Ep. 91 Transcript: Swati Mylavarapu and Matt Rogers, Reckoning with Silicon Valley's Power

The Realignment releases episodes every Tuesday and Thursday. Our Substack goes out every Friday. Subscribe below:

Where to Listen:

• Browser

• Apple Podcasts

• Spotify

• YouTube

---

Full Transcript:

Note: This is a rough transcript, lightly edited for clarity.

Marshall Kosloff: Matt, Swati, welcome to the realignment.  So usually we, he opened up an episode by introducing the guest, discussing the context. But in this case, especially I want to start with the frame of our show. It's called the realignment. We're interested in the fact that the country is changing in a million different ways.

We started with politics and policy, but obviously to your space, Matt, and to yours as well as quasi there's tech. So there's always different things going on. We're in a world where. Jack Dorsey is tweeting about decentralizing himself away. Matt, your claim to fame is definitely joining the first team working on the iPhone.

It's not the same internet that they were working with then. So broadly speaking, I would just want both of your thoughts. What are you thinking in this moment? Because the positions you're in are just at the center of all the different trends of this moment. So I would just like to get in where your head space is at, right?

Matt Rogers: Yeah. I think we're at the. A turning point, like of another [00:01:00] industrial revolution. So to speak anything about like the, the generational change that happened over the last several hundred years and, you know, things are really moving faster or like we have the advent of the internet in our own generation, but I think we're at the point now where it's time for another real line.

That's a good way of putting it and our policy and our relations hadn't have not caught up with our technology. And technology moves way, way faster than, than any of those things do is yeah. Enhanced it's we're at this time where, you know, we're creating new things faster than we're able to understand them, which is a really tough place to be from a policy perspective.

Swati Mylavarapu: Hmm. I think a lot of these days about values and people. So, you know, 15 years ago when Matt and I were starting our career, the focus was so much on technology. Like it was this inevitable forest of just these. Wonderful delightful experiences that you could build. But increasingly as those have gone from being [00:02:00] David's to go Alliance and in our current world environment, it's really clear that it becomes equally important to meet technology.

With good people who are motivated by the right values, um, who are super forthright about what those values are. And, you know, the things that we build are informed by that understanding. And I think we maybe over index on the technology stuff and under-indexed on the people behind those technologies, the people for whom technologies work and what values, these things that we're creating are really meant to amplify or the minutes.

Saagar Enjeti: So, this is so fascinating to me because I, it seems to me that the central side of this debate and both of you can correct me if I'm wrong because you guys are actually involved in it is, it seems on the one hand you've got Jack Dorsey. Who's like, I actually have too much power and no person at all should have as much power as in no matter what my values are.

No matter what it seems to me that the technology itself is so powerful that decentralizing and making it so that nobody has the power [00:03:00] over it is the likely way to go. Some of our other guests we've had on our podcast are very much advocates of something in that direction. So while the way you're, you're kind of, uh, At not advocating for, but you're outlining as one of the solutions here is having people who are responsible within that.

But ultimately the fail safe is still the person. So how do you guys think about that in terms of the structure of tech going forward? Especially, I mean, it's not a secret, like a lot of the population doesn't trust tech and I'm not sure if they should,

Matt Rogers: and that's changed really quickly. Like if like you were winding the clock back even three, four years, that wasn't the case.

I like people, I utilize a lot of those brands. I think it comes down to like the values that a lot of these companies are run by. And I don't know if I agree with the Jack Dorsey in approach. Like, I don't know if a libertarian, like, let everyone fend for themselves approach is the right one. That's all we have government, but the role of government is to.

To look after the, [00:04:00] uh, the population in time to provide structure for some of these things. So that one, that companies can't run wild, but also there isn't total anarchy and chaos. I don't know if anarchy and chaos is the right solution to this problem, I think rules. Right.

Swati Mylavarapu: Right. You know, when you found it comes out and says, I'm not sure if I should have all of the power that I have to some extent backseat version of his values, but he's expressing and at least there's more self-awareness.

In that statement than I think most founders that have commensurate amounts of power and influence these days articulate. And I actually think it goes back to my point that we should spend more time talking about why the Jack Doris's of the world and believe what they believe, whether or not we agree with what they believe, whether or not they should believe that, or believe we think maybe something different than we do just, Oh, Twitter is here.

What's Twitter share price. We should care more about values than we do valuation.

Marshall Kosloff: Hmm. So before we get into insight, the two of you just hit upon a big debate that helps frame. However, we should look at someone, which is how [00:05:00] inevitable is anything, because if you're a decentralizing, libertarian, you say things like, well, we're all sovereign individuals.

Now this is referencing our guests from our last episode, we're all sovereign individuals and we're ultimately the customers of government and we're not tied to this thing. So if we get your tax too high, we'll move to Miami or Austin. And then maybe Singapore after that. So at a certain point, Regulation.

