Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Against Bitcoin

The fact that bitcoin was a small feature in the emails that WikiLeaks released about the Clinton campaign, is not surprising. After all, the cryptocurrency has carved out a niche in the world of P2P interaction, which is in itself a critical component of day to day life. The fact that John Podesta dismisses bitcoin as a “Libertarian Ayn Rand shtick” is not surprising either. Nevertheless Podesta’s comment does shed a light on the depth of the gap between political positions and the potential that instruments like bitcoin have for the well-being of the very voters that politicians court.

Clinton’s Campaign Manager Tainted by Political Perception

Technology is overwhelmingly neutral when it comes to politics. Politicians are the ones who keep on coloring technology with their own colors, or those of their opponents whenever it is convenient to do so. This is the reason why topics such as stem cell research can be so controversial and polarizing. Bitcoin is not an exception to the political knee-jerk reaction, but the logic behind Podesta’s view about bitcoin serves only to expose how ignorant he is about cryptocurrencies. Moreover, Podesta’s characterization of bitcoin completely ignores the benefits it can bring to voters, Clinton’s included. His attempt to paint bitcoin ‘Republican Red’ and add some ‘Libertarian Sparkle’ completely misses the reason why this cryptocurrency was created and what its purpose really is.

Hey Clinton, Bitcoin is just P2P Money, what’s the harm?

Satoshi Nakamoto’s white paper clearly states the primary reason for creating bitcoin. The first sentence of the paper’s abstract declares that “A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution”. That is not only the intention of bitcoin, but it is also the full extent of its politics. A careful search for key terms that could even remotely allude to politics within the body of the white paper, yield absolutely no results:

• The term ‘politics’ appears 0 times within Nakamoto’s white paper.
• The term ‘Libertarian’ is also completely absent from the text.
• There is absolutely no mention of Ayn Rand.
• The white paper merely describes the technology and the mechanisms behind bitcoin.

Yes, many Libertarians Love Bitcoin, so what?

There is no doubt that bitcoin was overwhelmingly adopted by Libertarians all around the world. It is also true that politicians like Rand Paul, who have Libertarian tendencies, accept bitcoin donations for their campaigns. But many of those Wall Street banks that hired Hillary Clinton to deliver speeches, or donate to her campaign, are also up to the neck in bitcoin. Financial institutions around the world are involved in the development of blockchain-driven systems. Just to allay Mr. Podesta’s ignorance, he should understand that blockchain is the technology that underpins bitcoin. Does that mean that the next batch of WikiLeaks’ emails from the Clinton campaign, will also include a recommendation to drop donations from big Wall Street banks? Probably not. But if the Clinton campaign is already at it, why not ban US Dollar donations? After all that’s the kind of money Republicans use.

When will Politicians Learn?

The speed of technological adoption, incorporation and transformation is so quick nowadays, that politicians will not be able to keep up if they insist in coloring technology red, blue, green or any other color for that matter. It is one thing to assign colors to political parties in order to be able to interpret data, but using them to classify technology just oversteps the boundaries of the logical. When it comes to technology, politicians should be color blind. They should learn from the people who are working on these projects in order to keep their legislative and governmental efforts up to date. When that happens, the political echelon will make a quantum leap towards effective governance and sound leadership. In the meantime, they seem to be holding on to their crayons.

Does Podesta have a real reason to Dismiss Bitcoin?

While WikiLeaks keeps on exposing the blunders of the Clinton campaign, perhaps Podesta can add another logically weak reason to dismiss bitcoin donations. The very organization that exposed his ignorance, survived in large part because of bitcoin. When the US government imposed sanctions on WikiLeaks for exposing classified material, the organization set up bitcoin donations in order to overcome the sanctions. If Podesta’s thought process can be extrapolated, he could well paint bitcoin with the colors of treason, and feel even more satisfied about conflating the use of a tool with political purpose. There is no logical reason for politicians to dismiss bitcoin, or for that matter, ignore the plethora of benefits it brought to their constituents.