[1] http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/14/technology/google_democrats/
Second, I think I'm using the word political here to talk about ideological interests, rather than self-interested ones.
But let me presume that link was about the actual company donating to the democrats. Setting aside the issue of Thiel, because I don't know much about him, I think its harder to classify businesses as 'fundamentally political' because of their more singular motive of profit. Businesses, at least those on a massive scale like Google, have a clear goal in mind when donating to candidates: procuring legislation in favor of themselves. Thus, their choice doesn't seem 'political' because it can be boiled down to self-interest. If they were giving lots of money to democrats, it could probably be explained by the democrats being more easily 'bought' on something Google wanted. I wouldn't say that an oil company is 'political' for giving money to republicans instead of environmentally conscious democrats--that's just self-interest to me.
Meanwhile, I think a person donating is much more likely to be doing so because of ideological reasons. However, the greater a person's stake in the outcome of legislation, the more likely their motive is not 'political'. For example, if billionaires don't want a crackdown on tax havens, its probably because of self-interest rather than some ideological commitment that taxation is unjust. Given this, Thiel's donation record alone could just be evidence of self-interest. However, as per the posts around this discussion, frequent interviews with the National Review, Cato, etc., plus the fact that I think its much more probable that individuals are political than companies, makes me think that the Google/Thiel comparison is inaccurate.
It's not one thing, but its the combination of his apparent agenda coupled with his background.
With that said, if Google decided to promote planned parenthood links and hid southern baptist links, then I'd probably believe that politics might have something to do with it.
Everyone has a bias. But its important that you be able to see through their front to see what might be their actual end goal that's consistent with their bias.
I.e., don't you think it's possible that his individualist, pro-free thinker views inform both his libertarian political views and also his views that our rigid college-based gatekeeping system is unnecessary?
Probably not since one doesn't naturally flow from the other. Especially since he creates and participates in a several other gatekeeping systems.
Peter Thiel as a libertarian is depressed simply because, despte being white and rich, he can't find a way to deprive other groups of some basic civil rights. What freedom do you have if you can't deprive others of theirs? Indeed Mr. Thiel.
If you are making statements like this, you clearly know nothing about either libertarianism or Peter Thiel.
Most of his donations were the maximum allowed by US law.
I wouldn't even call Thiel's goals fundamentally political
You don't work with the National Review, the Cato Institute, and consistently donate (and to only one political party) if its not fundamentally political.
he's trying to shape society and throws money at things that he believes will bend it more to his liking.
Umm, yeah, that's what all politicians are doing. My point is is that he's working through and with the conservative political system to make this happen, as their goals are aligned.
Take someone like Salman Khan, OTOH, who is also trying to make a big change, but seems to be taking a much less political approach.