Isn't the answer because we could actually move beyond that and technology makes it so that those pre fourth industrial revolution era debates are going matter at all. So how, when you two have the, when you think about the combination of tech and politics, how do you think about that? That inevitability, the debate as we're thinking about that?

Matt Rogers: Yeah, I mean, Reflect on what you just said. Uh, it's actually a position of great privilege. And I think this is again as also part of the problems. You have a lot of very, very wealthy Stanford graduate white men who are these positions of very, very high powered influence. [00:06:00] And they have the ability to move to Miami or move to Singapore.

But the rest of the population doesn't have that capability or that flexibility. So again, I can reflect on the situation and. How y'all did their own biases. They might even be aware of. Yeah. It's like, is it an inevitability? Like, look, it is inevitable that we need to regulate technology. Uh, just like every other industry in the country.

And, you know, isn't everybody, we, we have to do it. And I think if anything, tech has gotten by for a very long time, primarily because of speed, uh, has gotten by without regulation. Or there's any major regulation

Swati Mylavarapu: and also relevance, you know, 10 or 15 years ago, it wasn't a dominant sector. Totally. And it didn't inform so many aspects of everyday life for so many people.

So in some ways it's the ultimate compliment. And you know, the success of our theory of change is that we've gotten so big and so influential. [00:07:00] It's now a conversation where we're in the public domain. Like everybody has a stake in this industry's performance. And the industry has to kind of come to terms with that.

And the reality is

Matt Rogers: every other major industry in the country has a three letter acronym, regulatory regulating body, right? What is the STC protect? And it doesn't exist today, uh, being, we have all these agencies and government to protect the population and to provide a check. On industry and those things can work hand in hand.

It's not like, uh, uh, regulation stops growth and stops innovation and subs progress, but it's important to have that check-in today that check does not exist.

Marshall Kosloff: Yeah,

Saagar Enjeti: it's so interesting to me. Um, because I'm hearing, you know, you've been very successful and so by the way, coming to you from nest wifi. So thank you, Matt.

And, uh, I'm like fascinated because you know, Marshall and I were in Silicon Valley, I guess, about a year or so ago, we're sitting at this table, there's a bunch of successful founders, you know, whatever, a bunch of paper billionaires [00:08:00] and what they were all telling us is they were like, you know, if. We were, when we were founding a company in 2017, we didn't even think about the government they're like, but now you basically have to think about the government.

And this is a two to three year like sea change that has happened dramatically. And of course, you know, all tech now is politics. All politics now is tech. We talked about that in our last episode. And so it's fascinating to me is that now the question is about who the regulator gets to be. That's a civic area of politics, but also kind of where you guys come in and your organization.

So as Marshall said, you know, usually, and we'll do a short readout whenever we do an official intro. Just tell us what, what you guys are working on. Cause it's not, it's like venture capital. It's also like political advocacy. Um, it's like every long term.

Marshall Kosloff: It's, it's a mix of better please. Yeah.

Swati Mylavarapu: Yeah. And really simply we think that there should be more good people building things that are worth building in technology.

And so we have put our capital and our time [00:09:00] and your talents to work, to provide a supportive platform for more entrepreneurs that we think embody our values and values that are maybe underrepresented in the ecosystem these days. So we are set up in such a way that we can fund. These really great founders, whether they are building companies, mission oriented companies.

Um non-profits and increasingly, if they are folks that are getting into the civic arena and doing political work. Yeah.

Matt Rogers: It turns out there's a pretty big funding gap, especially in the early stages. Like in Silicon Valley, there's a whole like robust ecosystem of like angel investors and seed funds to help founders start companies.

But. That funding gap funding doesn't exist in other regions. And, you know, we, we, we took our kind of lessons from technology and venture and are applying it to other areas.

Swati Mylavarapu: We call it insight because part of what we're doing is trying to create meaningful catalytic [00:10:00] change in specific industries and the tech sector, um, in some specific social influence philanthropic areas that we care about, like climate change.

And a lot of it is also motivated by the experiences that like Matt had firsthand when he was in the thick of it building, building his last company, nest.

Marshall Kosloff: Hmm. So the question that immediately comes to mind because we have a decently bi-partisan audience and you all have said things that will say things that will take off half the audience, the other probably take off the other half.

But right now, any Bernie Sanders voting listener is screaming at us for not asking you all about money in politics. And I want to go a bit deeper than the obvious excuse, because I genuinely mean this. I do not think. The two of you are paying people under the table to do climate change. Like whatever you're thinking about.

I think that, I think that surface level conversation about political corruption is often not useful because it to a certain degree, it's a straw man. I don't think it's true [00:11:00] that oil billionaire give money. And then like some Republican politicians that don't believe in climate change. It's actually like a much more complicated thing with, as an intersection of yeah.

Culture, Wars and deep seated beliefs, et cetera. But here's the question for the two of you. What are your views around the effect that your money and the process that you participate has on politics? To what degree do you think when you give money to someone they you're expecting them to do different things.

