Venture capital giant Andreessen Horowitz has announced its intention to begin lobbying the US government, and their plan is as tone-deaf and blunt as this summer’s horrific “Techno-Optimist Manifesto.” Essentially, they will give anyone – literally anyone — that “supports an optimistic, technology-enabled future.”
This is called an issue voter, and while co-founder Ben Horowitz (who wrote the blog post) seems to think that announcing themselves as such gives their lobby a childish purity, it’s quite the opposite.
The fact is that they are wealthy ideologues who announce their intention to pay any politician who will promote their agenda, regardless of that politician’s other views. It really is that simple!
That technology is more important than people is fundamental to their approach. They would argue that it is pro-human because it is pro-technology, for example as they write, “Artificial Intelligence has the potential to elevate all of humanity to an unprecedented quality of life.”
So to be pro-AI is to be pro-human, right? And indeed, if you think about it, if AI could leads to a 100-fold improvement in the human condition in the long term, it justifies taking actions that produce worse results in the short term. For example, supporting politicians who oppose basic civil rights just because they have a better technology regulation proposal.
Andreessen and Horowitz would support a politician proposing a national abortion ban, for example, or a broad ban on “wake agenda” books, if that person said they would trust AI companies to do what’s best for everyone; Well, according to A16Z’s statement of purpose here, that the abortion issue is none of their business! They are “non-partisan, single-issue voters.”
But that’s just bullshit, right?
First of all, the idea that this one issue is non-partisan is silly. Pro-birthers would probably say they are non-partisan, and single-issue voters. This is not about politics, it is about the right to life, after all. That only one political party has cynically linked this and other “traditional values” to every other policy proposal for decades is irrelevant!
No, no — you don’t arrive alone declare non-partisanship in a blog post. Technology regulation has become a partisan issue like everything else. Debates on net neutrality, Section 230, TikTok, social media misinformation, and A16Z’s AI, cryptocurrency, and biotech — all partisan! That’s just the nature of politics now. Even not Joining a lobby is somehow a partisan decision because it signals that you are not willing to take sides.
But this non-partisan language is just the usual garb for these kinds of announcements. Everyone claims it because it is a meaningless property and cannot be proven or disproved. The problem with A16Z’s philosophy here is that it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing: a bare deregulation and pro-capital agenda superficially wrapped in the language of empowerment.
You have to imagine that some cigarette industry executive wrote a similar blog post in the 60s: We are a nonpartisan, single voter on the flawed regulatory regime that unfairly prevents Americans from enjoying the great taste and health benefits of our all-natural tobacco products.
Ditto for plastics, food additives, leaded gas, everything else. All they cared about, and all Andreessen Horowitz cares about, is clearing the board of a pesky obstacle to enrichment.
If they really cared at all about people and how this policy or lobbying effort might affect them, “people” would probably have been referred to as more than abstract concepts that could theoretically be “raised” or harmed in a fantastic future.
It is unrealistic to think that by donating to a politician who supports their vision of deregulation, A16Z will not also support the other policies that people are currently voting for. Things like voting rights, reproductive care, education. This obvious conflict of interest is easily avoided. Is any position, any proposition, vile enough for them to withdraw their support, or will they stand by their principles, if they can be called such?
They cannot expect us to believe that their understanding of lobbying and politics is so naive. There are smart people in this company. We have to take into account their statement that they really do not care about anything but the development of the sector in which they invest. But what they state is not, as they suggest, an idealistic stance in favor of humanity, but a cynical self-interested stance that is fundamentally anti-people.
But the A16Z doesn’t care People — cares humanity.
And humanity will certainly be grateful when, as we enter this golden age of technology, we enter a dark age of politics and social policy, right? Women like Kate Cox may not have bodily autonomybut at least they will have the blockchain.
