither New Hampshire nor Iowa even cracked the top 30 .
In addition to shifting the order of primary states , those who favor reform have proposed other ideas like rotating the order of states to give different regions the opportunity to go first or a national primary in which every state votes at the same time .
It ’ s worth noting that some of these suggested tweaks could inadvertently harm candidates who aren ’ t as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , could prove significantly more expensive for a candidate who ’ s trying to introduce themselves to a larger electorate .
And , because of Iowa and New Hampshire laws , change isn ’ t expected to be easy .
The thing about Iowa ’ s and New Hampshire ’ s positioning in the primary is that it is protected by state laws .
Both states ’ laws explicitly lay out when the caucus or primary will take place : Iowa ’ s says that its caucuses must happen eight days before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while New Hampshire ’ s guarantees that its primary will always be first .
“ I mean , none of Iowa , New Hampshire , nor South Carolina are going to unilaterally change state laws protecting their positions on the calendar , ” Josh Putnam , a lecturer at the University of North Carolina Wilmington , told Vox .
“ That just is not going to happen.
” Updates to the primary calendar will only take place if the Democratic National Committee tries to push for them , Scala tells Vox .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occur in the near term .
“ Given that both political parties have rules that protect the timing of primaries — ensuring the continued hegemony of early states — I don ’ t see this changing anytime soon , ” says Howard University political science professor Niambi Carter .
At the end of every presidential cycle , the nomination process is reexamined by the Democratic National Committee , which could be an opportunity for potential discussion of changes , particularly if the Democratic candidate doesn ’ t wind up winning in November .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to pressure states to change their schedule , a method that ’ s been used by the Republican National Committee in the past .
These penalties could include dinging candidates who campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire earlier in the race , a move that would deter them from participating in these primaries , forcing states to reconsider their timing .
Another complicating factor , of course , is the Republican primary , which would likely have to change as well given the degree of resources and planning that each state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The infrastructural barriers , it seems , would pose a massive obstacle to implementing the caucus and primary reforms that many Democrats are increasingly demanding .
But those demands keep getting louder .

Why Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn’t go first in the primaries anymore
Share All sharing options for: Why Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn’t go first in the primaries anymore
Iowa and New Hampshire, two states widely seen as setting the tone for the presidential primary, have one major thing in common: They’re extremely white.
Both states’ populations are roughly 90 percent white — a stark contrast with both the country, which is 60 percent white, and the Democratic Party’s base, nearly 40 percent of which is made up of people of color.
That discrepancy has always been a point of contention. But now, particularly as the Democratic Party places a larger focus on representation than ever before and a once historically diverse field of candidates has narrowed to a slate of white frontrunners, it’s driving home a pointed question: Does the order of the early primary states discount voters of color? The data, as it stands, suggests that it does.
Because of their position in the primary calendar, Iowa and New Hampshire have an outsized influence on the outcomes in later states and on the nomination process writ large. According to one analysis by FiveThirtyEight’s Geoffrey Skelley, there was a 37-point change in national polls after John Kerry won in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2004.
Before he dropped out of the 2020 Democratic race, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro was vocal in his opposition to the current primary order; he raised it as one of his chief issues.
Iowa
•9% People of Color
New Hampshire
•6% People of Color
Democratic Party
•40% People of Color@JulianCastro is 100% correct. We cannot preach racial justice & representation & then exclude People of Color from our voting primaries. It’s untenable.pic.twitter.com/SRTb3P7vGQ — Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) November 12, 2019
“We can’t as a Democratic Party, continually and justifiably complain about Republicans who suppress the vote of people of color, and then turn around and start our nominating contest in two states, that even though they take their role seriously, hardly have any people of color,” Castro said during a campaign event last November.
Plenty of alternatives have already been floated: Other more representative states could vote earlier, for one, or entire regions could even rotate which one gets to vote first. Existing state laws, however, complicate the ability to change the status quo. While this question won’t be resolved in 2020, it’s one that certainly isn’t going away.
Iowa and New Hampshire voters’ outsized influence, briefly explained
Iowa established its status as a first-in-the-nation caucus in 1972, while New Hampshire has done the same with its primary since 1920. Although their positioning was initially just a matter of timing, both states began to take on growing importance after George McGovern and Jimmy Carter picked up momentum in the 1972 and 1976 elections, respectively, after scoring major victories in Iowa. That power has only grown ever since.
“The eventual nominee almost always wins Iowa or New Hampshire, or at least beats expectations in one of those two states,” Kyle Kondik, the managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, previously told Vox. President Bill Clinton in 1992 remains the only candidate in the past three decades to secure the Democratic nomination without winning either state.
The sequential nature of the primary imbues Iowa and New Hampshire with particular weight: The outcomes there ultimately affect candidates’ performances in other crucial early states like South Carolina and Nevada, given the momentum that candidates pick up from both the media and overall voter sentiment. In 2008, for example, Barack Obama’s victory in the Iowa caucuses helped address electability concerns some voters had, fueling his victory in South Carolina and eventual nomination.
