On Treason and Gratitude in Liberal Citizenship.

I have been privileged to have been published a few times in Liberal Currents, a zine that I support financially (albeit modestly). I often learn from their articles, and, even when I disagree with some argument or position, I am usually in sympathy with the aims pursued.

So, it is with some unease that I criticize a recent post (14 Jul 2025), “Marc Andreessen Is a Traitor,” by Adam Gurri one of the founders of Liberal Currents, and its current Editor-in-Chief. In particular, I really dislike the use of ‘traitor;’ this occurs not just in the headline, but also in the closing paragraph of the piece. This is not just a rhetorical flourish, because throughout the piece Andreesen is repeatedly accused of ‘betrayal.’ If you read Gurri’s piece, it’s also pretty clear that Andreesen stands in for his “tech oligarch peers.”

I have no interest in defending Andreesen or tech oligarchs, especially when they use, as not infrequently happens, their concentrated powers (in wealth and monopoly) to extract rents from the rest of us and to use technology to violate our liberties (and property); these oligarchs are often unaccountable or less accountable than poorer citizens under the rule law. I am also not especially interested in preserving public civility or policing political rhetoric. As a platonic skeptic, I have little hope that public debate is truth-apt (which my democratic theorist friends find annoying in me).

But because I consider myself a true friend of Liberal Currents, and view it is as one of the essential sites where the great many strands of liberalism aim to re-articulate themselves courageously in our fearful times, I do want to restart debate about the underlying commitments that Gurri’s essay imply. To simplify: my claim is that some of Gurri’s accusations against the Tech Oligarchy express illiberal commitments we should wish to resist.

To start my discussion, let me list and quote the four passages in which Gurri charges Andreesen or tech oligarchs (emphases in original) with treason/betrayal:

• [A] Andreessen has made no secret of the fact that he feels he and his tech oligarch peers have been betrayed by elite institutions and the Democratic party. But the reality is that they are the ones who have betrayed not only their country, but the very system which made their fortune and status possible.

• [B] Obviously, much of Andreessen’s fortune has come from his subsequent successes as a venture capitalist. Yet without that very first success, there’s little chance he could have become a big time VC in the first place. And now he has betrayed the very system that made his success possible; the system in which he and a handful of others like him have profited disproportionately relative to their contribution.

• [C] The treason of the tech oligarchs

  The partnership between government, the academy, and industry was a sweet deal for investors and owners like Andreessen in which they reaped the largest personal rewards of any actor by far. This partnership has been tremendously beneficial for the world in advancing the frontiers of science and technology. And it has been even more beneficial for America itself, our influence in the world, our quality of life, and our military capacity. And it is exactly this partnership that Andreessen has betrayed.

  Andreessen and the tech reactionaries were not betrayed by “American-hating communists” backed by the “Democratic machine;” they simply could not be content to be merely rich. Out of spite towards those who disrespected them and contempt for the liberal democratic governments that attempted to hold them to the obligations of citizenship and the law, Andreessen and his peers have betrayed the very arrangement that made them wealthy and influential.

• [D] They have betrayed the society that enriched them, and have put us at serious risk of authoritarianism, ethnic cleansing, lawlessness, and stagnation. They have betrayed the values that made that society great, values which they apparently only ever held superficially because they believed it would make them appear respectable. They can no longer be trusted. When the wheel turns once again, the matter of their treachery must be revisited, and a new arrangement must be reconstructed from the wreckage of the old one.

Upon inspection of these passages, it turns out that Gurri charges different kinds of treason: against country [A], against the system [A; B], against the partnership between government, the academy, and industry [C]; against the society that enriched the tech oligarchs [D]; and against the values that made that society great [D].

I will call a spade a spade: with the exception of the first (treason against country), these charges are ridiculous as charges of treason. They are dangerous as criticisms. Worse yet, the argument as a whole, exhibits a transactional attitude toward public citizenship that is fundamentally corrosive of public life. Public funding is not about securing loyalty to a set of values or institutions (or persons); rather it is about promoting the public good or particular aims of public policy.

