What Do You Call A Tech Bro Who's A Lady?

Lexi Reese Is About To Waste Many Millions Of Dollars

Yesterday, Noah Smith asked if “tech bros” ruined San Francisco. I moved there when I got back from a few years of living abroad in 1976. I loved it. I never wanted to move and I cried when I did— and kept my flat for a year after I found myself in L.A. and went up to San Francisco nearly every weekend. Now the idea of even spending a day there is a total turnoff. And that has nothing to do with the fact that that long-abandoned flat of mine— which I first rented for $75/month now rents for almost 100 times that. Well, not nothing. The kind of people who have driven the rents up like that… that is the problem. So where Noah answered his own question with a tentative “no,’ my response is a resounding YES! They ruined that fabulous, most special city in America and turned it into the kind of shitholes they came from.

It was a progressive working class town. Now it’s a hotbed of Democratic Party conservatism. In a decade it could easily be a Republican stronghold. Noah calls it a city in decline with a downtown trapped in a doom loop: “As more establishments flee downtown, fewer people have a reason to go there at all, putting more pressure on businesses to close. Fewer shoppers also means that the streets are more dominated by the city’s throngs of homeless and mentally ill people, which makes downtown even less attractive.”

When BART finally opened a station in the Castro neighborhood in 1980, they hired me to dj a giant party in the station. Now BART has lost 45% of its ridership and is cutting service. (Tech bros take Uber and Lyft apparently.) San Francisco’s “already sky-high homelessness levels are up 35% since 2019, and San Francisco has the fourth-highest property crime rate in the nation.” He seems ready to blame anyone but the tech bros for the urban blight even though they created it all by themselves— along with the corrupt politicians they’ve bought off. I agree with this. Noah doesn’t:

And they could well ruin the whole state to boot. That’s what easy, gushing money does. Just what California does not need is about to happen— a self-funding tech bro (a lady one) is getting ready to jump into the Senate race. Lexi Reese worked at Google and Facebook and, of course, she’s a Democrap, who like every stinking businessperson who ever ran for office, claims she can translate her business experience into saving the country, etc-- like Trump.

Before Trump fed the country that manure, many conservatives had tried it before, going back even to successful land speculator— and Trump idol— Andrew Jackson. One of the worst presidents in history before Trump— wealthy former successful mining executive Herbert Hoover— sold that line of bull to the American people, who walked right into it, while he crashed the world economy and brought on the Great Depression. By the time Wendell Willkie tried that argument no one was buying it but hard core Republicans. Willkie's experience in the corporate world helped win him the Republican Party nomination but when it came to the 1940 general election, he carried 10 states— and just 83 electoral votes, to FDR’s 449.

More recently, Ross Perot, Herman Cain and Carly Fiorina all tried to trick people into thinking corporate executives would make good political leaders. Luckily all three flopped spectacularly before ever being elected to anything.

Trump’s 2016 campaign was the epitome of that strategy. The born-rich real estate mogul and reality TV personality, made his business background a centerpiece of his campaign, positioning himself as a successful businessman who could use his expertise to bring economic prosperity and negotiate better deals for the country. Many morons bought it and helped the Kremlin elect an even worse president that Hoover, unable to comprehend that being successful in business rarely translates into being an effective political leader. The problem with their argument is that political leadership requires a distinct set of skills and knowledge, such as an understanding of governance, diplomacy, public policy, and the ability to navigate complex political systems. Prior political experience, such as serving in elected offices or having a background in public service, is more relevant for presidential qualifications. And in Trump’s case, people should have been more concerned about the obvious conflicts of interest— especially for someone with his character. Sane voters usually feel a president should prioritize the public good over personal financial gain, and that a business background creates myriad conflicts in decision-making. That’s too abstract a concept for an average MAGAt.

On top of that, Trump's lack of prior government experience should have been a blinking red light— as it should be for Reese’s campaign. Supporters of these business creeps always argue that “an outsider” with “fresh perspectives” and a business background will bring “innovative ideas” and “challenge the status quo.” Never happens. Instead, the lack of experience in government and understanding its intricacies prevent any semblance of effective governance and policymaking.

There are 3 excellent candidates in the California Senate race now, each with a strong record and necessary experience to be a successful senator— Adam Schiff, Katie Porter, and Barbara Lee. The self-funding Lexi Reese is hiring experienced, top-dollar campaign consultants already and will have a very natural appeal to, what Primary School’s Chris Taliaferro called “the Bay Area’s increasingly reactionary tech elite [which] has a lot of political clout and bizarre politics that don’t gel with progressives.” Having never held a government position, Reese likely lacks a deep understanding of the intricate workings of the political system, the legislative process, and the diverse needs of constituents. I acn tell from her self-help YouTubes that she thinks she's a quick learner. Effective governance demands knowledge of public policy, familiarity with legislative protocols, and the ability to build coalitions and navigate complex bureaucracies. Those skills take decades to develop and hone.

Working in the tech industry, particularly for corporate giants like Google and Facebook, may— or maybe not— provide her with insights into certain aspects of the private sector. But it definitely raises concerns about her understanding of the diverse challenges faced by everyday citizens. Representing the interests of a constituency requires a comprehensive understanding of various societal issues beyond the scope of the tech industry. Her wealth and business connections raise legitimate concerns about potential conflicts of interest, like Trump’s... even if not that egregious. I can't emphasize enough that serving as a US Senator demands a commitment to prioritizing the public good over personal or corporate interests. Without a track record of public service, it’s impossible to gauge Reese's willingness to put the needs of constituents ahead of personal financial gain or corporate affiliations.

As we saw in Trump’s failures how government positions— but even more so in a legislative body— necessitate working collaboratively with diverse stakeholders, compromising on differing viewpoints, and building consensus to pass effective legislation. Business experience, particularly in top-down hierarchical structures like Silicon Valley, do not even remotely prepare a candidate for the nuances of legislative negotiation and the importance of bipartisanship in achieving meaningful change.

Reese’s reliance on self-funding her campaign raises serious concerns about her ability to understand the needs and struggles of everyday citizens. By pouring her personal wealth into the campaign, she demonstrates a detachment from the realities faced by the majority of constituents. It is unlikely that someone who has never experienced— or at least not recently— the challenges faced by working class and middle class families can truly comprehend and advocate for their interests. Her self-funded campaign reinforces the perception of being out of touch and reinforces the notion that the seat is for sale to the highest bidder, rather than being earned through genuine representation.

In a state like California, many voters, especially Democrats, understand that self-funded campaigns give wealthy candidates an unfair advantage and undermine the principles of a fair and equal democratic process. The ability to inject substantial personal funds into a campaign allows her to drown out the voices of grassroots movements, community organizations, and individuals who lack the financial means to compete on an even playing field. Her self-funding not only distorts the representation of diverse perspectives but also creates a political landscape where the interests of the wealthy override the needs of the majority. It is concerning that she believes her personal wealth entitles her to wield disproportionate influence over the electoral outcome and the direction of the Senate. Maybe she should try her hand at a local community job first before trying to buy herself a Senate seat. Her decision to get into politics by self-funding a Senate seat in the most expensive media market in America reflects a disconcerting sense of entitlement and detachment from the everyday struggles of constituents. It perpetuates a system that favors the privileged few and undermines the principles of fair representation and equal opportunity. Voters should be wary of any candidate who attempts to buy their way into office, as it raises doubts about their genuine commitment to serving the interests of the broader population. Our democracy thrives when it is inclusive and when candidates demonstrate a true understanding of the needs and aspirations of ordinary citizens, rather than relying on personal wealth to advance their political ambitions.