In fact, the impact one voter has in either of the first two states is that of five voters on Super Tuesday, according to a 2011 study from economists Brian Knight and Nathan Schiff, who looked at how polls in later states changed after the earlier contests had taken place.
While there are advantages to having Iowa and New Hampshire so early in the primary calendar — they’re both easier for candidates to traverse compared to larger states, and they have more accessible media markets, both of which make it easier for an underdog to gain a profile — the skewed make-up of their electorates is a major reason to argue that they shouldn’t occupy this position.
The recent tech snafus in the Iowa caucuses, too, could give Democrats more reason to reconsider the state’s prominent role.
The two states don’t represent the US or the Democratic Party
Currently, Iowa and New Hampshire are a far cry from truly being representative of the Democratic electorate. They don’t account for the party’s racial diversity, among other things, as Vox’s Dylan Matthews detailed in a 2016 piece:
A whopping 88.7 percent of Iowans and 92.3 percent of New Hampshirites are non-Hispanic whites; only 63.7 percent of Americans as a whole are. Only 3.4 percent of Iowans are black; 13.2 percent of Americans are. Unlike the rest of the country, Iowa and New Hampshire do not have particularly large immigrant populations. Only 4.7 percent of Iowans and 5.6 percent of New Hampshirites are foreign-born, compared with 13.1 percent nationwide. Only 7.2 percent of Iowans and 8 percent of New Hampshirites speak a language other than English at home; 20.7 percent of American families do. New Hampshire and Iowa are also markedly less urban than the rest of the country; they have cities, but none are particularly big. Des Moines, Iowa’s biggest city, has only 209,220 people; Manchester, New Hampshire’s largest, only has 110,448.
And the effects of this are wide-ranging: Not only does this schedule inadvertently devalue the role that different voters have in the primary, some experts see the focus on the early states also clearly determining the candidates that are considered more viable.
“It is fair to say if South Carolina were voting first and not Iowa and not New Hampshire, we’re probably talking about Joe Biden’s situation and his viability in a different way,” University of New Hampshire political science professor Dante Scala told Vox.
According to the RealClearPolitics polling average, Biden continues to have a 13-point lead over the rest of the field in South Carolina (where the Democratic electorate is 60 percent African American), while polls are closer in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Questions have also emerged about whether the order of the primary calendar has helped promote an overwhelmingly white field of contenders.
“Someone could point to Barack Obama, he won Iowa, so how could you say candidates of color are disadvantaged?” says UC Riverside political science professor Karthick Ramakrishnan. “In order to do well in these states, candidates of color have to run deracialized campaigns and that’s not helpful for the Democratic Party, which depends disproportionately on communities of color.”
Illinois has emerged as a potential contender for the coveted first spot, though other reforms have been proposed, too
An analysis from FiveThirtyEight suggests that another Midwestern state might be a better option for the country’s first primary: Illinois. Skelley examined the racial, ethnic, and education breakdowns of the country, and ranked the states in the order that they reflected these splits.
The country as a whole is made up of 39.7 percent white voters with no college degree, 23.5 percent white voters with a college degree, 20.4 percent black voters, 8.9 percent Hispanic voters, and 7.4 percent all other voters, Skelley determines. Illinois was the state that most closely aligned with this breakdown, he found. The state is 37 percent white voters with no college degree, 23.7 percent white voters with a college degree, 22.1 percent black voters, 8.9 percent Hispanic voters, and 8.3 percent all other voters.
Illinois is followed by New Jersey, New York, and Florida; neither New Hampshire nor Iowa even cracked the top 30.
In addition to shifting the order of primary states, those who favor reform have proposed other ideas like rotating the order of states to give different regions the opportunity to go first or a national primary in which every state votes at the same time.
It’s worth noting that some of these suggested tweaks could inadvertently harm candidates who aren’t as well-funded. A national primary, for example, could prove significantly more expensive for a candidate who’s trying to introduce themselves to a larger electorate.
And, because of Iowa and New Hampshire laws, change isn’t expected to be easy.
Existing state laws make primary order pretty tough to change
The thing about Iowa’s and New Hampshire’s positioning in the primary is that it is protected by state laws.
Both states’ laws explicitly lay out when the caucus or primary will take place: Iowa’s says that its caucuses must happen eight days before any other state’s proceedings, while New Hampshire’s guarantees that its primary will always be first.
“I mean, none of Iowa, New Hampshire, nor South Carolina are going to unilaterally change state laws protecting their positions on the calendar,” Josh Putnam, a lecturer at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, told Vox. “That just is not going to happen.”
Updates to the primary calendar will only take place if the Democratic National Committee tries to push for them, Scala tells Vox.
And experts don’t think this will occur in the near term. “Given that both political parties have rules that protect the timing of primaries — ensuring the continued hegemony of early states — I don’t see this changing anytime soon,” says Howard University political science professor Niambi Carter.
At the end of every presidential cycle, the nomination process is reexamined by the Democratic National Committee, which could be an opportunity for potential discussion of changes, particularly if the Democratic candidate doesn’t wind up winning in November.
Scala says the DNC could impose penalties in order to pressure states to change their schedule, a method that’s been used by the Republican National Committee in the past. These penalties could include dinging candidates who campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire earlier in the race, a move that would deter them from participating in these primaries, forcing states to reconsider their timing.
Another complicating factor, of course, is the Republican primary, which would likely have to change as well given the degree of resources and planning that each state engages in to put on these elections.
The infrastructural barriers, it seems, would pose a massive obstacle to implementing the caucus and primary reforms that many Democrats are increasingly demanding. But those demands keep getting louder.


