Relatedly, it seems good to take efforts to present animal welfare in a less polarizing light, perhaps by avoiding lumping it with other cultural stances of the parts of the political spectrum that it’s most associated with.[1]
I’ve noted previously how polarization also happens on the international level. My basic model of the current situation is that (1) advocacy/actions perceived to be extreme happens in the Anglo-American world → (2) a lot of people in, say, China find out about it and find such advocacy/actions distressing and associate it with being “Western” , and then start resisting practices from the West (on the other hand, other people might find such advocacy/actions appealing—but this, in some cases, also seems to come with polarization, which gives more reason for opponents to resist it).
I think many positions considered progressive from perspectives outside of the Anglo-American world are important to advance, but there also seems to be an increased difficulty of doing so because of a perception (which may or may not be accurate) of how it changes a society in ways non-Anglo-American people fear. One solution might be that activists, from the Anglo-American world and elsewhere, should focus on issues closer to the center that are also particularly effective to work on.
Disclaimer: I find myself leaning conservative with social issues, while leaning progressive with economic issues—using American politics as a baseline—although I also feel as if I should change my stances accordingly as EA-relevant macrostrategic insights are uncovered.
Yeah, in fact I think most of the domestic opposition also comes from this backlash (in poli sci it’s called “negative partisanship”). The right starts to oppose animal welfare policy not on its merits but simply because the left supports it—another reason to strive not to polarize the issue.
Relatedly, it seems good to take efforts to present animal welfare in a less polarizing light, perhaps by avoiding lumping it with other cultural stances of the parts of the political spectrum that it’s most associated with.[1]
I’ve noted previously how polarization also happens on the international level. My basic model of the current situation is that (1) advocacy/actions perceived to be extreme happens in the Anglo-American world → (2) a lot of people in, say, China find out about it and find such advocacy/actions distressing and associate it with being “Western” , and then start resisting practices from the West (on the other hand, other people might find such advocacy/actions appealing—but this, in some cases, also seems to come with polarization, which gives more reason for opponents to resist it).
I think many positions considered progressive from perspectives outside of the Anglo-American world are important to advance, but there also seems to be an increased difficulty of doing so because of a perception (which may or may not be accurate) of how it changes a society in ways non-Anglo-American people fear. One solution might be that activists, from the Anglo-American world and elsewhere, should focus on issues closer to the center that are also particularly effective to work on.
Disclaimer: I find myself leaning conservative with social issues, while leaning progressive with economic issues—using American politics as a baseline—although I also feel as if I should change my stances accordingly as EA-relevant macrostrategic insights are uncovered.
Yeah, in fact I think most of the domestic opposition also comes from this backlash (in poli sci it’s called “negative partisanship”). The right starts to oppose animal welfare policy not on its merits but simply because the left supports it—another reason to strive not to polarize the issue.
This fits in to Bryan Caplan’s simple theory of politics, on which the defining feature of the right wing is simply opposing the left.