What the GOP could learn from the UK election

Political platforms, labor, immigration, and more.

Next:Economy Newsletter "The GOP could learn a thing or two from the Tories." Generated with Adobe Firefly.   Takeaways from the Tories Unlike the last election, the GOP has actually released a platform for 2024. While it's filled with expected culture war nonsense, it also "triangulates a lot of Democratic ideas," as Noah Smith observes. (Conservative commentator George Will disparagingly called the current party's ideology "GOP progressivism-lite " in a recent column.) It's highly unlikely that most of these ideas will get enshrined in law should Trump win—or are even more than lip service paid to undecided voters. But as Smith points out, the GOP platform, like all political platforms, is interesting because it "tells us how the people in [the] party think about their own ideology and what they stand for" and "what [the] party thinks will appeal to its potential voters." The platform suggests that there's a concerted effort to track toward the center (or at least to appear to do so). But will it be enough for the party to squeak out a victory? (And will unconvinced voters even hear the message through Trump's racket?) Bloomberg columnists John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge think the GOP could learn a few things from the recent rout of British Conservatives. Namely, the party should be wary of making and breaking promises to its base, specifically around "competent government and a smaller state." The mismanagement of Brexit was central to the Tories' failure. But as Micklethwait and Wooldridge warn, Trump is similarly (and very clearly) "promising incompatible things to different people." And that puts a conservative victory in jeopardy: The lesson from Britain this month is that conservatism—especially if it looks chaotic and reckless—is vulnerable to a challenge from the center-left. . . .A moderate governor with a decent record of pragmatic governing might mean that all those MAGA ideas that the Republicans are now signing up for look extreme. + ICYMI: Steven Teles and Rob Saldin, political science professors and the authors of Never Trump, argue that an "Abundance Faction" could "injec[t] an alternative dimension into our political discussion."   The Right's working class strategy In a first for the Republican National Convention, Teamsters president Sean O'Brien took the stage to offer an appeal from the working class, declaring, "The Teamsters are not interested if you have D, R, or an I next to your name. We want to know one thing: what are you doing to help American workers?" As Jacobin's Dustin Guastella notes, "It was an insistence that the union is not beholden to any party or candidate." Reactions to O'Brien's speech (and really, to his presence at the RNC) were mixed to say the least. But one thing is certain: inviting O'Brien to the RNC was a tactic in support of what Truthout calls the "Right's strategy for courting the working class." Time will tell if the strategy proves effective. On the one hand, " nearly 40% of registered voters who are union members are in the GOP," reports Axios. But there's still the fact that this "pro-worker rhetoric" stands in stark opposition to the GOP's "anti-union policies." + From Al Jazeera: "Can the Republican Party Make Inroads with Organised Labour?" + In How Things Work, Hamilton Nolan contends that while "the heart of a pro-worker labor policy is union power and corporate regulation," the Republican Party's appeals to the working class most often boil down to culture war issues and anti-immigration sentiment.   Anti-immigration policies don't make economic sense Speaking of immigration. . . It's a contentious issue this election cycle, and both Democrats and Republicans have outlined tough positions on securing the border (although only the GOP has done so using the objectionable phrase "Biden's Migrant Invasion" in its 2024 platform). Racism and xenophobia clearly drive a large share of anti-immigrant feelings, but other critics often point to the economic threat immigrants allegedly pose. But " do immigrants really take jobs and lower wages?" NPR's Planet Money recently asked. The Planet Money team examined the topic through the lens of competing research on the effects of the 1980 Mariel boatlift on Florida workers. The academic sparring they describe is riveting, but more consequential is the consensus the field eventually arrived at: "that whether you’re talking about jobs or wages or growth or productivity,. . .immigrants are generally good for the economy." + As we shared a few weeks ago, "The CBO estimated that the boost to population numbers from immigration would power growth to the tune of $7 trillion through 2033—and would lift government revenue by about $1 trillion—as new workers fill shortages and stoke demand." + Here's Noah Smith on why the "issue of skilled immigration is more important than ever." + "Immigration [was] a big issue ahead of the U.K. elections, too." And we know how that turned out, although the anti-immigration Reform UK party also won 14.3% of the vote.   Trumpism in Silicon Valley Lots of (digital) ink has been spilled trying to interpret the support for Trump (and his running mate, former VC J.D. Vance) among a certain subset of Silicon Valley billionaires. But what this discourse disregards, Max Read argues, is that "there is (and always has been) a large and influential faction of tech capital (i.e. founders, investors, executives) that is not merely 'libertarian' but deeply right wing." Noah Smith said much the same before taking the opportunity to scrutinize the "many reasons some tech companies and figures are now supporting Trump " and offer a list of moderate recommendations to Democrats who need to preserve their support in the industry. While I don't agree with everything in the list, it's telling that Smith's prescriptions resemble the "challenge from the center-left" Micklethwait and Wooldridge warn conservatives about above. + Mark Cuban thinks it's all just a crypto play. + From Brad DeLong: "Horowitz and Andreesen Think Trump Views Them as Friends Rather Than Prey. . ."   Something new for your reading list One quick thing before we go. Ilan Strauss and I are leading the SSRC's AI Disclosures Project, and we've started a newsletter, Asimov's Addendum , to run parallel to our research there (though it's not officially affiliated with the project). We'll be using this newsletter to think through "what additional 'laws' might be needed to ensure that AI can be aligned with the public good, now that corporate objectives and the market's incentives have become dominant steering factors in AI's development." This week we published our first post, which argues that "[Asimov's] three laws of robotics were the beginning of the story, not the end." Please take a look, and subscribe if you're interested. And we welcome your comments—I'd love to know what you think.   —Tim O’Reilly and Peyton Joyce This message was sent to alexvarboffin.abbb@blogger.com. You are receiving this because you've signed up to receive email from us. Privacy Policy | Unsubscribe From All | Unsubscribe From Next:Economy O'Reilly Media, Inc., 1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA, 95472 (707) 827-7000