vox--2020-02-03--The 2020 election calendar

The 2020 election calendar

The Democratic presidential primary has been going on for months .
But 2020 — the election year — is finally here , and it ’ s an understatement to say that it will be a busy year in US politics .
The first two months of the year will include four Democratic primary debates in January and February .
February will bring the first four early-state Democratic caucuses and primaries , starting in Iowa on February 3 and continuing through New Hampshire , Nevada , and South Carolina .
As the year continues , there will be dozens of important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Democratic conventions , and finally Election Day itself : November 3 , 2020 .
That ’ s where this calendar comes in .
Here are the most important events of the 2020 election cycle .
Bookmark this page to refer back to , add it to your Google Calendar by clicking the plus sign on the bottom right of this page , or subscribe through a calendar app of your choice .
This page and the calendar subscriptions will be updated if primary dates change and new debates are announced .
Read @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debates here .
Read all of our coverage from the July debates here .
Read all of our coverage of the September debate here .
• Second town hall on climate change on MSNBC Read all of our coverage from the October debate here .
Read all of our coverage from the November debate here .
Read all of our coverage from the December debate here .

Share All sharing options for: The 2020 election calendar
Vox answers your biggest questions about the 2020 US presidential election .
This story is part of a group of stories called
The 2020 presidential election is ramping into high gear.
Joe Biden announced his running mate, California Sen. Kamala Harris, and Democrats and Republicans held their first virtual conventions this summer. Biden and President Donald Trump accepted their parties’ official nominations for president, and the fall campaign season is upon us.
The presidential debates began September 29 and run through October, including the vice presidential debate on October 7. The second presidential debate, scheduled for October 15, was canceled after Trump tested positive for Covid-19, then refused to agree to debate virtually. One more debate is scheduled for October 22.
Election Day itself, of course, will fall on Tuesday, November 3.
Read on for the important events of the 2020 election cycle and bookmark this page to refer back to. You can also add it to your Google Calendar by clicking the plus sign on the bottom right of this page, or subscribe through a calendar app of your choice. This page and the calendar subscriptions will be updated as dates and information change.
And check out our guides on how to vote early and by mail.
September 2020
September 29
Presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio, at the Case Western Reserve/Cleveland Clinic joint campus
October 2020
October 7
Vice presidential debate in Salt Lake City at the University of Utah
October 22
Presidential debate in Nashville, Tennessee, at Belmont University
November 2020
November 3
Election Day
Past 2020 election coverage
June 2019
June 26-27
Read all of our coverage from the June debates here.
July 2019
July 30-31
Read all of our coverage from the July debates here.
September 2019
September 4
September 12
Read all of our coverage of the September debate here.
September 19-20
October 2019
October 15
Read all of our coverage from the October debate here.
November 2019
November 20
Read all of our coverage from the November debate here.
December 2019
December 19
Read all of our coverage from the December debate here.
January 2020
January 14
February 2020
February 3
Iowa caucuses
Read all of our coverage from the Iowa caucuses here.
February 7
February 11
New Hampshire primaries
Read all of our coverage from the New Hampshire primaries here.
February 19
February 22
Nevada caucuses
February 25
February 29
South Carolina primary
Read all of our coverage from the South Carolina primary here.
March 2020
March 3 (Super Tuesday)
Alabama primaries (D, R)
American Samoa caucuses (D)
Arkansas primaries (D, R)
California primaries (D, R)
Colorado primaries (D, R)
Maine primaries (D, R)
Massachusetts primaries (D, R)
Minnesota primaries (D, R)
North Carolina primaries (D, R)
Oklahoma primaries (D, R)
Tennessee primaries (D, R)
Texas primaries (D, R)
Utah primaries (D, R)
Vermont primaries (D, R)
Virginia primary (D)
Democrats Abroad primary (through March 10)
Read all of our coverage from Super Tuesday here.
March 10
Idaho primaries (D, R)
Michigan primaries (D, R)
Mississippi primaries (D, R)
Missouri primaries (D, R)
North Dakota caucuses (D)
Washington primaries (D, R)
Read all of our coverage from the March 10 primaries here.
March 12
Virgin Islands caucuses
March 14
Guam caucuses (R)
Northern Marianas convention (D)
March 15
March 17
Arizona primary (D)
Florida primaries (D, R)
Illinois primaries (D, R)
Northern Marianas convention (R)
Read all of our coverage from the March 17 primaries here.
March 24
American Samoa caucuses (R)
April 2020
April 7
Wisconsin primaries (D, R; April 7 is the election date and mail-in vote postmark deadline following court rulings, as of 8 pm ET on April 6)
April 10
Alaska primary (D; vote-by-mail only; results will be available no later than 11:59 pm on April 11)
April 17
Wyoming caucuses (D; vote-by-mail only)
April 28
Ohio primaries (D, R; vote-by-mail only)
May 2020
May 2
Kansas primary (D)
Guam caucuses (D)
May 7-9
Wyoming state convention (R)
May 12
Nebraska primaries (D, R)
May 19
Oregon primaries (D, R)
June 2020
June 2
Delaware primaries (D, R)
District of Columbia primaries (D, R)
Indiana primaries (D, R)
Maryland primaries (D, R)
Montana primaries (D, R)
New Mexico primaries (D, R)
Pennsylvania primaries (D, R)
Rhode Island primaries (D, R)
South Dakota primaries (D, R)
June 6
Virgin Islands caucuses (D)
June 7
Puerto Rico primary (R)
June 9
Georgia primaries (D, R)
West Virginia primaries (D, R)
June 23
Kentucky primaries (D, R)
New York primaries (D, R)
July 2020
July 7
New Jersey primaries (D, R)
July 11
Louisiana primaries (D, R)
August 2020
August 11
Connecticut primaries (D, R)
August 17-20
Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Read our coverage of the Democratic convention here.
August 24-27
Republican National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina
Read our coverage of the Republican convention here.


vox--2020-02-03--Tech billionaires are funding the Democratic Party whether Democrats like it or not

Silicon Valley billionaires are looking well beyond Iowa .
Some of tech ’ s wealthiest citizens are pouring money into Democratic groups that are meant to back the eventual nominee , whoever that is .
While it ’ s been obvious that Silicon Valley is ready to spend big to oust Donald Trump , the latest batch of federal disclosures this weekend revealed the clearest picture yet its financial firepower .
Those donations serve as a key reminder : Democratic presidential candidates like Elizabeth Warren can bash Big Tech and Silicon Valley leaders all they want in the primary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the general election .
The candidates might want the backing of billionaires like LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman , who gave about $ 2 million late last year to key Democratic groups , the records show .
Hoffman donated $ 1 million and $ 250,000 to the primary super PACs supporting Senate Democrats and House Democrats , respectively .
He kicked in another $ 250,000 to Fair Fight , a voter registration group helmed by Stacey Abrams , and an equal amount to a super PAC trying to mobilize the Asian American and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these PACs file disclosures just twice a year , revealing the last six months of donation history this weekend .
There ’ s another essential player , the disclosures show : Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz , who gave at least $ 1.2 million in the second half of 2019 and is one of the party ’ s most closely watched donors .
Moskovitz ’ s political group , the Open Philanthropy Action Fund , donated $ 750,000 to Real Justice PAC , a group seeking to elect reform-minded prosecutors .
Moskovitz personally gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organized by the Democratic National Committee and at least $ 60,000 to the Wisconsin Democratic Party , which will try to flip a key battleground state in November .
Hoffman and Moskovitz appear to be the two Silicon Valley leaders putting the most money into Democratic causes , according to the latest records .
Other donors who were seen injecting hundreds of thousands of dollars into outside groups in just the last six months of 2019 are Netflix CEO Reed Hastings , Silicon Valley powerbroker Ron Conway , and Steve Silberstein , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disclosures just twice a year , revealing the last six months of donation history this weekend .
One particularly muscular group ahead of November is Acronym , and that ’ s thanks in part to tech ’ s largesse .
That makes sense , given that Acronym ’ s focus is on edgier , digital combat with Republican campaigns .
Advised by former Uber executive and Obama campaign manager David Plouffe , Acronym raked in seven figures from some of the industry ’ s most prominent venture capitalists , including a $ 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former leader , Michael Moritz .
That gift was a sign of the times in its own right : It was , by far , Moritz ’ s largest disclosed political contribution ever , and his first gift of any size since 2011 .
None of the people mentioned so far have formally endorsed a candidate in the primary .
This isn ’ t necessarily out of the ordinary .
Many of the biggest-fish donors across the country have , at least up to now , declined to weigh in on specific candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into equipping the eventual nominee with the best possible organizations .
Plus , the places for billionaires to spend the most money are not campaigns — which are subject to $ 2,800 donation limits — but outside groups , which have no limits at all .
Disclosures from candidates themselves primarily showed the same trend we ’ ve seen up to now : Tech leaders have largely organized around Pete Buttigieg , the young Midwestern mayor who has embraced Silicon Valley more than other candidates have .
Among the ranks of Buttigieg donors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last three months of 2019 were : Laurene Powell Jobs , the billionaire philanthropist who sat down privately with Buttigieg in September ; famed venture capitalist John Doerr ; and Y Combinator founder Paul Graham .
But in yet another sign of the times , one previous Buttigieg donor stood out on the fundraising reports of some of his rivals : Justin Rosenstein .
Rosenstein was an early employee at Facebook and is credited with coming up with the “ Like ” button .
The two candidates he backed to the maximum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , both of whom want to break up his former employer .

