John Doerr created TechNet to leverage Silicon Valley's new economic might into national political power.
__ As the most recognized force behind VC heavyweight Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, John Doerr has nurtured the growth of such Silicon Valley superstars as Sun, Intuit, and Netscape. Now he's translating his industry acumen into political influence. In 1996, Doerr helped raise US$38 million to oppose Proposition 211 - a California initiative that would have made high tech firms vulnerable to bogus securities fraud litigation. The campaign was Silicon Valley's first big political showdown and drove home the point that the industry can't afford to ignore the political fray. Building on that momentum, Doerr joined forces with Jim Barksdale to create TechNet - a bipartisan group designed to promote the new economy and the political profile of high tech. The effort is paying off. Doerr has already developed ties with Vice President Gore, leading to speculation about a role in a future Gore administration. Wired spoke with Doerr about Silicon Valley's political awakening. __
Wired: What does the new economy mean for politics?
Doerr: It's vital. There's a new economy constituency for everything from education to immigration to encryption to fast-track approval for trade agreements. Politicians are taking an intense interest in the new economy because they're trying to figure out how to make it work for the folks they represent.
What's the biggest issue on the new economy agenda?
Education. The political system hasn't served us well in this area. The biggest limitation on new economy growth is finding talented, knowledgeable workers. Education is the heartfelt priority of every technology executive I've met. They know if we don't have equal educational opportunity, we're going to rip apart the social fabric that makes democracy vibrant. Silicon Valley is a meritocracy, where people get ahead based on the power of their ideas. But the public education system is failing them.
The culture of Silicon Valley is known for being fast, informal, and largely opportunity-driven. The political process is deliberative, consensus-driven, and often motivated by concerns that seem arcane. Can the two systems be reconciled?
I'm not here to re-architect the political system, but I'm a big fan of representative democracy. Our elected officials have hard jobs to do, and I want to figure out how to work with them effectively. We might not be creating a whole new political system, but we're well on our way to creating a new process for the new economy. It's not top down and it doesn't orient itself along the lines of political parties or conventional interest groups. It's much more of a network, and this network provides a model on which new political service organizations can operate.
What do you mean by a political service organization?
Common Cause is one. Emily's List is one. Political service organizations form coalitions that don't necessarily speak for all their members. TechNet is another example. It's not a trade group, and it's not the NRA. It provides information to members so they can back candidates on their own, voluntarily. The political labels attached to our members would range from neoliberals to libertarians, but we've still managed to agree on a common set of priorities: education reform and securities-litigation reform.
How will you measure TechNet's success?
Two or three years from now, if we've doubled or tripled the number of technology leaders who have built good two-way relationships with politicians, then we'll have done a better job of educating Washington about the importance of the Internet, freedom, and self-regulation.
How do you counter skepticism within the high tech community from those who argue that information technology will ultimately render our traditional political culture irrelevant?
That thinking is old thinking. We're moving from an industry that was essentially unregulated to one that is going to have to confront a lot of public policy issues. Our community is beginning to understand that. As the industry matures, interest in policy begins to grow. A whole host of groups and trade associations are working on issues that matter to them. But this new enthusiasm doesn't represent the majority of technology executives. So far, we may have moved from 5 to 10 percent involvement. But it is still a huge change.
Cynics say that by actively engaging the government, the industry runs the risk of being co-opted.
Politics are important, but they're not the most important thing in the world. Is it good to make a $1,000 campaign contribution to someone you believe is trying hard to get a message out? I think so. Is that going to influence the way an official thinks or votes? No. Do we need campaign financial reform? Sure. Do I think that technology leaders will be co-opted by the process? Not at all. My larger concern is that some of our members may devote too much time to politics and lose sight of the things they've got to do as executives and parents.
You're a registered Republican with close ties to a Democratic White House. Do party affiliations still mean anything?
There's a valid role for the political parties in our system, and the very best political work is done in a partisan setting. There's got to be compromise. That's the way the system is supposed to work, and the American people are pretty comfortable with that.
To what extent do you find that the rules of business overlap with the ways of politics?
I'm a networker. Day in, day out, I recruit teams of entrepreneurs to make companies grow. Politics works in the same way - but instead of building a product, you're advancing a point of view.
If Al Gore becomes president in 2000, would you be interested in playing a role in his administration?
Absolutely not. I don't have enough to contribute to serve as an active participant in politics. The only position I want is the one I've got as a partner in Kleiner Perkins.
