This was really interesting, thank you for writing @iamasockpuppet. I don’t agree with all assumptions but think many of them are logical and express similar concerns to some I had during the Carrick campaign. One point I was hoping you could expand on was the below:
“The *concrete outcome* of Effective Altruism exercising direct political power would be for EA to become a faction of the Democratic party.” In which you say that R EA’s would then not be interested in joining EA (or at least engaging in EA politics) but to me that seems off because as you mentioned many of the issues that the average voter and indeed party cares about aren’t things most EA’s would prioritize. To me, this means that for the issues that EA’s do really care about (e.g. X-risks mitigation) an EA D or R would be happy to collaborate because they do share the values on those issues even being in different parties which are opposed on other “bread and butter” political issues.
Also, a note on your assumptions for Carrick’s influence- I totally agree he would have had little opportunity to do much in his first term (but not because he’d be an outsider like a squad member who I think have less influence despite their general popularity because they are perceived as not good team players in the caucus) because that’s the nature of an institution based on seniority where one has to pay their dues to move up and a huge amount of value is based on the committee you are in or especially chair. But, given how much the odds go up for an incumbent in their election, I think if he (or anyone else) got in, even if they didn’t have power in that first term, they would be much more likely to be able to stick around for many more and exert power that way.
In which you say that R EA’s would then not be interested in joining EA (or at least engaging in EA politics) but to me that seems off because as you mentioned many of the issues that the average voter and indeed party cares about aren’t things most EA’s would prioritize.
I agree that EA politicians wouldn’t prioritize the issues that they care less about; but they wouldn’t be able to avoid taking a stance on them, most straightforwardly by voting on bills. There are no national single-issue politicians in American politics, every vote is a vote for a coalition, and EA would be a member of such a coalition. EA would be repeatedly advocating for the election of politicians who consistently take one side of the issues, and would therefore correctly be associated with that side.
To me, this means that for the issues that EA’s do really care about (e.g. X-risks mitigation) an EA D or R would be happy to collaborate because they do share the values on those issues even being in different parties which are opposed on other “bread and butter” political issues.
This assumes that the EA’s in question are already committed EA’s with strong alignment on the EA cause areas. There’s at least two important cases where that might not be true:
EA’s might want to work with somebody who’s not themself an EA; for example, every current member of Congress.
Nobody is born as an EA; EA needs to recruit people to become EA’s.
I do agree that, while some EA’s with opposing politics might bounce out of EA as a result, the number would be pretty negligible, most would probably remain.
But, given how much the odds go up for an incumbent in their election, I think if he (or anyone else) got in, even if they didn’t have power in that first term, they would be much more likely to be able to stick around for many more and exert power that way.
This was really interesting, thank you for writing @iamasockpuppet. I don’t agree with all assumptions but think many of them are logical and express similar concerns to some I had during the Carrick campaign. One point I was hoping you could expand on was the below:
“The *concrete outcome* of Effective Altruism exercising direct political power would be for EA to become a faction of the Democratic party.” In which you say that R EA’s would then not be interested in joining EA (or at least engaging in EA politics) but to me that seems off because as you mentioned many of the issues that the average voter and indeed party cares about aren’t things most EA’s would prioritize. To me, this means that for the issues that EA’s do really care about (e.g. X-risks mitigation) an EA D or R would be happy to collaborate because they do share the values on those issues even being in different parties which are opposed on other “bread and butter” political issues.
Also, a note on your assumptions for Carrick’s influence- I totally agree he would have had little opportunity to do much in his first term (but not because he’d be an outsider like a squad member who I think have less influence despite their general popularity because they are perceived as not good team players in the caucus) because that’s the nature of an institution based on seniority where one has to pay their dues to move up and a huge amount of value is based on the committee you are in or especially chair. But, given how much the odds go up for an incumbent in their election, I think if he (or anyone else) got in, even if they didn’t have power in that first term, they would be much more likely to be able to stick around for many more and exert power that way.
I agree that EA politicians wouldn’t prioritize the issues that they care less about; but they wouldn’t be able to avoid taking a stance on them, most straightforwardly by voting on bills. There are no national single-issue politicians in American politics, every vote is a vote for a coalition, and EA would be a member of such a coalition. EA would be repeatedly advocating for the election of politicians who consistently take one side of the issues, and would therefore correctly be associated with that side.
This assumes that the EA’s in question are already committed EA’s with strong alignment on the EA cause areas. There’s at least two important cases where that might not be true:
EA’s might want to work with somebody who’s not themself an EA; for example, every current member of Congress.
Nobody is born as an EA; EA needs to recruit people to become EA’s.
I do agree that, while some EA’s with opposing politics might bounce out of EA as a result, the number would be pretty negligible, most would probably remain.
I agree.