Silicon Valley billionaires are looking well beyond Iowa.
Some of tech’s wealthiest citizens are pouring money into Democratic groups that are meant to back the eventual nominee, whoever that is. While it’s been obvious that Silicon Valley is ready to spend big to oust Donald Trump, the latest batch of federal disclosures this weekend revealed the clearest picture yet its financial firepower.
Those donations serve as a key reminder: Democratic presidential candidates like Elizabeth Warren can bash Big Tech and Silicon Valley leaders all they want in the primary, but they’ll need their money in the general election.
The candidates might want the backing of billionaires like LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, who gave about $2 million late last year to key Democratic groups, the records show. Hoffman donated $1 million and $250,000 to the primary super PACs supporting Senate Democrats and House Democrats, respectively. He kicked in another $250,000 to Fair Fight, a voter registration group helmed by Stacey Abrams, and an equal amount to a super PAC trying to mobilize the Asian American and Pacific Islander vote. Outside groups like these PACs file disclosures just twice a year, revealing the last six months of donation history this weekend.
There’s another essential player, the disclosures show: Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, who gave at least $1.2 million in the second half of 2019 and is one of the party’s most closely watched donors. A Moskovitz-led group, the Open Philanthropy Action Fund, donated $750,000 to Real Justice PAC, a group seeking to elect reform-minded prosecutors. Moskovitz personally gave $450,000 to a grassroots fundraising committee organized by the Democratic National Committee and at least $60,000 to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, which will try to flip a key battleground state in November.
Hoffman and Moskovitz appear to be the two Silicon Valley leaders putting the most money into Democratic causes, according to the latest records. Other donors who were seen injecting hundreds of thousands of dollars into outside groups in just the last six months of 2019 are Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Silicon Valley powerbroker Ron Conway, and Steve Silberstein, a former software executive. Outside groups file disclosures just twice a year, revealing the last six months of donation history this weekend.
One particularly muscular group ahead of November is Acronym, and that’s thanks in part to tech’s largesse. That makes sense, given that Acronym’s focus is on edgier, digital combat with Republican campaigns. Advised by former Uber executive and Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Acronym raked in seven figures from some of the industry’s most prominent venture capitalists, including a $1 million check from Sequoia Capital’s former leader, Michael Moritz.
That gift was a sign of the times in its own right: It was, by far, Moritz’s largest disclosed political contribution ever, and his first gift of any size since 2011.
None of the people mentioned so far have formally endorsed a candidate in the primary. This isn’t necessarily out of the ordinary. Many of the biggest-fish donors across the country have, at least up to now, declined to weigh in on specific candidates, instead trying to funnel their dollars into equipping the eventual nominee with the best possible organizations.
Plus, the places for billionaires to spend the most money are not campaigns — which are subject to $2,800 donation limits — but outside groups, which have no limits at all.
Disclosures from candidates themselves primarily showed the same trend we’ve seen up to now: Tech leaders have largely organized around Pete Buttigieg, the young Midwestern mayor who has embraced Silicon Valley more than other candidates have. Among the ranks of Buttigieg donors at the maximum $2,800 level in the last three months of 2019 were: Laurene Powell Jobs, the billionaire philanthropist who sat down privately with Buttigieg in September; famed venture capitalist John Doerr; and Y Combinator founder Paul Graham.
But in yet another sign of the times, one previous Buttigieg donor stood out on the fundraising reports of some of his rivals: Justin Rosenstein. Rosenstein was an early employee at Facebook and is credited with coming up with the “Like” button.
The two candidates he backed to the maximum amount? Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, both of whom want to break up his former employer.


vox--2020-02-03--Joni Ernst walked back her call for Joe Biden to be impeached if elected

Sen. Joni Ernst ( R-IA ) , who once called for impeaching former President Barack Obama over his decision to make recess appointments , is now claiming that it ’ s Democrats who ’ ve actually “ lowered the bar ” for impeachment .
On Saturday , Ernst said that former Vice President and 2020 contender Joe Biden “ should be very careful ” with his words around President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment .
“ We can have a situation where if it should ever be President Biden , that immediately , people , the day after he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , we ’ re going to impeach him , ’ ” she said .
According to Ernst , Republicans could impeach Biden for “ turning a blind eye ” to his son ’ s work for Burisma , despite being assigned to take on Ukrainian corruption by the Obama White House .
Ernst attempted to walk back those comments , telling reporters Monday , “ that was taken entirely out of context.
” “ The point is that the Democrats have lowered the bar so far that … regardless of who it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party in the House than that of an elected president , you can have just random comments thrown out there with folks saying we ’ re going to impeach , ” she continued .
But that accusation , that it ’ s Democrats who have turned impeachment into a partisan weapon , belies her previous call for Obama ’ s impeachment when she was a member of Congress in 2014 .
For his own part , Biden said Sunday that Ernst ’ s threat is just more proof that Republicans are afraid to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
“ They very much don ’ t want to face me , obviously , ” he told the Des Moines Register .
But there ’ s another lesson in this exchange that Biden could be learning .
Biden is nostalgic for the bipartisan political days of yore but Ernst ’ s comments show why they ’ re never coming back Biden frequently reminisces about the way politics used to be done , when elected officials from both parties could come together and hammer out a compromise for the betterment of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positioned himself as the candidate who can roll back the American political system to one of mutual cooperation .
“ I just think there is a way , and the thing that will fundamentally change things is with Donald Trump out of the White House .
Not a joke .
You will see an epiphany occur among many of my Republican friends , ” Biden said last May .
Obama also thought that Republicans would come to their senses and work with him on policy after his election .
” My hope , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , now that it turns out that the goal of beating Obama doesn ’ t make much sense because I ’ m not running again , that we can start getting some cooperation again , ” he said in 2012 .
Instead , he faced unprecedented obstruction .
Not only was Obama ’ s 2016 Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland infamously held up by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) , but Republicans utilized several political tricks to hold up the president ’ s agenda , as explained by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason why is very simple : There remains little political incentive for cross-party cooperation , as Lee Drutman explained for Vox : In short , if Joe Biden assumes office in 2021 , what incentive will congressional Republicans have to work with him ?
Helping a President Biden achieve his policy goals would help Democrats become more popular .
Republicans ’ future electoral success would depend on Democrats becoming less popular .
It ’ s the same as when Obama began his second term in 2013 .
This is why the “ fever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also why congressional Democrats immediately went into resistance mode following the 2016 election .
Why would Democrats ever work with Republicans to help Donald Trump achieve anything ?
It ’ s the same logic , but with a very different emotional feel .
Ernst ’ s original comments , as well as her walk back , show that this is just how politics are .
Everything is hyperpartisan and that romantic political age that Biden pines for is probably a thing of the past .
But as Vox ’ s Ezra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s “ idea of who he is was formed in the more collegial Congress of the late 20th century ” :

