Why the DNC doesn’t care about Bitcoin

Two weeks ago I attended the Democratic National Convention. The main reason I did this was to try to encourage some impartiality in our coverage of election and Bitcoin politics here at Bitcoin Magazine. Earlier this year, we were invited to the Republican National Convention at the last minute after David Bailey’s coordination with the Trump campaign began ahead of his speech at the Bitcoin 2024 conference in Nashville in July.

It bothered me to see people associated with this company take such a one-sided stance on the Republican Party, despite the fact that actually far more Republican politicians support Bitcoin than Democrats. The Republican Party even formally integrated Bitcoin into their public policy platform at the convention. The Democrats have not.

That’s not to say that no Democrats support Bitcoin. Nationally, Rep. Ro Khanna of California, Ritchie Torress of New York, and Sen. Kirsten Gilligrand, also of New York, have been vocal supporters of Bitcoin in Congress. These politicians exist, they are vocal, but they don’t seem to resonate with the rest of the party or their voting base that exists in the Republican Party.

On the first day I attended, Bitcoin was not mentioned once. It wasn’t a very prominent topic at the RNC, but it was mentioned. It was included in the party’s political platform. No such inclusion occurred at the DNC. The focus of the first day was on the upcoming election, Kamala versus Trump.

I must say that not much of the discussion focused on politics. It was mostly rhetoric and focused on general issues concerning Democratic voters, interspersed with the kind of rah-rah language one would expect at an event focused on the selection of candidates for the Democratic party this election cycle.

While no policy was explicitly touched upon, many of the issues Democrats consider important were. Minority inclusion, women’s rights, good-paying jobs and union security, health care (especially with regards to Covid, which is still circulating, although people don’t put the same emphasis on it), and the perceived attempt by Republicans to curtail progress from the Democrats’ point of view on many of these issues.

A number of union leaders spoke either in person or via taped messages during the first day of the convention, the Arizona Pipefitters and Plumbers Union, the Communications Workers of America Union (CWA), the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), the American Federation of State , county and municipal employees (AFSCME). They all had a lot to say about the jobs lost during Covid and the job recovery that has taken place under the Biden administration. Another major issue was union pension funds. Union jobs are generally sought after and coveted because of the benefits and retirement security that come with them, not just the good base pay.

Do you notice anything? Maybe Bitcoin can synergize and help advance these goals that Democrats seem to care about?

Bitcoin can absolutely help minorities who are suffering economically, at least over long time horizons. Ignoring the aberration of this current market cycle, people holding bitcoin for long periods of time have absolutely benefited from the increased purchasing power. While it obviously takes money to make money, and people who start with less will realize less in terms of appreciation, anyone with money to spare has historically ended up with more power in the long run of purchase. This will not help those in poverty as much as those with a large surplus of money to invest, but it will help.

Bitcoin can also help women maintain access to healthcare, which is increasingly banned in parts of the US. Financial institutions increasingly censored financial transactions deemed culturally objectionable, despite their legal status. There is no reason to assume that this activity will continue to affect only people on the right side of the political spectrum. Bitcoin is an alternative to traditional financial institutions. And I shouldn’t tell people that it can work even for services that are considered illegal.

Also, employee pension funds have recently started to have a conservative exposure to bitcoin, which again, considering the long-term historical performance, can be a huge boon to the long-term solvency issues they face pensions from all over the country.

Bitcoin may even be a massive boon for renewable energy, something liberals care a lot about as it relates to mitigating the consequences of global climate change and preserving our natural environment. Bitcoin miners are in a very unique position, with AI operators only recently beginning to fill a similar niche, to be buyers of failed renewable energy before it becomes grid-connected. This allows for revenue as these projects are completed, rather than having to wait to be connected to retail energy consumers on the grid.

That’s to say nothing of the overall open access nature of Bitcoin and how it can advance the philosophy of freedom and inclusion globally, giving people an option in the face of the struggle and resistance of totalitarian regimes around the world. Bitcoin is a natural fit for many of the Democrats’ proclaimed beliefs and principles.

So why is there no attention from the party at large? Why is there no mention or inclusion in their political platform similar to the Republicans?

It is the base. The recent American Bitcoin Survey by the Nakamoto Project showed us that bitcoin ownership is a bipartisan thing, not focused on the right as it is generally perceived in the public. So why does this perception continue to exist? Narratives. Tell. Messages. The reason the Democratic Party doesn’t care so much about Bitcoin as a policy issue is not because Democrats and liberals don’t use or own it, but because of larger narratives. The perception is that Bitcoin is a right-wing thing. The ASSOCIATIONS made between Bitcoin and important issues appear right from the right.

Democratic politicians generally will not care about Bitcoin policy-wise and will meet Bitcoins with positive policy unless these narratives and associations change. This is the reality of politics, politicians speak to their constituents. They generally do not take forward-thinking initiatives themselves unless they see some benefit in terms of positive voter reaction and perception of that initiative. This is politics.

Shouting at politicians won’t change that, demonizing them for apathetic or negative reactionary responses to the perception of being right-wing in a polarized political climate won’t change that. You have to get to the voting base. This is the only thing that will cause a change of attitude and action on the part of Democratic politicians. People who are on the left need to be shown that Bitcoin is something that aligns with and can advance their political goals and agendas, in the same way that the broader perception has been propagated on the right.

It will certainly be an uphill battle given the baggage of past and existing perception, but this is the only way the increasingly entrenched perception of Bitcoin as a right-wing thing can be pushed back. Without a concerted effort to demonstrate and build narratives to show leftists that Bitcoin can and does align with their values, Bitcoin is doomed to be forced into a left/right partisan paradigm.