How do you just think about that framework? Because this is the part that people just probably don't have any understanding of. Yeah.

Matt Rogers: I, I think at the principal, I, I, I find the, the process of donating. It's a part of like, let's call like your speech, but the reality is like, why should our speech be worth more than other people's speech?

And that's the fundamental problem with the system. And I don't like the laws that we have and if, if we don't exercise our speech, then we just don't like, we ended up not having a [00:12:00] seat at this table at all. And you know, the much louder, much larger donors on the let's call it like the, in the far right side may not have, you know, they may, they may drown us out.

So to speak, like we have the, we have the tools that the law gives us. I'd rather not use the tools at all, but if we don't exercise the tools, then it's not a fair playing field anymore. The reality is like, there should be no money in politics. You know, let's have this thing. We all be publicly funded.

But if all, if all of one party's donors and time to sit out on principle, it's be a pretty nasty

Swati Mylavarapu: election. Hmm. Look, I can tell you firsthand the amount of influence that money has in our political process and systems is undo and it is worrisome. It's a problem. I believe that to my core, but not just Marshall, for some of the obvious reasons that you alluded to.

It's also a problem because of the ways in which we now conscious and unconscious bias plays into [00:13:00] money in politics and who it keeps out of the. Political process as much as he would keeps in part of the reason why I started arena and why I've gotten so much more involved in organizing financial resources for candidates in classes is because we know in the data that for example, women and people of color disproportionately faced way more hardship, raising money, that new commerce to the political process, new generation leaders.

Have a much harder time raising financial resource and to be in the civic arena, doing work on the public staff. And in this case, my participation can help. Right? What are already some incredibly skewed scales? So look, I want to get money out of politics and the influence that, and that's a lifelong aspiration, but I'm also a realist enough to understand that I've got to get in there and play by the existing walls in order for us to be in a position to change these rules.

Hmm.

Marshall Kosloff: So I'll put this in startup terms that you all will [00:14:00] recognize the Clayton Christensen idea. Innovator's dilemma. It's very hard for an incumbent, incumbent legacy thing to disrupt itself. At what point do you think that applies to the idea of giving? Because I can entirely, so think about it this way.

Right? I can think. And by the way, I totally believe that the two of you want to about like, you know, remove money from politics, but once you get to the seat of the table, it's very easy to say, okay, we can money, but Joe Biden only has a hundred days to make a big impact campaign. Finance reform could be one of those impact areas, but, you know, as you've alluded to, there's also.

The possibility of court packing while there's also student loan forgiveness, there's also Medicare for all. So it's very easy to see, and this is almost certainly what's going to happen. Campaign finance reform, get moved down the ladder. So how, as you're engaging with this process, do you work around that fact that almost certainly, they're going to be incentives that push anyone who engages the system to return back more and more to the norm.

[00:15:00] Matt Rogers: It's a really, it's a really thoughtful question. I look, I, unfortunately we have a mostly incumbent leadership in DC or we'll have a mostly incoming leadership in DC. Yeah. I w w we, we, we had a very robust primary cycle, but we ended up with a very traditional kind of leadership. Uh, I, I don't expect.

Campaign finance reform to be a priority for this administration.

Swati Mylavarapu: You were, I think we think about this, like a marathon as well as the individual track races or specific campaign cycles. And one of the big learnings for us. I mean, we were folks that were not very politically active prior to 2016. So we kind of had a crash course the last four years.

And one of the biggest lessons that we've learned is that it's so important. To invest, not just in specific candidates and races for specific positions, but really in the infrastructure and ecosystem that is supportive of deep [00:16:00] democracy reform and a more level playing field and better access to voting in the franchise.

So we, as part of like our giving, for example, in addition to supporting breakout candidates, we also invest in great organizations like Irina, like the Florida rights restoration coalition, like both.org. Groups that are there doing the work, not just in election years with an eye towards winning specific races, but in kind of making long-term organizing, um, investments to promote these democracy, democracy reform issues.

Saagar Enjeti: Hmm. See, what's interesting though. And is. We've got a sizable right-wing audience too. And like, they'll hear that. And they're going to hear here are these two high net worth Silicon Valley individuals who, you know, that a lot of what your code for is saying, like expanding, you know, votes or whatever in States that are gonna flip in order to help Joe Biden or whomever Democrat when the Alliance.

So when you're trying to approach this and your [00:17:00] politics and where you guys are. You know, currently situated in the industry, which is now getting fire from both sides. How do you guys think about your roles now? I'm not even talking necessarily about money, but really in terms of actually like trying to find some sort of harmonious solutions, um, for the overall country.

Swati Mylavarapu: I mean, to me, it goes back to core values. I mean, I, I think I'm comfortable knowing that there might be certain things that I value that other people don't. So for example, You might not believe that in America, in 2021, every legal citizen over the age of 18 should have the right to vote. You might not value that in the same way that I do, but I'm willing to have a conversation with you about that.