So, individuals who accept such funding are left free to disagree and even reject the values of the status quo. While (say) a libertarian businessperson is hypocritical to accept public funding for one of their firms, there is nothing treasonous if she turns around to promote low taxes for herself. To pull up the drawbridge after one has passed to the other side is ungenerous and ignoble, but not a betrayal.*

Now, to avoid confusion. I am not appealing to the purported liberal ideal of state neutrality. I actually deny liberals have to be neutral or relativists about their own values. I am myself quite friendly to perfectionist liberalism; one that thinks the liberal state need not be morally neutral and can express and defend certain important values. In fact, on my view the state need not be neutral at all, and positively may (say) witness truth. (Witnessing truth is crucial to the articulate state and public administration.)

I would hope liberals trust individuals to make up their own minds about the values and forms of public organization they wish to promote. And rather than defending the status quo come what may, liberals see in such criticism and defections a means toward the development of an improved society (often with an unknown destination).

The proper liberal attitude here is not to demand loyalty from tech oligarchs against their own interests, but to avoid creating pro-oligarchic policies. Tech oligarchs represent in theory and in practice concentrated economic and political power; and liberalism should be mistrustful of both.

There is, in fact, also a kind of paradox at the heart of Gurri’s argument. Gurri repeatedly slides from a liberal stance, which is relatively undemanding of citizens, to a more republican position on citizenship. Gurri’s republicanism can be seen in [C] (“Out of spite towards those who disrespected them and contempt for the liberal democratic governments that attempted to hold them to the obligations of citizenship and the law, Andreessen and his peers have betrayed the very arrangement that made them wealthy and influential”), but also in another passage: “The tech oligarchs want government cash but not obligations, wealth without duty or any of the basic burdens of citizenship.” But if you presume to take the (equal) burdens of citizenship so seriously, you should not permit excessive economic and political inequality in the first place.

More subtly, the duties of US citizenship do not involve loyalty to the “very system which made their fortune and status possible” [A&B]; do not require loyalty to “the very arrangement that made them wealthy and influential” [C]; and do not require loyalty to a set of unspecified “values” that make a society great [D]. (Knowledge of American history suggests many of these aggrandizing values are as craven as our current tech oligarchs.) In the US the framework of citizenship involves responsibilities like paying taxes, serving on a jury when summoned, and general expectation of law-abidingness. There is not even a duty to vote; why should there be a duty of political gratitude toward one’s public, financial benefactors?

My own view (not always protected by SCOTUS) is that qua citizens (but not if they are of have been officeholders), US citizens do not even have to be loyal to the constitution (which was and is imperfect in all kinds of ways). The declaration of independence and the fourteenth amendment confirm this point. So, on my interpretation of these there is a firm right of individuals acting alone and in groups to promote a great many alterations to the constitutions; and this right is, in fact, a very important liberal value.

As is well known, Stateside treason has a very specific and rather narrow meaning: it “shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Notice that subverting the existing constitution is actually not part of the definition. It’s possible, of course, that some tech oligarchs adhere to enemies of the United States. But Gurri has not even tried to make the case that Andreessen fits this categorization.

Let me close with a thought. A lot of liberals today want to see more spiritedness in their elected representatives and public intellectuals. I love that Liberal Currents is in the forefront of meeting this demand, and I will keep supporting the journal. But in fighting dirt with dirt, we should be alert to the fact that we do not end up promoting the wrong sort of values. The life of a liberal citizen does not require a duty of loyalty to the arrangements that benefitted her.

---

*To put the point I am alluding to in a different way: it’s perfectly un-treasonous if recent immigrants vote against pro-immigration policy (or benificiaries of affirmative action against affirmative action, etc.). Obviously, as a liberal I would like to convince such people otherwise. And perhaps that will involve the pro-immigration politician in promoting other policies to enhance the attraction of her policies.