The Strange Politics of the AI Backlash

The Wisconsin governor’s election has become a battleground for data center policy, but is this really about the issue at hand? Or is it something more nuanced – and telling – about the politics of hyperscale development?

At its core, the debate pits Republican Tom Tiffany against Democrat David Crowley over who would do more to curb the spread of data centers. Both candidates want local communities to have veto power over new computing campuses and for companies to pay their full energy costs. They even agree that nondisclosure agreements with local governments are a bad idea.

The emphasis on data centers in this election is largely driven by Tiffany’s desire to fracture the Democratic coalition by pinning Crowley to his past support for hyperscale development. However, Crowley’s own record suggests he was never as enthusiastic about data centers as his opponent claims – and that his support for them is more a product of his pro-labor stance than any supposed love affair with Big Tech.

In reality, both candidates are trying to have it both ways. They want to appear tough on data centers while still benefiting from the jobs and investment they bring. This delicate balancing act reflects the complexities of hyperscale development in Wisconsin. The state has seen a sudden surge in data center construction over the past two years, thanks in part to tax subsidies enacted by Democratic Governor Tony Evers.

Crowley was instrumental in these efforts, touting the potential benefits of data centers and their role in making Wisconsin a leader in artificial intelligence. Now he’s trying to distance himself from this record, embracing a more hardline stance on data center policy. Meanwhile, Tiffany’s attacks on Crowley for his past support of hyperscale development are richly ironic.

Tiffany has a history of voting for tax cuts that benefit Big Tech and permitting reforms that make it easier to build data centers. His own views on AI regulation are equally permissive – he’s voted to shield companies from state-level regulations. This highlights the tensions within both parties over hyperscale development, where some constituents worry about environmental and economic impact while others see data centers as a job creator and source of investment.

This pattern is particularly true in Wisconsin, where labor unions have benefited from data center projects. The data center debate also speaks to a broader trend in American politics – one where parties try to outflank each other on issues they’re not really divided on. This strategy can be effective in the short term but ultimately reveals the shallowness of their differences.

In the end, the Wisconsin governor’s race may be more about perception than reality. Both candidates are trying to position themselves as champions of the people against Big Tech and its data centers. But when it comes down to it, they’re not as far apart on this issue as they claim – a fact that says a lot about the politics of hyperscale development in America and where we might be headed next.