Andreessen Horowitz's Lobbying: A Tone-Deaf Approach to Technology and Politics
Venture capital powerhouse Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) has unveiled plans to start lobbying the U.S. government, and the approach seems as out of touch as this summer’s controversial “Techno-Optimist Manifesto.” The firm intends to support anyone—literally anyone—who promotes an optimistic, technology-driven future.
This behavior resembles that of single-issue voters. Co-founder Ben Horowitz, who authored the blog post detailing this intention, may perceive this position as pure-hearted, but it actually reflects a troubling agenda.
The reality is that a16z is a collective of wealthy ideologues ready to financially back any politician who aligns with their goals, regardless of that politician’s broader views. It’s really that straightforward!
At the core of their philosophy is the belief that technology supersedes the importance of people. They argue that championing technology equates to being pro-people. For instance, they assert, “Artificial Intelligence has the potential to uplift all of humanity to an unprecedented quality of living.” Thus, supporting AI translates to supporting humanity, right? Moreover, they claim that if AI could significantly enhance the human condition in the long run, it would justify compromising shorter-term values, such as backing politicians who oppose fundamental civil rights simply because they support less stringent tech regulations.
Would a16z endorse a politician advocating for a nationwide abortion ban or the censorship of “woke agenda” literature, as long as that individual promised to prioritize AI companies’ interests? According to a16z's mission statement, such social issues would be considered outside their scope. They proclaim to be “non-partisan, single-issue voters.”
But this perspective is fundamentally flawed.
First and foremost, the notion that their singular issue is non-partisan is laughable. Advocates of forced-birth laws likely see themselves as non-partisan, too, insisting their stance is about the right to life. The fact that one political party has intertwined this issue with various "traditional values" over the decades is hardly irrelevant.
Non-partisanship cannot merely be declared through a blog post. Issues surrounding tech regulation have become increasingly partisan—just like everything else. Debates on net neutrality, Section 230, TikTok's regulations, and disinformation on social media, as well as a16z’s favored sectors like AI, cryptocurrency, and biotech, are all deeply divided along party lines. Today’s political landscape dictates that even abstaining from lobbying is a statement of affiliation.
This assertion of non-partisanship functions as a mere façade for a16z’s announcement. Politicians often adopt this misleading language since it cannot be easily validated or refuted. The core issue with a16z’s philosophy is that it disguises a blatantly deregulatory and pro-capital agenda beneath a veneer of empowerment.
One might imagine that a cigarette industry executive penned a similar blog post in the ’60s: claiming to be a non-partisan, single-issue voter against a regulatory regime that supposedly prevents Americans from enjoying the benefits of “all-natural” tobacco.
This pattern emerges within various industries such as plastics, food additives, and leaded gasoline. The core goal for a16z, much like those previous examples, is to eliminate obstacles that hinder profit generation.
If they genuinely cared about people and understood how their lobbying could impact society, they would perhaps mention the well-being of individuals beyond abstract concepts of potential "uplift."
When was the last time Marc Andreessen had an authentic conversation with someone from a disadvantaged background?
It’s unrealistic to assume that by donating to politicians who champion their deregulatory agenda, a16z won’t inadvertently support the policies that actually influence people’s lives today—issues like voting rights, reproductive healthcare, and education. This glaring conflict of interest is conveniently overlooked. Will a16z withdraw its support from any position or proposal that is deemed objectionable, or will they remain steadfast in their principles, if they can genuinely be classified as such?
We cannot accept that their understanding of lobbying and political dynamics is so simplistic. With smart minds within their firm, we must analyze their statements with a critical lens, recognizing that their primary focus is the expansion of their investment portfolio. What they propose is far from the idealistic, pro-humanity narrative they present; it is, instead, a self-serving agenda that fundamentally disregards actual human needs.
Ultimately, a16z prioritizes the abstract concept of humanity over the real issues affecting individuals today. As we enter this supposed golden age of technology, one can only wonder if we may simultaneously face a dark age of civil and social policy. While individuals like Kate Cox may lose bodily autonomy, at least they’ll have blockchain technology.
Ranking
