Make Bitcoin Nonpartisan Again

Bitcoin is not just for Republicans. Or Democrats. Or even Libertarians.

Perhaps the most noteworthy feature of the annual Bitcoin conference this year in Nashville was the predominance of political figures, including former President Trump. They hail from both sides of the aisle, though lean Republican. The Bitcoiner community embraced the politicians with open arms, at times fawning over the very political gatekeepers that Bitcoin, in principle, opposes.

It is unsurprising that in an election year, all conversations become political. And a presidential candidate speaking at a major Bitcoin conference is a big step for Bitcoin. Who would have thought that a white paper posted on an obscure mailing list would get attention from the current front-runner in the US presidential election? This was a milestone, no doubt about it. It is also unsurprising that the current debate around Bitcoin has a political overtone. After all, Bitcoin’s fundamental idea separates politics from money, and therefore has its roots in libertarian political philosophy. Many of the opponents of Bitcoin today have come from the government, whether that is the Chinese Communist Party, who banned Bitcoin, or certain cranky Massachusetts senators.

However, advocating for Bitcoin along political lines would be a mistake. For one, Bitcoin is a technology, and like all technology, does not discriminate on political beliefs. The technological foundation of Bitcoin—public-key cryptography, computer networking, and economic incentives—is based on science, not politics. Your own views on the size and scope of government do not matter for the digital transfer of value across a distributed network of computers.

And Bitcoin’s ability to store value through its unique mechanism of digital scarcity is also not a partisan issue. As Saylor noted during his keynote at the Nashville conference, every asset experiences some kind of inflation or tax: equities are subject to the whims of the CEO or corporate management; land is subject to the decisions of mayors and the city council; bonds and real estate returns depend on the choices of the central bank. Bitcoin rests on an algorithm enforced by a global network of computer nodes and is scientifically less privy to manipulation and capture.

The history of sound money is rooted in Austrian economics, most notably intellectuals like Hayek, Rothbard, and Mises. While it is tempting to argue that their ideas are more conservative than liberal, the truth is, classical liberal thinkers like them are equally ignored by both the political right and left. Mainstream macroeconomic thought from both sides of the political aisle equally embraces the concept of a central bank, which is now embedded into the collective consciousness of the modern world. Bitcoin's focus on private property, individual liberty, and self-sovereignty upends the political beliefs of both Democrats and Republicans.

And so, it is a mistake to pigeonhole Bitcoin into just one political ideology. I was happy to see Congressman Ro Khanna join a panel on the progressive case for Bitcoin. The errors of the Federal Reserve took place under both Republican and Democrat administrations, and the mistakes of fiat banking are felt by all, regardless of their political affiliation. The logic of scarce, sound money applies equally well to the political left and right.

So let's not be too quick to cheer for one party over another in its embrace of Bitcoin. Bitcoin will have succeeded if it becomes as politically controversial as vanilla ice cream on a hot summer day.