I'm also cool for us to agree to disagree on that. You might not agree that a young Brown woman should. Have an opinion about who runs for office and whether or not the composition of our elected officials should reflect the [00:18:00] demographics of our general population. You might not agree with me on that, but I value it and I'm willing to put in the work and where I can to organize the financial resources.

Because the other thing is, it's not just the contribution that Matt and I make. It's also that we go out there and we talk to other people in our community about why we value this. We encourage them to get in and support these efforts too. Um, you might not value the, these things in the way that I do, but then get out there and do the work.

Marshall Kosloff: So here's a question looking through the background of the two of you, especially the work on the political side. In a past America, what's remove, um, various issues if like racism, antisemitism, et cetera. In the 1950s and 1960s Swati you, especially, you would probably be running to be, so let's remove gender too.

You'd be running to be the head of the democratic national committee, because that was the position where frankly money was doled out where these things were [00:19:00] coordinated. And as I'm thinking about the system, that's getting propagated here are concerned that I have is. Once again, forgetting the money for a second.

The lack of democratic small D responsiveness to the giving and the organizing that you do. So for example, and we'll get into this in a bit like Matt, something I really loved, um, looking at your climate work is your idea of like, what's focus on. Big problem. This attack big problems. That's the underlying thing is that undergirding y'all's work.

But at a certain point, it's the two of you deciding what those big problems are and something that we're seeing as big institutions, like the DNC and the RNC. This isn't a left-right issue. Lose. Actual legitimacy, legitimacy amongst younger people, or just anyone in general is you don't have the platform matter.

So, as I was thinking about the way we used to determine, especially as Democrats on your side, what matters is there'd be a platform committee and that'd be rockets and it'd be terrible. And you'd have the 1968 convention. There'd be. Rioting and death, and it'd be horrible, but there would [00:20:00] be something that's responsive and democratic.

So when you to sit down and say, these are the candidates we want to support, as you say, these are the issues we prioritize. How do you think about that? Because the last thing I want to add to this monologue is. I'm thinking of an audience member right now who says, okay, so Matt and squats, do you think that climate change is the big problem right now?

I actually think that as a conservative, I personally am not comfortable online and I think that's a huge problem. So like how do I get my voice heard with them? So how do you just think about the nature of institutions democratic responsiveness and the role you're playing there?

Matt Rogers: Yeah, I mean, I there's.

I would say a lot of responsibility that we face is our decisions. And yeah, it's like we are bringing our own values to the table when we make decisions. And like when we make an investment decision or the decision to support someone, like we're bringing our [00:21:00] values into that, into that decision. Uh, and yeah, like not everyone in the country shares our values.

Yeah, this is one of the problems of having money in politics, but it's not even the money in politics discussion. It's also about investment and what, like when we select a founder to receive investments, we're also making a value judgment on that matter too. It's like, is this founder someone we want to run a company and be successful one day.

And you know, we don't, we don't often share with the libertarian. No, let's call it. Like whatever happens, happens. Point of view, we may not back a libertarian. And I'll get to the founder and like, yeah, that's awesome. Applying a values decision on a values judgment on our, even our investment decision.

Swati Mylavarapu: It's an interesting question that you're asking Marshall and just to kind of pick up on some of the friends that mats put out there. The other thing that I think is really interesting as we live in this moment, where in part, because. The advent of technology, um, we've been able to [00:22:00] democratize small, deep political participation, uh, really to an extent that in our lifetime, Matt and I have never seen, and you can see it on the financial side in politics, but also just in.

Then not the sheer numbers of people that are participating, having an opinion. I think, you know, in the primaries in 2019, there were a record number of like 8 million Americans that made small dollar contributions to a presidential primary process because you can get online and learn about candidates and express your opinion, uh, by engaging with them digitally, by making small dollar contributions.

And so I also think for the listener that's out there and maybe thinks. You know, I'm not in a position to write huge checks or throw money around in politics. The good news is there has been no better moment than the current moment for you to just take what energy and time you have and figure out how to give it expression and how to be an active and involved part of ours, civic life and our political [00:23:00] process.

So the most important thing is that if you've got a strong point of view where you believe in something that you take in that you express it and that you take. Meaningful lawful ashing. Um, I think sometimes increasingly in this moment, we have to make that distinction about what is acceptable and not accept action, but gage itself is a really good thing.

Saagar Enjeti: Yeah, I know. I think that's interesting too. Yeah, it's just, it's, you know, the obvious thing that I think somebody more skeptical or like who's had a problem with this before, I'd be like, well, I tried and then, you know, they shut down my website or like our, I tried to get my company funded, but the ideological capture of the select group of people who Dole out money in Silicon Valley simply would not, you know, fund my idea.