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), who once called for impeaching former President Barack Obama over his decision to make recess appointments, is now claiming that it’s Democrats who’ve actually “lowered the bar” for impeachment.
On Saturday, Ernst said that former Vice President and 2020 contender Joe Biden “should be very careful” with his words around President Donald Trump’s impeachment. “We can have a situation where if it should ever be President Biden, that immediately, people, the day after he would be elected would be saying, ‘Well, we’re going to impeach him,’” she said.
According to Ernst, Republicans could impeach Biden for “turning a blind eye” to his son’s work for Burisma, despite being assigned to take on Ukrainian corruption by the Obama White House.
Ernst attempted to walk back those comments, telling reporters Monday, “that was taken entirely out of context.”
“The point is that the Democrats have lowered the bar so far that … regardless of who it is, if you have a different party in the House than that of an elected president, you can have just random comments thrown out there with folks saying we’re going to impeach,” she continued.
But that accusation, that it’s Democrats who have turned impeachment into a partisan weapon, belies her previous call for Obama’s impeachment when she was a member of Congress in 2014.
For his own part, Biden said Sunday that Ernst’s threat is just more proof that Republicans are afraid to face off against him in the general election. “They very much don’t want to face me, obviously,” he told the Des Moines Register.
But there’s another lesson in this exchange that Biden could be learning.
Biden is nostalgic for the bipartisan political days of yore but Ernst’s comments show why they’re never coming back
Biden frequently reminisces about the way politics used to be done, when elected officials from both parties could come together and hammer out a compromise for the betterment of the country. For months, he has positioned himself as the candidate who can roll back the American political system to one of mutual cooperation.
“I just think there is a way, and the thing that will fundamentally change things is with Donald Trump out of the White House. Not a joke. You will see an epiphany occur among many of my Republican friends,” Biden said last May.
Obama also thought that Republicans would come to their senses and work with him on policy after his election. ”My hope, my expectation, is that after the election, now that it turns out that the goal of beating Obama doesn’t make much sense because I’m not running again, that we can start getting some cooperation again,” he said in 2012.
Instead, he faced unprecedented obstruction. Not only was Obama’s 2016 Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland infamously held up by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), but Republicans utilized several political tricks to hold up the president’s agenda, as explained by Vox’s Matthew Yglesias:
The reason why is very simple: There remains little political incentive for cross-party cooperation, as Lee Drutman explained for Vox:
In short, if Joe Biden assumes office in 2021, what incentive will congressional Republicans have to work with him? Helping a President Biden achieve his policy goals would help Democrats become more popular. Republicans’ future electoral success would depend on Democrats becoming less popular. It’s the same as when Obama began his second term in 2013. This is why the “fever” didn’t break. It’s also why congressional Democrats immediately went into resistance mode following the 2016 election. Why would Democrats ever work with Republicans to help Donald Trump achieve anything? It’s the same logic, but with a very different emotional feel.
Ernst’s original comments, as well as her walk back, show that this is just how politics are. Everything is hyperpartisan and that romantic political age that Biden pines for is probably a thing of the past. But as Vox’s Ezra Klein explained, the vice president’s “idea of who he is was formed in the more collegial Congress of the late 20th century”:


vox--2020-02-03--Jennifer Lopez wants you to remember the “kids in cages”

Ahead of the Iowa caucuses on Monday , immigrant advocates ( with some help from Jennifer Lopez ) are reminding voters that President Donald Trump ’ s immigration policies have come at the expense of “ kids in cages.
” During the Super Bowl ’ s halftime show on Sunday night , J .
Lo performed “ Born in the USA ” while surrounded by children sitting in what looked like cages — an apparent critique of the Trump administration ’ s immigration detention policies : And on Monday , the immigrant advocacy group RAICES invoked the same imagery , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exhibitions of children covered in mylar blankets in chain-link cages throughout Des Moines , including at caucus sites and city hall .
Each installation plays a real recording of a child who was kept in detention : Both J .
Lo and immigrant advocates are trying to draw attention back to a crisis that the public appears to have forgotten .
In June 2018 , photos emerged of children kept in border patrol holding facilities known as “ hierleras , ” Spanish for iceboxes , where they slept on concrete floors with nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The facilities weren ’ t designed for long-term stays ; under federal guidelines , migrants are supposed to be either released into the interior of the US or sent to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody within 72 hours .
But in practice , migrants were held much longer than that , sometimes for additional days or weeks at a time .
The photos inspired mass protests nationwide , including a sit-in at the Capitol where advocates wrapped themselves in mylar blankets .
Few of Trump ’ s immigration policies — perhaps only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muslim-majority countries — have drawn so much public outrage .
Many court rulings and congressional hearings later , migrants are still forced to live in inhumane conditions in under-regulated detention centers , leading some to even go on hunger strikes .
The situation has changed to some degree : Courts have ordered the administration to provide migrants with at least some basic amenities in detention — including soap , toothbrushes , and sleeping pads .
Erika Andiola , chief advocacy officer at RAICES , said the organization is still hearing from migrants that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the hierleras , but not on the same scale as before .
Nor is the US detaining as many children as it once was .
In May 2019 , when apprehensions of migrants at the southern border peaked , the Department of Health and Human Services reported that it had an average of over 13,000 children in custody .
As of September 2019 , the most recent month for which data is available , that number had decreased by over 50 percent to 6,000 children .
The decrease could be attributed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Mexico ” policy , officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols , under which more than 60,000 asylum seekers , including both adults and children , have been sent back to Mexico to wait for their immigration court hearings in the US .
Rather than detaining families , the Trump administration has said that it is now sending the vast majority of families back to Mexico instead .
But even if the phenomenon of “ kids in cages ” is no longer the most pressing crisis facing the immigrant advocacy community , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation around Trump ’ s more recent immigration actions .
Despite the meaty discussion of former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro ’ s proposal to decriminalize border crossings early in the Democratic primary race , immigration has received a cursory treatment in the Democratic debates .
And since the summer of 2018 , when Trump ’ s policy of separating immigrant families stoked public outrage , the president ’ s many efforts to dismantle the asylum system , cut down on refugee admissions , send migrants back to Central America , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largely unnoticed .
The lack of attention on these policies has frustrated immigrant advocates .
But they ’ re trying to spur political mobilization by invoking “ kids in cages ” as a kind of shorthand for everything they think the public should find abhorrent about Trump ’ s immigration policies .
Much like Trump supporters ’ “ Build the Wall ” mantra , “ kids in cages ” has become an effective political messaging tool .
“ The horrors at our border and throughout our immigration system are too often ignored by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a statement .
“ We ’ re asking people in Iowa and across the country : Don ’ t look away from the terrors enacted in your name .
This anti-immigrant crackdown has to end .
”

