Congressman Ro Khanna (D-CA), deputy whip of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and former co-chair of Bernie Sanders’s 2020 presidential campaign, shares his thoughts about the role of technology in presidential administrations, antitrust regulation, and the roles of bipartisanship and technology in the current political landscape.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Harvard Political Review: In the digital age, politics itself has been digitized: campaigns have gone online, fact-checkers have to be more swift, and freedom of speech is often equated with freedom to tweet. Yet, in terms of campaigns and messaging in a Politico article, dated April 9, you mentioned that it’s Biden’s messaging, not the message that you disagree with. So, by what means do you think that the PR wing of the Biden administration could maximize its potential and exploit technology and social media to empower its messaging?
Ro Khanna: Well, the first thing is old-fashioned, which is that I think the President getting out more into communities outside of Washington is important. You know, for example, when Intel is investing $20 billion into Ohio, instead of announcing that from Washington, announce it with Governor DeWine in Columbus, have people who are going to be getting these new jobs there know about it. But I also think that we have to have an aggressive strategy of winning the news cycle every day. You know, Trump would wake up and say something outrageous and try to win the new cycle every day. I think having an aggressive strategy on social media with cable news and saying- so, how are we going to set the tone for the week, for the day? Being foremost in driving the news and driving our message, that action of being aggressive is really important.
HPR: But, many high-level politicians have been really concerned about the role of Big Tech, especially in politics, after January 6th, the cause of which has often been attributed to the excessive spread of fake news on Facebook. Many have also called for breaking down the monopolies: Elizabeth Warren, for instance, has called for breaking up Big Tech, Senator Sanders voiced concerns about the monopolization of Big Tech, et al. Therefore, as someone who represents Silicon Valley, what are your views on this debate about breaking up Big Tech?
Khanna: We do need stronger antitrust enforcement. But I don’t think we can just reflexively break up companies in ways that will hurt our innovation, nor do I think antitrust is always the solution to privacy issues or to deliberation issues. But, I think the antitrust issue is important- the antitrust issue was that a company shouldn’t be able to squash competitors, they shouldn’t be allowed to privilege their own platforms, and we can have strong regulations, strong legislation that addresses that, without saying that we have to break Apple up into three companies or Google into three companies. Now maybe it’s justified in some cases, maybe Facebook should be unwound but those have to be fact-based determinations, not just pronouncements from Congress.
HPR: With regards to bipartisanship, you were talking to Ryan Lizza the other day about passing the Build Back Better Plan and you made a really interesting remark about putting Bernie and Manchin in the same room and letting them figure it out, to which President Biden replied that that would be “homicide”. Unlike many other liberal progressive figures, you’ve consistently emphasized the need for bipartisanship, the importance of being in communication with Senator Manchin, and trying to compromise with the other side. But in a situation such as this, where many interests of people in power are often influenced by lobbyists, partisanship and there is, among the young progressive base, a restlessness with waiting for things to get passed, how do you, as a progressive who also believes in compromise, balance the two sides?
Khanna: Where we can find common ground, we must. And that’s the COMPETES Act. We’re gonna pass massive investment in semiconductor manufacturing, and massive investment in IT technology because that would let us stay ahead of China. McConnell voted for that, Schumer voted for that, and it’s passed with bipartisan support. I led it in the house with Mike Gallagher, who was a Marine from Wisconsin. So, we need to look for those opportunities to rebuild our economy. Where we don’t have bipartisan compromise, we need to act decisively, on the climate, on student loans, and we ought to look at every avenue to make an advance in those areas. So, I think it’s looking for bipartisanship where we can get it, but not restricting action only to what we can get bipartisan support for, and finding other means to push the progressive agenda forward.
HPR: In relation to your idea of getting things passed in places where bipartisanship is possible, how do you think trust in the system or hope for the process remains especially among the younger generation?
Khanna: I think they’re looking at the climate: they’re saying we haven’t done anything and that we’re running out of time. So, we got to get something done on climate. And I think that they’re looking at student loan debt, and they say you promised this and our life isn’t better and you haven’t done this. Those are the two places which many of us in the House are saying we got to act, or you’re gonna have a lack of young people turning out in the midterms.
HPR: I think, one of the biggest arguments that the younger generation makes is that: how are we supposed to have bipartisanship or even properly argue in politics if the other side is denying facts, as you said, relating to climate change, is cracking down on voting rights, especially in Southern states and is also trying to push the conversations away from issues that matter. So how can people in the younger generation be motivated to go forward, especially in this situation where bipartisanship is really important, given the 50-50 Senate?
Khanna: There are several other areas where we could have bipartisanship- even, on climate! We want to win the green energy race, not China. There are a lot of Republicans who care about that. We want to have semiconductor production here, we want to have electric vehicle production here. But there are areas where bipartisanship isn’t going to be possible- on voting rights, on student debt, on some of the bolder investments on climate, etc. And I guess I would just say, you know, look for areas of bipartisanship, where you can have it, but the problem, I think, younger generation Americans have is that when we say we will only do things that are bipartisan, or we won’t be willing to push the envelope, they want us to push the envelope on issues of moral urgency. And I would argue that student debt is an issue of moral urgency. I would argue that the climate is an issue of moral urgency, and we have to act on those issues even if that’s not bipartisan.
HPR: And do you think that pushing those issues forward is also directly related to the first point that you made about directly controlling the narrative of the day?
Khanna: I think it is. I think it’s also about controlling the narrative around what we have done: infrastructure, for instance, the American Rescue Plan. But having student debt relief would be a big deal going into the midterms, having climate would be a big deal too. So, to the youth, I think, we basically have to show that the Democrats deliver.
