America’s digital leadership is on the ballot this fall. One option, offered by the Republican platform, is to embrace the consumer-oriented and business-led economic policies that made the US the leading country for tech startups, AI research capacity, and creating world leading tech giants. The other approach, offered by the Democratic platform, would be to continue the course reversal the Biden-Harris administration ushered in, (i.e., a European-style government-built economy where government is the creator of jobs and director of business). Following that approach would cost Americans dearly.

Take the information technology sector, for example. The Democratic platform positions the government as the key player in determining its evolution. In this paradigm, the government creates tech hubs, breaks up companies, and oversees what businesses do. The vision is clear: Government supervision and direction are necessary to distribute the benefits of technology and curtail large, successful businesses.

On the other hand, the Republican platform views the government as providing a legal framework for economic and technological progress. It emphasizes the importance of deregulation to empower innovation, with a specific nod to supporting AI development and free speech online. An underlying belief is that less government interference allows for greater technological advancements, led by customers and the private sector. A possible exception is the mention of free speech online, which may imply a role for government in Alphabet and Meta’s content moderation practices, for example. Regulation of this nature would likely face constitutional challenges.

When it comes to broadband development, the Democratic platform praises the Biden-Harris administration’s work. However, it says little about forward-looking strategies, particularly concerning how a future administration would handle these issues. This might be because the platform explicitly envisions a “second Biden term,” not a Harris administration.

In contrast, the Republican platform is silent about broadband, probably signaling a return to market-oriented, light-touch regulation seen during the first Trump administration. This would mean another welcome repeal of net neutrality. This would be good news as the first repeal enabled US broadband providers to outperform their European counterparts when the COVID-19 pandemic meant we were all dependent on the internet. It could mean a focus on competition for broadband subsidies rather than the government handout approach followed by the Biden-Harris administration.

Yet, when it comes to broadband, some of the Democratic platform’s self-adulation deserves closer scrutiny. The claim that “we’re bringing affordable, reliable, high-speed internet to every American household” is far from accurate. Despite numerous broadband programs initiated under the Biden-Harris administration, progress has been slow at best, and the goal of universal broadband remains unrealizable.

A recent report from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) highlights the limited progress. During this administration, Congress appropriated $64.3 billion for broadband development. The greatest part of this is the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program launched in 2021 as a state-driven initiative. But the NTIA has oversight and has approved only two-thirds of the state plans. It’s no surprise then that no BEAD broadband has yet been built. Indeed, of all the federal outlays in 2020-23 for building broadband, two-thirds have been under programs that predate the Biden-Harris administration.

The platform also exaggerates that the administration has provided “the largest internet affordability program in history.” The dollar amounts cited may be accurate, but the credit belongs elsewhere. Programs to help low-income households with telecommunications date back to the Reagan administration. The Obama administration added broadband, and the Trump administration created the initiative that laid the foundation for the affordability program the platform mentions.

Lastly, the platform’s claim that the administration is using “every tool” to bring down internet prices is misleading. The Biden-Harris administration has burdened the BEAD program with unnecessary labor, environmental, and other requirements that are driving up broadband costs.

In the manner of Adam Smith’s “man of system” and Thomas Sowell’s “the anointed,” the Democratic platform envisions government-directed tech and broadband providers. This approach would slow technology and broadband development and increase bureaucracy. Meanwhile, the Republican light-touch approach would foster an environment in which individual initiative can flourish. Voters should choose carefully as one of these visions will shape the digital landscape of the future.