Key Themes in Bleich's Thinking
Synthesis of recurring intellectual themes across Bleich's writings, speeches, and career trajectory.
1. Disruptive Technologies & Democratic Resilience
Central to Bleich's current work is the intersection of transformative technologies and democratic governance. The Jeff Bleich Centre at Flinders University explicitly focuses on "democracy and disruptive technologies," reflecting his view that technological disruption poses both opportunities and threats to democratic institutions. His move from autonomous vehicles (Cruise) to AI (Anthropic) represents a deliberate career arc toward the frontier of this question. At Stanford CASBS, his research continues this theme, exploring how democratic societies can maintain resilience amid rapid technological change.
2. Machiavellian Analysis of Power
Bleich is writing a book updating Machiavelli's The Prince for modern times. His Persuasion articles demonstrate this analytical framework in action: "The Five Steps Towards Autocracy" explicitly uses Machiavelli's 500-year-old playbook to analyze contemporary political strategy, identifying patterns (militia formation, power consolidation, adversary intimidation, emergency declarations, message control) that recur across historical autocracies. This isn't merely academic — Bleich treats Machiavelli as a practical diagnostic tool for identifying threats to democratic governance before they fully materialize.
3. AI Governance Through the AV Lens
Bleich's transition from Cruise to Anthropic was not a pivot but a progression. In the Lawfare "Scaling Laws" podcast, he explicitly discusses how his autonomous vehicle experience prepared him for AI governance challenges. AVs provided a proving ground for questions now central to AI: How do you regulate technology that improves continuously? How do you allocate liability for systems that make autonomous decisions? How do you build public trust in technologies whose decision-making is opaque? His Harvard ALI article uses AVs as the primary case study for AI's human rights implications, arguing that managing AI risks requires the same framework: clear ethical principles, industry standards, regulatory engagement, and proactive trust-building.
4. Human Rights Alignment in Technology
The Harvard ALI article co-authored with Bradley Strawser articulates Bleich's framework for evaluating technology through a human rights lens. The core insight: technology's impact depends on "who wields it, their intentions behind its use, and what constraints have been built around the tool's use." He is optimistic about AI's capacity to enhance human rights — including life, equality, freedom of movement, and environmental sustainability — but argues this requires being "clear-eyed about the threat." The solution lies not in restricting technology but in building governance structures: voluntary industry standards, regulatory frameworks, and NGO engagement. Companies are engaged in a "trust race" as well as a "tech race."
5. Pro Bono as Professional Obligation
The Hong Yen Chang case exemplifies Bleich's view that pro bono work is not charity but professional duty. By obtaining posthumous bar admission for Chang — denied membership in 1890 solely due to race — Bleich and his team prompted the California Supreme Court to issue a "candid reckoning with a sordid chapter of history." His extensive pro bono work (immigrants, foster youth, veterans, domestic violence survivors, gun violence victims, human rights organizations) earned the ABA Pro Bono Publico Award. The "Open Letter to America's Law Firms" extends this principle: the legal profession's obligation to uphold rule of law cannot be abandoned under political pressure.
6. Institutional Defense of the Rule of Law
"Bluff Justice" and the "Open Letter" reveal Bleich's theory of institutional defense. He argues that autocratic erosion often proceeds not through outright defiance of institutions but through constitutional processes that appear legitimate — changing courts rather than defying them. The threat of defiance empowers congressional actions that achieve the same democratic erosion. For the legal profession, the response must be organized resistance, not individual capitulation. The 21 AmLaw 200 firms fighting executive orders (supported by 800+ amici) represent the model; the 9 firms that capitulated represent the failure mode.