Ahead of the Iowa caucuses on Monday, immigrant advocates (with some help from Jennifer Lopez) are reminding voters that President Donald Trump’s immigration policies have come at the expense of “kids in cages.”
During the Super Bowl’s halftime show on Sunday night, J. Lo performed “Born in the USA” while surrounded by children sitting in what looked like cages — an apparent critique of the Trump administration’s immigration detention policies:
Props to Jlo, Shakira and/or the choreographer for the necessary statement with Latino children in cages singing""Born in the USA". #SuperBowl #SuperBowl #PepsiHalftime pic.twitter.com/gyQDsmXo3l — Tom Moore (@tom_moore_104) February 3, 2020
And on Monday, the immigrant advocacy group RAICES invoked the same imagery, announcing that it had installed a dozen exhibitions of children covered in mylar blankets in chain-link cages throughout Des Moines, including at caucus sites and city hall. Each installation plays a real recording of a child who was kept in detention:
BREAKING: We've placed more than a dozen cage installations across the city of Des Moines, asking that we #DontLookAway at the continued separation & caging of families, record deportations & hostility towards immigrants & refugees.
Learn more: https://t.co/lyLhNG00Eb pic.twitter.com/0YCjdHq34E — RAICES (@RAICESTEXAS) February 3, 2020
Both J. Lo and immigrant advocates are trying to draw attention back to a crisis that the public appears to have forgotten.
In June 2018, photos emerged of children kept in border patrol holding facilities known as “hierleras,” Spanish for iceboxes, where they slept on concrete floors with nothing but mylar blankets in chain-link pens. The facilities weren’t designed for long-term stays; under federal guidelines, migrants are supposed to be either released into the interior of the US or sent to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody within 72 hours. But in practice, migrants were held much longer than that, sometimes for additional days or weeks at a time.
The photos inspired mass protests nationwide, including a sit-in at the Capitol where advocates wrapped themselves in mylar blankets. Few of Trump’s immigration policies — perhaps only his travel ban on citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries — have drawn so much public outrage.
Many court rulings and congressional hearings later, migrants are still forced to live in inhumane conditions in under-regulated detention centers, leading some to even go on hunger strikes.
The situation has changed to some degree: Courts have ordered the administration to provide migrants with at least some basic amenities in detention — including soap, toothbrushes, and sleeping pads. Erika Andiola, chief advocacy officer at RAICES, said the organization is still hearing from migrants that they and their children are being detained in the hierleras, but not on the same scale as before.
Nor is the US detaining as many children as it once was. In May 2019, when apprehensions of migrants at the southern border peaked, the Department of Health and Human Services reported that it had an average of over 13,000 children in custody. As of September 2019, the most recent month for which data is available, that number had decreased by over 50 percent to 6,000 children.
The decrease could be attributed to the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, under which more than 60,000 asylum seekers, including both adults and children, have been sent back to Mexico to wait for their immigration court hearings in the US. Rather than detaining families, the Trump administration has said that it is now sending the vast majority of families back to Mexico instead.
But even if the phenomenon of “kids in cages” is no longer the most pressing crisis facing the immigrant advocacy community, it’s a way to create conversation around Trump’s more recent immigration actions.
Despite the meaty discussion of former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro’s proposal to decriminalize border crossings early in the Democratic primary race, immigration has received a cursory treatment in the Democratic debates. And since the summer of 2018, when Trump’s policy of separating immigrant families stoked public outrage, the president’s many efforts to dismantle the asylum system, cut down on refugee admissions, send migrants back to Central America, and keep out low-income immigrants have gone largely unnoticed.
The lack of attention on these policies has frustrated immigrant advocates. But they’re trying to spur political mobilization by invoking “kids in cages” as a kind of shorthand for everything they think the public should find abhorrent about Trump’s immigration policies. Much like Trump supporters’ “Build the Wall” mantra, “kids in cages” has become an effective political messaging tool.
“The horrors at our border and throughout our immigration system are too often ignored by the public and politicians,” Andiola in a statement. “We’re asking people in Iowa and across the country: Don’t look away from the terrors enacted in your name. This anti-immigrant crackdown has to end.”


vox--2020-02-03--Uncanny Valley author Anna Wiener on the stories tech companies tell themselves

