Yes and no. Iām trans, and the entire GOP establishment has become openly hostile to trans rights, so simping for Republican politicians wouldnāt work for me. But I could maybe see myself working at an economics-focused org like the American Enterprise Institute or the Niskanen Center, where Iād fit in somewhat because of my general belief in (left-leaning) economic liberalism but colleagues might engage less in open culture war with me. Economist Deirdre McCloskey has had a successful career despite being a trans woman who mostly seems to hang out with conservative types (she claims that Milton Friedman supported her gender transition). People with similarly marginalized identities, including other LGBTQ+ people, people of color, women, Muslims, and the nonreligious, should also consider whether the environment at conservative political orgs will feel inclusive; choosing to work in an org whose culture is toxic for you could damage your mental health and, in turn, your daily and long-term job performance. But I agree that this is a good pro tanto reason to work for one.
I agree that people shouldnāt make themselves miserable working in a hostile environment, and that some people can reasonably expect to be less welcomed as you pointed out.
I think the American Enterprise Institute is a good example of an alternative way to work on the right. As for Niskanen, my impression is that theyāre no longer viewed as aligned with the right at all. The conservative Capital Research Center describes them as ānominally libertarianā and talks about how theyāre funded by left-wing donors like Open Society.
While I donāt want to suggest that you or any other person who feels the GOP has an obligation to work for them, part of the reason they are able to be hostile to various groups is because those groups are not part of how they get elected. If tomorrow the GOP was dependent on LGBTQ votes to win elections, theyād transform into a different party.
So while Iām not expert enough here to see how to change the current situation, I think there is something interesting about changing the incentive gradients for both parties to make them both more inclusive (both construct on outgroupāGOP: minorities and foreigners, Democrats: rural and working-class white people) and I expect that to have positive outcomes.
Isnāt saying to support a worse party in hopes that it becomes better like saying you should support a worse business in hopes that it becomes better? If they already have your vote/āmoney/āsupport why would they change?
Repeatedly losing elections seems like it would be more likely to cause the Republican party to change.
We should be careful about claiming the GOP is the āworse partyā. Worse for whom? Maybe they are doing things you donāt like, but half the country thinks the Democrats are the worse party. We should be wise to the state of normative uncertainty we are in. Neither party is really worse except by some measure, and because of how they are structured against each other one party being worse means the other is better by that measure. If you wanted to make a case that one party or the other is better for EA and then frame the claim that way I think itād be fine.
Yes, causing a party to lose its base is a great way to force the party to change, though note that this isnāt an isolated system, changing the GOP will also change the Democratic Party and that might not actually be for the better. Some might argue we were better off before Southern white voters were ābetrayedā by the Democratic Party on civil rights legislation and abortion, since my understanding is that that caused the shift to the current party alignment structure and ended a long era of bipartisanship. Looking back, many have said they would have moved slower to avoid the long term negative consequences caused by moving fast and then not really getting the desired outcome due to reactionary pushback. This suggests we might be better off trying for slow change given uncertain effects of what will happen in a dynamic system.
Yes and no. Iām trans, and the entire GOP establishment has become openly hostile to trans rights, so simping for Republican politicians wouldnāt work for me. But I could maybe see myself working at an economics-focused org like the American Enterprise Institute or the Niskanen Center, where Iād fit in somewhat because of my general belief in (left-leaning) economic liberalism but colleagues might engage less in open culture war with me. Economist Deirdre McCloskey has had a successful career despite being a trans woman who mostly seems to hang out with conservative types (she claims that Milton Friedman supported her gender transition). People with similarly marginalized identities, including other LGBTQ+ people, people of color, women, Muslims, and the nonreligious, should also consider whether the environment at conservative political orgs will feel inclusive; choosing to work in an org whose culture is toxic for you could damage your mental health and, in turn, your daily and long-term job performance. But I agree that this is a good pro tanto reason to work for one.
I agree that people shouldnāt make themselves miserable working in a hostile environment, and that some people can reasonably expect to be less welcomed as you pointed out.
I think the American Enterprise Institute is a good example of an alternative way to work on the right. As for Niskanen, my impression is that theyāre no longer viewed as aligned with the right at all. The conservative Capital Research Center describes them as ānominally libertarianā and talks about how theyāre funded by left-wing donors like Open Society.
While I donāt want to suggest that you or any other person who feels the GOP has an obligation to work for them, part of the reason they are able to be hostile to various groups is because those groups are not part of how they get elected. If tomorrow the GOP was dependent on LGBTQ votes to win elections, theyād transform into a different party.
So while Iām not expert enough here to see how to change the current situation, I think there is something interesting about changing the incentive gradients for both parties to make them both more inclusive (both construct on outgroupāGOP: minorities and foreigners, Democrats: rural and working-class white people) and I expect that to have positive outcomes.
Isnāt saying to support a worse party in hopes that it becomes better like saying you should support a worse business in hopes that it becomes better? If they already have your vote/āmoney/āsupport why would they change?
Repeatedly losing elections seems like it would be more likely to cause the Republican party to change.
Two thoughts:
We should be careful about claiming the GOP is the āworse partyā. Worse for whom? Maybe they are doing things you donāt like, but half the country thinks the Democrats are the worse party. We should be wise to the state of normative uncertainty we are in. Neither party is really worse except by some measure, and because of how they are structured against each other one party being worse means the other is better by that measure. If you wanted to make a case that one party or the other is better for EA and then frame the claim that way I think itād be fine.
Yes, causing a party to lose its base is a great way to force the party to change, though note that this isnāt an isolated system, changing the GOP will also change the Democratic Party and that might not actually be for the better. Some might argue we were better off before Southern white voters were ābetrayedā by the Democratic Party on civil rights legislation and abortion, since my understanding is that that caused the shift to the current party alignment structure and ended a long era of bipartisanship. Looking back, many have said they would have moved slower to avoid the long term negative consequences caused by moving fast and then not really getting the desired outcome due to reactionary pushback. This suggests we might be better off trying for slow change given uncertain effects of what will happen in a dynamic system.