Perhaps, but they already do take advice from groups of bankers, Christians, solicit advice from think tanks and so on. I think it’s be more accurate to say that poliyicians generally avoid affiliating with grassroots activist groups in general, outside of their party’s narrow ideology, but instead mostly take advice from elite individuals or (occasionally) focused lobby groups.
What I gathered the OP to be saying here is for Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel not to take advice but publicly identifying with the movement, in the way that Dustin Moskovitz did. Clinton and Merkel, it seems to me, do identify with various activist groups, for instance by attending their gatherings, etc., and through their presence “bless” the movement.
Let’s take for example EA Global. In one world, the EA movement is broadly perceived as a movement of elitists dedicated to advancing human and other species flourishing in the most effective ways. In another world, the EA movement is broadly perceived as a broad movement dedicated to advancing human and other species flourishing in the most effective ways. In which scenario is Clinton more likely to come to the EA Global, everything else being equal? I post that the second scenario is more likely to advance Clinton’s political career, and the first scenario would harm her political career, and the same for any other politician of her stature.
There’s a fine line here between being perceived as a movement of elites and a movement of elitists. I think the first would generally be seen as positive and more likely to bring people in, whereas the second is generally negative.
I don’t think it’s even that fine a line. Don’t exclude people actively. If you want to talk to your rich friends about EA first, that makes sense, but there should be virtually no reason to keep someone out.
(If it does make sense to exclude people actively it might make sense to use a vehicle that society has decided is acceptable for this—for example, it’s considered relatively acceptable for a university to reject a student applying to it, a business or organization to reject someone applying for a job, etc.)
What I gathered the OP to be saying here is for Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel not to take advice but publicly identifying with the movement, in the way that Dustin Moskovitz did. Clinton and Merkel, it seems to me, do identify with various activist groups, for instance by attending their gatherings, etc., and through their presence “bless” the movement.
Let’s take for example EA Global. In one world, the EA movement is broadly perceived as a movement of elitists dedicated to advancing human and other species flourishing in the most effective ways. In another world, the EA movement is broadly perceived as a broad movement dedicated to advancing human and other species flourishing in the most effective ways. In which scenario is Clinton more likely to come to the EA Global, everything else being equal? I post that the second scenario is more likely to advance Clinton’s political career, and the first scenario would harm her political career, and the same for any other politician of her stature.
There’s a fine line here between being perceived as a movement of elites and a movement of elitists. I think the first would generally be seen as positive and more likely to bring people in, whereas the second is generally negative.
I don’t think it’s even that fine a line. Don’t exclude people actively. If you want to talk to your rich friends about EA first, that makes sense, but there should be virtually no reason to keep someone out.
(If it does make sense to exclude people actively it might make sense to use a vehicle that society has decided is acceptable for this—for example, it’s considered relatively acceptable for a university to reject a student applying to it, a business or organization to reject someone applying for a job, etc.)
Yes, this is a good way of putting it :-)