When Anna Wiener graduated from college in 2009 , she did what so many ambitious young women who cared about books and intellectual culture did before her : She moved to New York to try to make it in publishing .
But publishing , then in the middle of a profound contraction , was not a welcoming industry .
A few years after graduation , Wiener found herself stuck in a job as an assistant at a literary agency with no clear path for advancement .
She came to the conclusion that the best place for ambitious and bright young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in tech instead .
She packed up and moved to San Francisco .
Wiener , who is now a contributing writer for the New Yorker , spent her years in tech working on the soft skills side , helping companies interact with human beings .
Those years provide the raw material for her critically acclaimed new memoir Uncanny Valley , which paints a portrait of Silicon Valley in the boom period of 2013 through 2016 .
The book covers the myopic solipsism of the tech world — but it also captures its best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Wiener over the phone about Uncanny Valley , covering everything from the false narrative of the scrappy tech upstart to why narratives are important , Silicon Valley , and whether Mark Zuckerberg should revisit his college major ( psychology , who knew ) .
Our conversation , which has been lightly edited for length and clarity , is below .
You paint a really vivid picture in the book of how tech companies position themselves as underdogs who are disrupting the modern workforce .
That positioning then allows them to get away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organized in ways that reinforce our existing hegemonies of power .
Do you think it is reasonable at this point for these enormously wealthy corporations to call themselves ?
That ’ s a story that they tell themselves .
It ’ s a fundamental story they perpetuate , because it ’ s incredibly flattering for power and it ’ s a cover for any sort of analysis .
And how do tech companies create that story ?
The idea of disruption is based on the premise of unseating incumbents and doing things differently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s funny now to think about , with respect to something like Google or Facebook , but a lot of [ tech companies ] start out as small companies that are scrappy and built to speed .
And so the business culture around this is one of irreverence .
There ’ s an unwillingness to think about power at every level .
People who are funding or founding a small startup are not thinking about structures of power and the ways in which they have been selected to be the people on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One of the things that ’ s so striking in the book is that you are someone who has been trained to think in the humanities , and you ’ re surrounded by people who were trained to think from an engineer ’ s perspective .
How did you see that difference play out through your time in the tech world ?
I don ’ t even know if it has to do with education , because there are so many people that I have worked with who are software engineers from humanities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profiles to my own .
Which is also a conversation about privilege , and about who gets to participate in this industry .
It has to do more with the value system of the industry , and the frameworks for argument and for logic that are appealing to people .
Analysis and context and history and reflection can be quite slow .
And there is an emphasis [ in tech ] , due to the constraints and incentives of the business model , to accelerate and move quickly and iterate , and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and tweak .
There are corollaries there in terms of the logical frameworks that are appealing to people .
So you have people applying economic frameworks to social problems .
You have certain types of logic that have social currency here .
Historically , the intellectual culture here [ in Silicon Valley ] is also quite anti-academic .
It ’ s a very self-flattering intellectual culture that is really more like a business culture or a management philosophy .
It ’ s less the engineering mindset alone and more the values of software @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization , and the way that is tied to the business incentive .
You also seem to play a little with the idea that the split between humanities skills and engineering skills is gendered .
I ’ m sort of haunted by the passage in which , during a staff retreat , the engineers start going through the customer service request queue , with no training , while drunk .
Where does that sense that communication skills and humanities skills are feminized and therefore lesser come from ?
In an industry so oriented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people who can most quickly affect that are the people who are building the technology , the people who are actually making the products rather than selling or supporting or marketing them .
That ’ s the purest expression of the business .
To paraphrase a CEO who ’ s quoted in my book [ Wiener uses no proper names in Uncanny Valley ] , Silicon Valley is a culture focused on doing , not reflecting or thinking .
And the people who can do , who can actually ship product , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardest to come by , so you tend to get a culture that ’ s oriented towards them both as a recruiting and retention strategy .
This distinction between technical and non-technical employees is often deployed to keep people out , to undervalue or undermine the work that they ’ re are doing .
To call someone ’ s work ’ s non-technical is often not quite honest , given what it means to work at a tech company for a lot of people .
You do have to have some amount of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re working at a B2B company rather than a consumer-facing company .
There ’ s a gendered , racialized valence around those terms .
There ’ s this sort of recurring idea that comes up after most tech scandals , like every time Facebook has a new privacy scandal , that these problems are a consequence of the tech world being run by people who have not been trained to think critically about how human beings behave and what our responsibility to each other is , who have no real training in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you see some credence for ?
I know people like to say things like , “ Engineers should get a humanities degree , ” or , “ Everyone needs to read sociology.
” I do think that engineering culture probably could use sociology , but I generally find that condescending , knowing so many engineers who are as well-rounded as a person could be .
I think it has more to do with the structural interests of the industry and the organization .
It ’ s not inspiring to see someone like Mark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You sort of wish he would potentially have reconsidered getting his bachelor ’ s degree , [ and getting it ] in something else .
Well , he was a psychology major , so I don ’ t know , maybe that could still be useful .
It has to do with who ’ s empowered internally , who has a voice and what ’ s valued .
Because of the way these businesses are set up and because of what the endgame is for a lot of them , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a business to deliberate , to make decisions based on years of research or overly contextualize the work .
Uncanny Valley is coming out after a year full of major books arguing that the way we use technology now is not just harmful to us personally , but can in fact be immoral and destructive to the whole world — books like Jia Tolentino ’ s Trick Mirror and Jenny Odell ’ s How to Do Nothing .
How do you see Uncanny Valley fitting into that conversation ?
My hope for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t often shared in stories about Silicon Valley .
Certainly books exist : there is Ellen Ullman ’ s book Close to the Machine and Kate Losse ’ s book The Boy King .
These are both memoirs of women who worked in the tech industry in different decades than I did .
Sharing my own experience as a pretty low-level , “ non-technical ” employee , my hope is that there is value there .
That it is useful to people both inside and outside the industry .
To explain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the customs and manners of speech and value systems that are common here .
And to share with people who are in the industry what it looks like also from the inside , and how it feels to be , and how these products feel , and how it feels to be building them in this workplace environment .
The stories that tend to come out of Silicon Valley are either academic , and that ’ s great , or they are triumphalist and they are business stories about innovation told by an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope is to provide an ordinary employee ’ s perspective , which is one that for many different reasons is harder for a lot of people to share publicly .
There are more , I should add .
There ’ s a book coming out in April by Wendy Liu called Abolish Silicon Valley , which is about her experience as a startup founder , her growing disillusionment , and some potential political solutions to the state that we ’ re in .
Susan Fowler also has one coming out .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s one that I ’ m really excited about .
Narrative is really important to tech .
When the industry tells stories about itself , people have really engaged with them on the terms of the industry .
To expand that literature can only be useful .

