ShareThis Page

Left, right turn against tech giants

| Thursday, Oct. 12, 2017, 8:55 p.m.
This photo combo of images shows, clockwise from upper left, a Google sign at a store in Hialeah, Fla.; the Twitter app displayed on a smartphone; PayPal headquarters in San Jose, Calif.; and the Facebook app displayed on an iPad. (AP Photo)
This photo combo of images shows, clockwise from upper left, a Google sign at a store in Hialeah, Fla.; the Twitter app displayed on a smartphone; PayPal headquarters in San Jose, Calif.; and the Facebook app displayed on an iPad. (AP Photo)

When left and right finally agree on something, watch out: The unthinkable becomes normal.

So it is with changing attitudes toward Silicon Valley.

For the last two decades, Apple, Google, Amazon and other West Coast tech corporations have been untouchable icons. They piled up astronomical profits while hypnotizing both left-wing and right-wing politicians.

Conservative administrations praised them as modern versions of 19th-century risk-takers such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. Bill Gates, the late Steve Jobs and other tech giants were seen as supposedly creating national wealth in an unregulated, laissez-faire landscape that they had invented from nothing.

At a time when American companies were increasingly unable to compete in the rough-and-tumble world arena, Apple, Microsoft and Facebook bulldozed their international competition. Indeed, they turned high-tech and social media into American brands.

The left was even more enthralled.

It dropped its customary regulatory zeal, despite Silicon Valley's monopolizing, outsourcing, offshoring, censoring, and destroying of startup competition. After all, Big Tech was left-wing and generous.

High-tech interests gave hundreds of millions of dollars to left-wing candidates, think tanks and causes.

Unlike the steel, oil and coal monopolies of the 19th century that created the sinews of a growing America out of grime and smoke, Silicon Valley gave us shiny, clean, green and fun pods, pads and phones.

But attitudes about hip high-tech corporations have now changed on both the left and right.

Liberals are under pressure from their progressive base to make Silicon Valley hire more minorities and women.

Progressives wonder why West Coast techies cannot unionize and sit down for tough bargaining with their progressive billionaire bosses.

Behind the veneer of a cool Apple logo or multicolored Google trademark are scores of multimillionaires who live “1-percenter” lifestyles quite at odds with the soft socialism espoused by their corporate megaphones.

Conservatives got sick of Silicon Valley, too.

Instead of acting like laissez-faire capitalists, the entrenched captains of high-tech industry seem more like government colluders and manipulators.

Regarding the high-tech leaders' efforts to rig their industries and strangle dissent, think of conniving Jay Gould or Jim Fisk rather than the wizardly Thomas Edison.

The public so far has welcomed the unregulated freedom of Silicon Valley — as long as it was truly free.

But now computer users are discovering that social media and web searches seem highly controlled and manipulated — by the whims of billionaires rather than federal regulators.

Both liberals and conservatives are just beginning to ask why internet communications cannot be subject to the same rules applied to radio and television.

Why can't Silicon Valley monopolies be busted up in the same manner as the former Bell Telephone octopus or the old Standard Oil trust?

Just because Silicon Valley is cool does not mean it could never become just another monopoly that got too greedy and turned off the left wing, the right wing and everybody in between.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.