And this isn't just a right way thing. I think. Probably a left wing thing too. One of the criticisms that I hear from a lot of, you know, some of the more Bernie aligned fans and listeners that we have is like, I can't get something that I CA that I [00:24:00] want off the ground. So like, for example, Swati, like when you were talking about funding, different types of candidates, um, who are diverse, they'd be like, yeah, I think diversity is great.

But like, the question is, is like you have two black woman and one wants a wealth tax and Medicare for all. And the other one is talking about just like advancing progressivism. Like, I'm pretty sure I know who's going to get the more money from ultra high net worth individuals. So like, how do you think about economic?

Does I know some of you guys. Thought about like the populous moment and more, but just generally, you know, respond to that critique of when concentrated capital, um, has an ideological framework about the way that that is going to push our politics, especially left politics. If you're a Democrat and you're thinking about economic class issues that some of you should care about and also from the right as well.

Swati Mylavarapu: You know, I also think that you've got to pay attention to the outliers from that trend. To Saturday, you know, we, we also know it's a truism in 2021 that you can leave a candidate that raises the most [00:25:00] money and still lose elections. Also be real. It's not like money is the predictor of success. And in fact, to the analogy that you just gave, I mean, I think about an amazing candidate, like Markita Bradshaw in Tennessee, who hadn't raised less than $50,000.

It goes on to win the democratic primary. For Senate in the state of Tennessee danced. Yeah. That's amazing. That just happened a couple of months ago. So there is also something about being the right candidate with the right message for, for what the people will. And I think we've still got it with knowledge when our system allows for those, for those really pure things to prevail.

Um, and again, persistence pay is, I mean, I also think. Oftentimes first time candidates will run for office two or three times before they're successful, because if they don't get there the first time they roll up their sleeves and get back out there and do it again. And we see the same thing in great entrepreneurs.

Persistence is one of these undervalued and under spoken about attributes that doesn't [00:26:00] oftentimes make it into the Morse popularized myth of the founder. Right. We love to think about the person that just had a light bulb and went out there and made the thing happen. But you don't often hear the backstory, the fact that that person might've, they might've been on their second or third attempt at getting business off the ground.

By the time they, they had really big success,

Marshall Kosloff: you're looking at the issues that could change over the next six months to the next year or so, even the next a hundred days, how do you prioritize that list of things? So there's everything from. Healthcare reform. We have to fix our supply chains. There's almost this like massive list of things we have to prioritize.

Let's just get your general thoughts on what are, what's basically your top three or even, how are you just thinking about even how you judge what we should prioritize and focus on? Yeah.

Matt Rogers: Uh, I feel like we're one of those turning points as a country, probably as a planet and maybe my own personal beliefs and biases are, are, are playing in here.

We had one of the [00:27:00] worst global pandemics in a century. We also have massive income inequality. We've got economic crisis, uh, and we've got a climate crisis. And I think this is one of those turning points where we could choose to face those things head on and attack these problems together. Or we can not.

And I really, I'm actually really hopeful that the next hundred days, year, even maybe two years, like we can make a considerable Denton yeah. Income, inequality, racial inequality, climate, and health together. We can actually like build a package to work on these things together. Uh, I think we get the political will to do it.

Is that my mobile, like coming out of the 2007, 2008 crisis. Yeah, we, we got a crisis, but we didn't really move the ball forward. And my hope is that the second time around by [00:28:00] know, the Biden administration have learned the lessons of that. Now, I guess you could get out of the crisis, but really don't move

Marshall Kosloff: forward.

Any progress. Yes, I think I want to ask you this specifically to build on something. Matt said his reference to the word together, which you could have been referring to as Democrats, but there's also the bi-partisan application of that. And we were listening back to your episode of our friend, Alex Kantrowitz was great episode, by the way, it was.

Really helpful to listen to, but you made a comment about how you were excited that there were these debates on the right specifically with like Marco Rubio and Josh Holly about the free market. And those are the debates that we've been very involved in. We've covered them. It's an important issue, but something that I've found is that when.

Left of center people look at those debates, they just focus on, Hey, it's really cool. But some Republicans don't want to just focus on tax cuts, but they then forget that. But guess what? Those Republicans are also socially conservative as you would expect Republicans to be. They also like to Josh Holly's, um, [00:29:00] example last week.

Hold views that are gonna make decisions that you disagree with. You know, we saw that you tweeted that you were in favor of Simon and Schuster removing, um, his book contract for June. Um, and separate from commenting on that. I just want to think, like, how do you think about. How frustrating this moment is for that broader topic, because we're, I definitely don't think there's going to happen.

You're you're definitely not going to see this left. Right. Economic post neoliberal moment. How's of the social dynamics. That's something that a lot of our audience gets excited about. They see Bernie Sanders and Josh Hawley speaking. They're like, this is the future. They're going to overturn the RNC and the DNC, and that's just, it isn't going to happen.

So how has you, as someone who followed that debate in that trend, how are you thinking about that togetherness idea?

