I appreciate the discourse (upvoted) but don’t agree with the conclusion.
These are not my complete thoughts on the piece, but I want to make a couple points:
#1 your takeaway from looking at the Squad and the Tea Party could be premature.
I agree that it’s hard to overcome the inertia of status quo in our government. However, I don’t think the fact that the Squad or the Tea Party haven’t achieved their most grandiose goals (although the Tea Party came close) means the question is settled. Movement politics and moving the needle on ideology in the electorate takes time and the success could come ten or forty years in the future (look at how long it took Right-wing evangelicals to get their win over Roe V Wade). That success could also never come, but we will only be more confident in that conclusion the more that time passes.
Also, grandiose goals is not the only measurement, we could also look at smaller wins such as smaller bills, amendments, backroom deals (admittedly hard to evaluate), and concessions from the establishment (look what the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus did to the careers of John Boehner and Paul Ryan).
#2 Are you content enough with our current government (especially considering suffering, X-risks, and the long-term future) for EAs to not try to exercise direct political power?
Here are some questions:
Do you think that the current functioning of our government is sufficient to advert existential events? Asked another way: how tolerable are the weaknesses in our current government, especially for addressing x-risks?
Do you think the political system will change itself to a sufficient degree in an acceptable amount of time?
If outside forces are needed to bring about the necessary change in our political system/government, can they be successful without trying to exercise direct power?
Can EAs eventually be consequential in this space?
The more that you think the answers are 1) no 2) no 3) no 4) yes, the more you should agree that EAs should seek all forms of political power including direct political power.
In summation: to reach our desired destination (i.e. acceptable X-risk levels), we inevitably need governments—especially the government of the strongest superpower, the United States—to take significant measures that are not in the trajectory of the status quo. Thus, to overcome the institutional inertia and to make government function better/implement needed risk mitigation, we need to capture political power. Considering the stakes, can we afford to not pursue direct political power? Capturing political power is a long-term project, but EA is better suited than many other cause-driven communities to successfully capture consequential political power in the long term.
I think this argument also applies to suffering and the long-term future. These problems/issues are immense. The largest, wealthiest, and most powerful organizations on Earth are governments of world powers. Unless we are content to just increments of progress whilst never actually achieving are target end goal, we have to do dramatic things through governance and that involves attaining political power. And the most direct form of political power is elected office.
Conclusion
I disagree with your conclusion, but I think this is a necessary discourse that will push EA to improve how it mitigates collateral damage from involving itself in politics and also improves the strategies and tactics it uses in politics.
I appreciate the discourse (upvoted) but don’t agree with the conclusion.
These are not my complete thoughts on the piece, but I want to make a couple points:
#1 your takeaway from looking at the Squad and the Tea Party could be premature.
I agree that it’s hard to overcome the inertia of status quo in our government. However, I don’t think the fact that the Squad or the Tea Party haven’t achieved their most grandiose goals (although the Tea Party came close) means the question is settled. Movement politics and moving the needle on ideology in the electorate takes time and the success could come ten or forty years in the future (look at how long it took Right-wing evangelicals to get their win over Roe V Wade). That success could also never come, but we will only be more confident in that conclusion the more that time passes.
Also, grandiose goals is not the only measurement, we could also look at smaller wins such as smaller bills, amendments, backroom deals (admittedly hard to evaluate), and concessions from the establishment (look what the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus did to the careers of John Boehner and Paul Ryan).
#2 Are you content enough with our current government (especially considering suffering, X-risks, and the long-term future) for EAs to not try to exercise direct political power?
Here are some questions:
Do you think that the current functioning of our government is sufficient to advert existential events? Asked another way: how tolerable are the weaknesses in our current government, especially for addressing x-risks?
Do you think the political system will change itself to a sufficient degree in an acceptable amount of time?
If outside forces are needed to bring about the necessary change in our political system/government, can they be successful without trying to exercise direct power?
Can EAs eventually be consequential in this space?
The more that you think the answers are 1) no 2) no 3) no 4) yes, the more you should agree that EAs should seek all forms of political power including direct political power.
In summation: to reach our desired destination (i.e. acceptable X-risk levels), we inevitably need governments—especially the government of the strongest superpower, the United States—to take significant measures that are not in the trajectory of the status quo. Thus, to overcome the institutional inertia and to make government function better/implement needed risk mitigation, we need to capture political power. Considering the stakes, can we afford to not pursue direct political power? Capturing political power is a long-term project, but EA is better suited than many other cause-driven communities to successfully capture consequential political power in the long term.
I think this argument also applies to suffering and the long-term future. These problems/issues are immense. The largest, wealthiest, and most powerful organizations on Earth are governments of world powers. Unless we are content to just increments of progress whilst never actually achieving are target end goal, we have to do dramatic things through governance and that involves attaining political power. And the most direct form of political power is elected office.
Conclusion
I disagree with your conclusion, but I think this is a necessary discourse that will push EA to improve how it mitigates collateral damage from involving itself in politics and also improves the strategies and tactics it uses in politics.