Latest news with #TechRight
South China Morning Post
30-07-2025
- Business
- South China Morning Post
Absolute dominance: what China needs to know about the tech elite's role in Trump 2.0
China should factor in the future visions of America's right-wing tech barons to gain a more complete picture of the second Trump administration's policies, a top Chinese strategist has suggested. As the two powers had their latest round of trade talks in Stockholm, another prominent expert in China also called on Beijing to look beyond the present tariff tensions with the United States to understand Washington's broader strategic agenda. The inclusion of Silicon Valley tech elites as a new force on US President Donald Trump 's team had been a major difference in the American leader's second term compared with his first, said Ni Feng, director of the Institute of American Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. 'The interaction between the tech right force and the Maga movement is likely to be a very meaningful point for us to observe the second Trump administration's domestic and foreign policies,' Ni told a webinar about the Make America Great Again wave on Tuesday. While Maga was nostalgic, the tech right was trying to 'shape the future of the US', Ni said at the event, which was organised by the National Academy of Development and Strategy at Renmin University in Beijing. Ni described the American tech right not only as a powerful capital bloc but also as an entity that had its 'unique philosophy' about where the US should be headed – so-called tech accelerationism.
New York Times
09-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Elon Musk Consulted Curtis Yarvin, Right-Wing Thinker, on Third Party
As Elon Musk studies up on how to start a third political party, among the people from whom he has sought advice is a somewhat surprising choice of consultant: the right-wing blogger Curtis Yarvin, who is perhaps best known for advocating monarchism. Mr. Yarvin is one of the most influential thinkers on the so-called tech right, where he has attracted attention for his oft-expressed distaste for traditional American democracy. He would not seem to be a source of the kind of expertise that Mr. Musk needs as he pursues his idea for the America Party — Mr. Yarvin is not an expert on the mechanics of creating third parties or on the strategies and intricacies of running third-party campaigns. Still, Mr. Musk and Mr. Yarvin spoke late last week about the task ahead, according to two people briefed on the conversation who insisted on anonymity to describe it. A representative for Mr. Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Mr. Yarvin declined to be interviewed. Some of Mr. Yarvin's friends over the years have included technology leaders like Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen, and Vice President JD Vance has cited his writing. In talking with Mr. Musk, Mr. Yarvin shared some of his political theories, the people briefed on the conversation said. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Fox News
29-01-2025
- Business
- Fox News
CHRISTOPHER RUFO: The Trump coalition is forming. Who should be in it?
President Donald Trump had a striking first week in the Oval Office, with a blitz of executive orders reshaping the federal government and exerting much-needed pressure on America's governing institutions. But beneath the headlines, what might be an even more important story is unfolding. The GOP is establishing a new coalition, with various factions jockeying for their place within the administration. The president and his team need to be judicious in whom they elevate within this emerging coalition—and whom they exclude. Trump's coalition in his second presidency is radically different than that of his first, and the difference holds both promise and peril. In my judgment, all potential members of the coalition should be evaluated based on two key criteria, or filters. The first is whether they have skin in the game. The second is whether they have a bias toward action which will help accomplish the president's goals in the real world. Two new constituencies easily meet this test: the so-called Tech Right and the dissident Democrats. The leaders of the Tech Right, such as Elon Musk, David Sacks, and Marc Andreessen, have taken on personal and financial risk in supporting Trump. Had they failed, a President Kamala Harris would have exacted retribution. They also risked their reputations in famously progressive Silicon Valley by openly endorsing Trump, who, only a few years before, was persona non grata in their communities. Likewise, all these Tech Right figures are action-oriented and will help the president accomplish his goals. Musk has already terminated hundreds of millions of dollars in needless federal contracts through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Tech entrepreneur Sacks has advanced the crypto and AI industries. And other lesser-known figures in the Tech Right are helping to staff the administration in key posts, where they will advance the president's agenda. They bring a technical and management expertise lacking in Trump's first presidency; as such, their presence will be a net positive, even if they demand certain concessions from the president on, say, H-1B visas and high-skilled immigration. Dissident Democrats are another valuable constituency. Figures such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard took immense personal risk in endorsing Trump, burning their bridges not only with the Democratic Party but also with most of their elite social circles. Whatever disagreements one might have with them on policy, it's clear that they are joining the administration from a sense of mission and purpose, not simply to collect another accolade or credential. They also offer value in providing an off-ramp for Democratic voters who feel abandoned by the party. These high-profile defectors model the kind of behavior Trump will have to show to bring over moderate Democrats and others who had previously shied away from the GOP. Two factions currently trying to establish positions in the coalition should be rejected: the "principled conservatives" and the "reasonable centrists." The so-called principled conservatives, the latest mutation of the NeverTrumpers, have tried to stake out a position as arbiters of morality. Writers at the Bulwark browbeat the president from what they consider a center-right perspective, and New York Times columnist David French, who changed all his principles without explanation, uses the simulacrum of those principles to support critical race theory and other left-wing ideologies, supposedly from a conservative point of view. These center-right figures should be rejected. They have no skin in the game, and they show a bias toward the kind of interminable, abstract debate that would hamper the Trump administration's ability to make progress. Elections are designed to settle broad questions facing the American people; presidential administrations then implement these conclusions. But if the principled conservatives had their way, we would spend the next four years mired in lectures about how they agree with some of the administration's policy goals but disagree with how they are being achieved. Such arguments are disingenuous; they are designed not to provide moral clarification but to get the administration stuck in a morass. They resemble the old Soviet disruption techniques of interminable meetings, technical objections, and parliamentary ruses to reduce the effectiveness of an infiltrated organization. The GOP should reject the principled conservatives' dubious status as moral arbiters and exclude them from any coalition moving forward. The "reasonable centrists" should also be sidelined. These are typically center-left Democrats who voted for Clinton, Biden, and Harris but have minor heterodox positions on DEI or transgender ideology that, in their view, entitle them to a position of authority over the GOP. We can think of someone like TV talk show host Bill Maher in this way. Even when such center-left Democrats claim to agree with the administration, they always seem to oppose action. The "reasonable centrists" are, in fact, not reasonable at all. They refuse to join the coalition, but, instead, place themselves above it, dispensing wisdom from on high to both sides of the political aisle. The conservative movement should make its position clear. Such "reasonable Democrats" should work on reforming their own party; until they do so, they should refrain from lecturing the other party. If they cannot align their votes or their concrete recommendations with President Trump's agenda, they should get out of the way. When the excitement of the past week's executive orders wears off and the administration gets into the grinding phase, these coalitional questions will be more important than ever. The conservative movement should resist an "all-are-welcome" policy because certain factions can detract from the mission. In short: yes to the Tech Right and the dissident Democrats; no to the principled conservatives and reasonable centrists. Making such distinctions will maximize the second Trump administration's political potential and ensure that the right things get done.