Swati Mylavarapu: So to me, it goes back to what we started here, conversational, if it's really about being anchored in values and what we value at this moment. I mean, I think more than anything, the national conversations that are being they're being had across the country, in, in houses, [00:30:00] among business owners, um, in DC, among the folks that are thinking about transitioning in a new government are really one around what the new normative environment in this country ought to look like, what are we balancing?

And why, and that transcends political party. I mean, part of what was interesting about that particular conversation I was having with Alex is I think we are very acutely and have them for a time, but we are very acutely in this moment where we shouldn't be questioning some of the fundamental things that we've accepted as fundamental givens about capitalism that is completely on Saturn and who it works for and why.

And. It's great that those are questions that are getting asked on both sides of the aisle, because of at its core. There's a values question. Is it about markets at any cost or are markets tools that work for people? Um, and the more that, those, the anchor in those values, like these fundamental questions of what, what we value as a country for individual people?

Um, I think the better [00:31:00] able we are to talk across partisan divisions across generational divisions. To kind of figure out where we want to go next. Um, and to your point, Marshall, maybe that's not some grand new theory that replaces liberalism or neo-liberalism. I think we just need to understand what the next couple of steps are going to be.

Or, you know, the phrase of my friend, Caitlin is to use us. What do we think about what will define this next American air?

Marshall Kosloff: And by your friend, Pete, you mean, um, I guess, uh, secretary presumptive or secretary designate, it does not roll off the tongue the same way mayor Pete does.

Swati Mylavarapu: So like a really powerful message that he delivered, um, you know, as a candidate in the primary and also on behalf of the Biden campaign and the idea that whether you, you vote as a Republican or a Democrat, we can all agree that there, we have a shared interest in where this country goes.

In the future and that there's a real [00:32:00] opportunity, um, to reset or to use the language of the incoming by the administration. There's an opportunity to build back

Saagar Enjeti: better. So it's interesting. Um, you know, with regards to Pete, like, you know, I'll put it on the table, I'm going to say that the, I wouldn't say the vast majority with most majority are extraordinarily skeptical of Pete Buddha judge.

And to hear somebody, you know, you, you've known him for a long time, so you can expound on this, but to hear someone who's talking about. Recognizing the post-meal liberal moment, recognizing conscious capitalism, recognizing all of that, and then supporting someone like Pete would just seem irreconcilable in a lot of those minds.

And I think what I'm particularly curious about is look, the audience for this podcast. It's overwhelmingly young people, my other show rising, same thing, 25 people who were below like 30 years old, essentially have really just been screwed over by the system. And. Um, I'm just going to say, like I did not see, you know, especially in the voter profile, the people who were coming out to vote for Buddha judge, I didn't really see that there, it was overwhelmingly much more with somebody [00:33:00] like Bernie.

Um, and even I can even say on the Republican side, like amongst young Republicans, there are far more like Trumpy than they are anything in terms of Mitt Romney. Again, I think that the. The basis for that comes from the same kind of kernel of dissatisfaction with our current system. So I'm curious, just like on you Buddha judge, specifically, why he seemed like V candidate to transcend the neoliberal moment when it seemed almost as if he was just like uniting Neo liberal economic policy with, uh, like a well articulated progressive leftism, whenever it came to social policy.

Marshall Kosloff: Yeah.

Swati Mylavarapu: Interesting things that you have put forward there. Um, I mean, look, I think a couple of thoughts and I, I'm just speaking from my personal experience as somebody who put an awful lot of sweat equity into helping that candidate in Tana to see, because I, I believed [00:34:00] in the vision and values, but you know, a great example is this thinking about the PR the.

How commonplace the notion for example, of, um, judicial reform and democracy reform has become in the current normative environment. And try and remember that 14 months ago, he was one of the only people out in the public realm, championing an idea that some people might've thought was like, they might just use words like radical or innovative, or kind of atypical, uncommon to characterize.

And I think you start to understand. Party. I think the appeal of getting more new entrants, like eat into the civic arena and why that informs so much of the work that I'm committed to. And that Matt might do it's because sometimes just the fresh voice and a different perspective is what it takes to transcend all of these frameworks, red versus blue in different notions of isms to just simple, common sense.

Like we agree. We [00:35:00] want something better. Why can't it be this much? Why can't it look like this? Hmm.

Saagar Enjeti: Well, I mean, on this court, you know, by the way funny story, uh, it was Pete who inspired me back when I was a white house correspondent to actually ask Trump about Supreme court packing. So you are correct.

You did influence the political debate in that way, but if we're going to think about the poor packing as the example in which he pushed the envelope, that doesn't really have anything to do with, I mean, again, that's, uh, to most people, I think pretty. Uh, transparently a vehicle for progressivism whenever it comes to at least socially Robert costumes

Swati Mylavarapu: nowadays.

