The first graf of the article starts with the author being butthurt about geeks not finding the economist as relevant as the author/employee does (disclaimer: I used to subscribe, either their quality has notably declined the last 5 years or I've gotten smarter).
The rest of it is place-ism about how geeks should stay out of politics and leave it to the oil companies and defense contractors where it belongs.
It's not reinforcing geek stereotypes to point it out as a crap article.
I'm not seeing "place-ism" in the article the same way you are. The author appears to be disputing the arrogance and isolationism often attributed to Silicon Valley by pointing out that groups like FWD.us are getting involved in political discussions. He seems to celebrate the fact that Silicon Valley is getting involved in the "politics-as-usual"
In Silicon Valley, arrogance is really about ambition. There are some who want to replace political processes with crowdsourced or individual solutions. These are ambitious goals, but the problems that they attempt to address (law-making, social justice) are far more difficult than many of these people realize. The goal of disrupting current channels of social change and policy are lofty, but assuming that it can be done without help from existing institutions is arrogant, and will lead to both a toxic culture and an incredulous image, even for those of us whose ideas may have a chance of bringing about real change.
>If you want to be heard, you need to "show that you care"
I think you're definitely correct on that point. Some may view playing within the existing infrastructure as pandering, but it's often one of the only ways of expressing a serious commitment to change.
In its 3 points the common theme in the article is that the geeks don't listen, are self-centered, don't care about others, ... yada-yada. I know this talk very well because it is what I hear from my wife most of the time, about a thousand things.
Now, in political terms it is irrelevant if this is correct or not. In a democracy the perception of a majority is the truth, despite any logical consistence. If you want to be heard, you need to "show that you care". Logical coherence alone doesn't buy you empathy. We need to avoid the label of arrogant if we want any kind of political influence.
I think it is worth thinking a little more carefully about the article. Not on whether it is correct or not, but if this perception is common or not.
[edit] Typo [/edit]