Dony: Since we just posted our policy on political Forum content, I wanted to let you know that this post will be kept in the “Personal Blog” category (as it endorses a specific electoral candidate). However, I think it’s an excellent question, and I would encourage you to promote this post on Facebook/Reddit/etc.
Personally, I doubt Wayne’s victory would “unlock additional political wins” to any great extent; Berkeley is a small city, and I can’t think of many (any?) other EA leaders who want to become elected leaders.
I do think it would be interesting to see how EA ideas could be implemented on the level of city policy, and Wayne could be the source of a lot of positive media coverage of EA ideas (journalists like Berkeley, and Wayne has solid media experience, e.g. his Ezra Klein interview).
However, there’s also some risk that Berkeley’s politics are such that a mayor whose ideas aren’t in line with those of e.g. most City Council members might struggle a lot. Berkeley is one of the most progressive cities in the U.S.: if they haven’t made strong progress in addressing poverty/climate change already, I’m not sure what Wayne’s leadership would add.
On that topic, I’m curious about how Wayne’s policies and approach differ from those of the current mayor. I can see what he wants to do on his site, but not what he thinks Jesse Arreguín is wrong about (or what he hasn’t implemented well as mayor, even if he had the right ideas).
I can’t think of many (any?) other EA leaders who want to become elected leaders.
While this was before contemporary EA, Peter Singer has run for office before:
In 1992, he became a founding member of the Victorian Greens.[43] He has run for political office twice for the Greens: in 1994 he received 28% of the vote in the Kooyong by-election, and in 1996 he received 3% of the vote when running for the Senate (elected by proportional representation).[43] Before the 1996 election, he co-authored a book The Greens with Bob Brown.[44]
Of course, some of our even earlier predecessors, like the old school English utilitarians, or the Chinese Mohists, were substantially more interested in direct politics (rather than precursors to think-tank style policy analysis) than we are.
FWIW, I don’t think this post actually endorses a specific candidate, and instead is asking if endorsing a specific candidate makes sense. Maybe that’s too close for comfort, but I don’t see this post as arguing for a particular candidate, but asking for arguments for or against a particular candidate. Thus as the policy is worded now this seems okay for frontpage or community to me.
Allowing such a post would totally neuter the rule. All one would have to do is take your draft “Trump is actually the best candidate from an EA perspective” and re-title it “Is Trump actually the best candidate from an EA perspective?” Scatter in a few question marks in the text and you are fully compliant.
I think I agree, but my point is maybe more that the policy as worded now should allow this, so the policy probably needs to be worded more clearly so that a post like this is more clearly excluded.
Dony: Since we just posted our policy on political Forum content, I wanted to let you know that this post will be kept in the “Personal Blog” category (as it endorses a specific electoral candidate). However, I think it’s an excellent question, and I would encourage you to promote this post on Facebook/Reddit/etc.
Personally, I doubt Wayne’s victory would “unlock additional political wins” to any great extent; Berkeley is a small city, and I can’t think of many (any?) other EA leaders who want to become elected leaders.
I do think it would be interesting to see how EA ideas could be implemented on the level of city policy, and Wayne could be the source of a lot of positive media coverage of EA ideas (journalists like Berkeley, and Wayne has solid media experience, e.g. his Ezra Klein interview).
However, there’s also some risk that Berkeley’s politics are such that a mayor whose ideas aren’t in line with those of e.g. most City Council members might struggle a lot. Berkeley is one of the most progressive cities in the U.S.: if they haven’t made strong progress in addressing poverty/climate change already, I’m not sure what Wayne’s leadership would add.
On that topic, I’m curious about how Wayne’s policies and approach differ from those of the current mayor. I can see what he wants to do on his site, but not what he thinks Jesse Arreguín is wrong about (or what he hasn’t implemented well as mayor, even if he had the right ideas).
Some other EAs or people close to EA have run:
Michael Dello-Iacovo has been running for the Animal Justice Party in Australia, which actually has seats there.
Elizabeth Edwards-Appell was a Democratic member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, although I don’t know if she has plans to run again.
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, although I’m not sure he identifies as an EA, is a Liberal member of parliament in the federal government of Canada, and an ethical vegan, and had Peter Singer on his podcast to discuss animal rights and effective altruism.
Meret Schneider, who has been interested in EA and animal welfare, and works at EAF’s spin-off Sentience Politics, is a Swiss MP.
While this was before contemporary EA, Peter Singer has run for office before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Political_views
Of course, some of our even earlier predecessors, like the old school English utilitarians, or the Chinese Mohists, were substantially more interested in direct politics (rather than precursors to think-tank style policy analysis) than we are.
FWIW, I don’t think this post actually endorses a specific candidate, and instead is asking if endorsing a specific candidate makes sense. Maybe that’s too close for comfort, but I don’t see this post as arguing for a particular candidate, but asking for arguments for or against a particular candidate. Thus as the policy is worded now this seems okay for frontpage or community to me.
Allowing such a post would totally neuter the rule. All one would have to do is take your draft “Trump is actually the best candidate from an EA perspective” and re-title it “Is Trump actually the best candidate from an EA perspective?” Scatter in a few question marks in the text and you are fully compliant.
I think I agree, but my point is maybe more that the policy as worded now should allow this, so the policy probably needs to be worded more clearly so that a post like this is more clearly excluded.