Um,

Saagar Enjeti: w well, but see, that's my thing is now it's sticking again in the progressive social values. We haven't talked, that's not really anything about healthcare. It's not anything about economics, about the class system that we currently have in America. And it seems like to the extent that he was a success full in pushing the envelope in any way, it was mainstreaming an idea.

For largely a vehicle of [00:36:00] social progressive change, not necessarily anything to do with the reason that somebody is supporting a Bernie Sanders or the reason that somebody who's a union voter is.

Swati Mylavarapu: I appreciate what you're saying. I also feel like we're getting a little bit sidetracked and turning this into sort of like a single focus on Pete and his breakfast.

Right? Right. We could also go back and relive every moment of that primary, but I think, and a lot more interesting focusing on the future. I mean, I, I will also say there were so many other examples in that experience during that primary where this candidate and this kid, his campaign were so great at putting forward bold ideas on the economic side too.

I mean, um, I think a lot about his proposal, for example, for communities of color and, uh, his, uh, his policy proposals focused on black America, which had really, really important, significant economic. And the class-related propositions alongside [00:37:00] the social ones. And he was really the first candidate in the field to put those kinds of ideas out there, his, um, his Douglas plan.

So there were examples of that too. I don't think this was an attribute that was only at, for social issues and my bigger point still. Is it more than any one of these individual ideas? It's the idea that when you got, when we got somebody who was new and talented, Uh, to the table, they were able to articulate ideas and paint a vision for a better future that defies some of the frameworks that can be very limiting, but tend to dominate our, our political conversation in this country.

Marshall Kosloff: Yes. So in our last bit let's pivot to the future. So we're moving into 2021. Um, Matt, you've written a lot about, and I've spoken a lot about the issue of climate change and climate changes, this interesting area where it's a combination of governmental action, but there's also private action, especially in the venture and the tech space.

So, so two things actually want to know, have you all [00:38:00] read, um, Anon, give regards his book, winners take all.

Swati Mylavarapu: I haven't read it in full don't tell Adam that, but we've read parts of it for

Marshall Kosloff: sure. Yeah. So something I'm just, I read it just to honestly, prep for this prep, for the show and something that I want to get your thoughts on.

Uh, max, you spoke about this in a different podcast, appearances. As I understand his thesis is basically the idea that the problem in our current system is that we outsource public problems to the private sector. So we say things like WIC, let's all be winners. Let's make some money, let's invest in the longterm.

And then we're going to do climate tech instead of saying, Hey, what's. Rejoin the, um, not the Kyoto, there's too many protocols. We've rejoined the Paris climate accord, or let's pass the green new deal, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The take I have though, in what I think is framework misses, is it major climate change legislation is just not on the table right now.

So it's not as if you have the ability to say, okay, we have the green new deal, or we can invest in [00:39:00] my climate fund. Let's choose the one that helps my net worth that that's not what's on the table. So to a certain degree, The private sector has to respond, but how do you all just think about that framework within the climate space?

Matt Rogers: Yeah. Uh, look, we've been on this road since the 1950s, the, uh, or government has been handing off public responsibility to private companies. This is not a new thing. Uh, this has been, uh, over, over several generations now, but yeah, the point is right. We, we we've effectively outsourced a lot of public, good to companies.

And in this, in this moment, in the next nine moments, this is many decades, long moment. A lot of industry will need to change. Uh, like the entire economy will change. And this is not like a green, new deal versus private investment, even conversation because it touches everything. Like there are very few moments where our, you know, our food supply, our energy supply transportation.

Yeah, how, how we, how we manage [00:40:00] land, uh, agriculture, you know, the oceans, see like how we deal with trash. Like it's like literally everything that we build stopped, like everything must change. And that is not something on the scale of any one company or any one industry. It is literally everything and it requires government action because like that many industries will not change on the road.

Marshall Kosloff: Hmm.

Matt Rogers: I don't know if I, I think we will. We had some Benadryl climate action done.

Marshall Kosloff: What do you think?

Matt Rogers: Well, what will, I mean, knowing a lot of the players that Biden has selected for his administration for his cabinet, they're highly motivated, especially Jennifer Granholm. As an example, having her pick to lead the energy department is brilliant.

Like she understands. Jobs and job creation, you know, for Michigan, a lot of, you know, auto industry and post economic poverty work. And [00:41:00] we've got to get people back to work post COVID and we've got the climate crisis right on our heels. It's not hard to tie these things together. And, you know, well, I'm quite optimistic.

Find is picking people who understand that concept and are highly, highly motivated to drive some significant changes.

Swati Mylavarapu: It sounds like there's an opportunity here to do right by the environment, but in a way that also does right by more Americans.

Matt Rogers: Yeah. So my point earlier about like post 2008 recovery, you know, we, we bail out the economy, but like, we didn't really get people back to work and we did improve wait

Marshall Kosloff: three or four years.