When Anna Wiener graduated from college in 2009, she did what so many ambitious young women who cared about books and intellectual culture did before her: She moved to New York to try to make it in publishing.
But publishing, then in the middle of a profound contraction, was not a welcoming industry. A few years after graduation, Wiener found herself stuck in a job as an assistant at a literary agency with no clear path for advancement. She came to the conclusion that the best place for ambitious and bright young people not in publishing. It was in tech instead. She packed up and moved to San Francisco.
Wiener, who is now a contributing writer for the New Yorker, spent her years in tech working on the soft skills side, helping companies interact with human beings. Those years provide the raw material for her critically acclaimed new memoir Uncanny Valley, which paints a portrait of Silicon Valley in the boom period of 2013 through 2016. The book covers the myopic solipsism of the tech world — but it also captures its best and most utopian impulses.
I spoke with Wiener over the phone about Uncanny Valley, covering everything from the false narrative of the scrappy tech upstart to why narratives are important, Silicon Valley, and whether Mark Zuckerberg should revisit his college major (psychology, who knew). Our conversation, which has been lightly edited for length and clarity, is below.
Constance Grady
You paint a really vivid picture in the book of how tech companies position themselves as underdogs who are disrupting the modern workforce. That positioning then allows them to get away with enormous abuses of power, generally organized in ways that reinforce our existing hegemonies of power. Do you think it is reasonable at this point for these enormously wealthy corporations to call themselves underdogs?
Anna Wiener
That’s a story that they tell themselves. It’s a fundamental story they perpetuate, because it’s incredibly flattering for power and it’s a cover for any sort of analysis.
Constance Grady
And how do tech companies create that story?
Anna Wiener
The idea of disruption is based on the premise of unseating incumbents and doing things differently: better or more quickly. It’s funny now to think about, with respect to something like Google or Facebook, but a lot of [tech companies] start out as small companies that are scrappy and built to speed. And so the business culture around this is one of irreverence.
There’s an unwillingness to think about power at every level. People who are funding or founding a small startup are not thinking about structures of power and the ways in which they have been selected to be the people on whom the ambitions of disruption rest.
Constance Grady
One of the things that’s so striking in the book is that you are someone who has been trained to think in the humanities, and you’re surrounded by people who were trained to think from an engineer’s perspective. How did you see that difference play out through your time in the tech world?
Anna Wiener
I don’t even know if it has to do with education, because there are so many people that I have worked with who are software engineers from humanities backgrounds, who have very similar education profiles to my own. Which is also a conversation about privilege, and about who gets to participate in this industry.
It has to do more with the value system of the industry, and the frameworks for argument and for logic that are appealing to people. Analysis and context and history and reflection can be quite slow. And there is an emphasis [in tech], due to the constraints and incentives of the business model, to accelerate and move quickly and iterate, and not so much to reflect but to adjust and tweak.
There are corollaries there in terms of the logical frameworks that are appealing to people. So you have people applying economic frameworks to social problems. You have certain types of logic that have social currency here.
Historically, the intellectual culture here [in Silicon Valley] is also quite anti-academic. It’s a very self-flattering intellectual culture that is really more like a business culture or a management philosophy. It’s less the engineering mindset alone and more the values of software and how those are emphasized inside an organization, and the way that is tied to the business incentive.
Constance Grady
You also seem to play a little with the idea that the split between humanities skills and engineering skills is gendered. I’m sort of haunted by the passage in which, during a staff retreat, the engineers start going through the customer service request queue, with no training, while drunk. Where does that sense that communication skills and humanities skills are feminized and therefore lesser come from?
Anna Wiener
In an industry so oriented toward speed and acceleration and growth, the people who can most quickly affect that are the people who are building the technology, the people who are actually making the products rather than selling or supporting or marketing them. That’s the purest expression of the business.
To paraphrase a CEO who’s quoted in my book [Wiener uses no proper names in Uncanny Valley], Silicon Valley is a culture focused on doing, not reflecting or thinking. And the people who can do, who can actually ship product, are engineers. They are also the hardest to come by, so you tend to get a culture that’s oriented towards them both as a recruiting and retention strategy.
This distinction between technical and non-technical employees is often deployed to keep people out, to undervalue or undermine the work that they’re are doing. To call someone’s work’s non-technical is often not quite honest, given what it means to work at a tech company for a lot of people. You do have to have some amount of technical knowledge, particularly if you’re working at a B2B company rather than a consumer-facing company. There’s a gendered, racialized valence around those terms.
Constance Grady
There’s this sort of recurring idea that comes up after most tech scandals, like every time Facebook has a new privacy scandal, that these problems are a consequence of the tech world being run by people who have not been trained to think critically about how human beings behave and what our responsibility to each other is, who have no real training in the humanities. Is that an idea that you see some credence for?
Anna Wiener
I know people like to say things like, “Engineers should get a humanities degree,” or, “Everyone needs to read sociology.” I do think that engineering culture probably could use sociology, but I generally find that condescending, knowing so many engineers who are as well-rounded as a person could be. I think it has more to do with the structural interests of the industry and the organization.
It’s not inspiring to see someone like Mark Zuckerberg speak about the consequences of Facebook. You sort of wish he would potentially have reconsidered getting his bachelor’s degree, [and getting it] in something else. Well, he was a psychology major, so I don’t know, maybe that could still be useful.
It has to do with who’s empowered internally, who has a voice and what’s valued. Because of the way these businesses are set up and because of what the endgame is for a lot of them, it’s not in your best interest as a business to deliberate, to make decisions based on years of research or overly contextualize the work.
Constance Grady
Uncanny Valley is coming out after a year full of major books arguing that the way we use technology now is not just harmful to us personally, but can in fact be immoral and destructive to the whole world — books like Jia Tolentino’s Trick Mirror and Jenny Odell’s How to Do Nothing. How do you see Uncanny Valley fitting into that conversation?
Anna Wiener
My hope for the book is to express a perspective that isn’t often shared in stories about Silicon Valley. Certainly books exist: there is Ellen Ullman’s book Close to the Machine and Kate Losse’s book The Boy King. These are both memoirs of women who worked in the tech industry in different decades than I did.
Sharing my own experience as a pretty low-level, “non-technical” employee, my hope is that there is value there. That it is useful to people both inside and outside the industry. To explain to people outside the industry some of the customs and manners of speech and value systems that are common here. And to share with people who are in the industry what it looks like also from the inside, and how it feels to be, and how these products feel, and how it feels to be building them in this workplace environment.
The stories that tend to come out of Silicon Valley are either academic, and that’s great, or they are triumphalist and they are business stories about innovation told by an executive who has a ghostwriter. My hope is to provide an ordinary employee’s perspective, which is one that for many different reasons is harder for a lot of people to share publicly.
There are more, I should add. There’s a book coming out in April by Wendy Liu called Abolish Silicon Valley, which is about her experience as a startup founder, her growing disillusionment, and some potential political solutions to the state that we’re in. Susan Fowler also has one coming out.
This is becoming a genre, and it’s one that I’m really excited about. Narrative is really important to tech. When the industry tells stories about itself, people have really engaged with them on the terms of the industry. To expand that literature can only be useful.