It took a, it took a long time. Yeah. We

Matt Rogers: have that opportunity now. Like, let's do it right. And let's bring more people in. And again, that's, bi-partisan, that's that's across the country. Like this problem is big enough that it will affect everybody.

Marshall Kosloff: Yeah. So as we're nearing the end here, I don't want to dredge up the past too much, but everything you're saying about 2009, the financial crisis climate change, it just makes me think.

We're [00:42:00] weirdly just resetting the 2009 in the sense that you have a democratic Senate, you have a democratic Congress has a democratic president, some of the same literal people are there. Back then, the choice was very concertedly made not to choose. For example, climate change, healthcare and economic recovery over an issue.

What prioritizing like with climate change. So as you think back to the 2009 period, obviously you weren't politically active back then as you're thinking, and as the friends who have in the Biden administration, Thank what have you all learned from that experience right before the rise of the tea party that you think is going to influence the way the next six months was going to go

Swati Mylavarapu: to me?

One of the lessons is, and I, I mean, I w I was definitely guilty of this. I mean, I took two weeks off of my job in 2008 to go door to door in Florida and helped turn out voters. And then after the inauguration day, I kind of just pieced out. I was like, okay. I mean, four years,

Marshall Kosloff: we did it.

[00:43:00] Swati Mylavarapu: The biggest lesson from the last four years is I got more involved.

Um, for the four years to come is at, now's not the time to step off the gas. It's not like. You know, our job as citizens is to vote people in and then they get to do the work. The way that this democracy thing works is we got to keep paying attention. And if there are things that we want that we think should be priorities, you know, there, there there's a new administration coming in to do the work, but it's also on us outside of government to keep voicing our values and to set expectations on where we think our country should have.

Um, And that can either by an administration air cover to get things done, or it gives them a foil to push back. I mean, yet in the event that they, they disagree, but that's how the system works. And that's one of the lessons for me is like, get it, keep getting out there and supporting great candidates, investing in great civic organizations, [00:44:00] bringing up entrepreneurs who are building things that we think are worth building

Matt Rogers: and keep the pressure on the administration did the right thing.

It's on all

Saagar Enjeti: of us. Yeah, Matt, here's, here's kind of my final question for you. You were in the room on the iPhone, you created Nass. These, you know, I think the iPhone is probably the last, like truly world changing technology, as in it's the last thing that really changed the way that we interact every single day at every single moment.

What do you think the next one is going to be? Um, just with your familiarity, with the experience and more, and how is that going to create. All of the social problems that the iPhone created for us.

Marshall Kosloff: Oh man. That's your trillion dollar fund. If you can get both of those together

Matt Rogers: again, this, maybe this is bringing my own biases to the table, but I don't think it's going to be any one device.

That's going to do this, but. The freeing us from a carbon emitting economy will be that next transition. Let's talk about like the next [00:45:00] industrial revolution. I think we've been at an extractive economy the last 150 years, basically the industrial revolution. And I think the transition we're going to make over the next 20 years is to be regenerative economy, to be more circular economy.

And you know, that's not any one device that is a multi-trillion dollar transition.

Marshall Kosloff: Hmm. So last question is Ruthie. We're looking for a thing we had clipped for the next 10 years. You. Met Pete budaj edge in college. You gave him $20 during his first campaign. You are a talent scout, who is the person who in 2032, we can look back and say, their name was mentioned on this podcast, like who, who are some people who you're really excited about that you get that feel because this is also your job as a VC, too, right?

Like there are different types of founders, like who are some, who's like a state legislator we've never heard of who really impressed you.

Swati Mylavarapu: So, uh, not a state legislator, but a County judge. We even had to go in Harris County. If you haven't heard her name or you're not paying attention, check her out. [00:46:00] Neat Textless County, Houston.

Um, she is not yet 30 years old. The only Latina at sort of judge in all of Texas might actually be the youngest, local level administrator for a jurisdiction. At that size in America, actually, anyway, she's phenomenal. Literally has helped keep millions of people alive and healthy when she kind of, um, managed COVID better than the governor and the state was willing to do when it broke out last spring.

So one to watch their shore and then on the company side, We have a really talented founder in our portfolio named Sue Laika, Strasser. Who's building a sustainable grocery delivery company called zero and Matt and I both agreed that she is one of the most talented entrepreneurs that we've ever worked with.

Most people haven't heard of her, or they're not yet using zero. They were all gonna know her. [00:47:00] We may one day prefer,

Marshall Kosloff: I keep saying last question. How was the name? Zero not taken. That seems like the most obvious. That's my that's like my

Saagar Enjeti: zero.com

Swati Mylavarapu: starting to see someone's genius. Yeah.

Marshall Kosloff: That's awesome. Well, you hear it.

You heard it here. First folks, uh, a company, um, a candidate, a judge. Thank you so much for coming. Really appreciate it. Thank

Swati Mylavarapu: you guys for keeping us on your toes. Yeah,

Marshall Kosloff: that's our job.