This opinion-based post deals with the possibility for EA to engage more directly in politics. With the latter, I refer to outspokenly sponsoring EA values for them to be applied by bipartisan political actors, such as parties and elected representatives. After listing the reasons why I believe EA could benefit from a broader involvement in politics, I’ll explain some theoretical key points that I consider important for pursuing this goal. Then, I’ll assess some challenges and strengths of the argument. To conclude, the post will end with a far-from-exhaustive list of examples of more practical actions that could be undertaken to put my words into practice.
I disclaim here some of the possible flaws in my reasoning:
As a rule of thumb, precluding a route a priori is not effective: nothing should be left untried. Of course, irrational attempts are not effective. That’s why I list here some – hopefully rational – reasons why direct involvement in politics should be considered by EAs:
The EA movement is highly diversified, and members focus on many different cause areas, which do not necessarily have much in common with each other (e.g.: animal welfare and AI safety pertain to completely different fields of research). However, EAs share a common ground of values and goals that unites them all. Doing the most good, rationalizing scarce resources for the best outcome, and contributing to the well-being of society and future generations are only some examples.
How does that relate to political involvement? Voters are people with jobs, families, and busy schedules. EA will never achieve widespread diffusion if hours of reading, discussion, and research are needed to get at least a general understanding of what it means. In politics, candidates with the most emotionally appealing stories often win. Why? Because they can quickly reach the heart of their audience. Having the impression of knowing those candidates, people trust and vote for them. EA does not rely on emotions. All the opposite, it is often mostly a matter of numbers. Nevertheless, the shared values across the EA community can be transformed into a quick, simple, effective list of principles that underly EA philosophy. This approach can be applied to the issues usually handled by governments and institutions. If a short list of bullet points with EA's core values reached a wide audience, many people could have a taste of what EA is. Despite limited or no knowledge at all about the various EA cause areas, they could develop a general understanding of the movement, which is the bedrock for trusting it. In turn, if a higher number of people entered the “loop” of EA debate, more contributions could be gathered and more brains would work on doing good for society, or at least support who dedicates their career to this goal.
I don't like labels. From an external perspective, the label “EA-affiliated” in a political campaign might trigger the reduction of the public perception of EA as an exclusively political entity – which is not. Instead, the point is: to spread the substance of the EA mindset. That is to say, making more people consider to be “common sense” principles such as rationally evaluating choices (e.g.: asking oneself questions like: Perhaps I can save part of my income maintaining the same lifestyle. Since investing is usually better than putting money aside, where can I invest it to do something positive for society – not just for my individual profit?), having a positive social impact through one's career, bearing in mind the long-term consequences of one's actions, etc.
The name printed on the external surface doesn’t matter much as long as the core values are supported. Moreover, attention must be paid to differentiating between the choices of single individuals and the general values of the EA community. Otherwise, the political arena might become a dangerous trap for negatively labeling the entire movement as a consequence of the misconduct of one affiliated member. All in all, I would argue that to pursue a wider political involvement, utmost care must be dedicated to highlighting that “Effective Altruism” in politics is a set of principles, not a fixed list of solutions and behaviors.
From an internal perspective, I have the impression that many EAs perceive EA’s direct involvement in politics as a sort of taboo. However, the phenomenon of grassroots civil rights and environmental movements that have started from civil society and ended up in politics is not new (e.g.: Green parties in the EU). Perhaps, entering governments and parliaments is not the only way to provoke a significant change, but it might be a path worth pursuing. Specifically, if some EAs wanted to pursue an effective policy-related career, limiting it to lobbying and think tanks might preclude opportunities to have a broader impact.
The EA values deal with lively debates for prioritizing the most pressing issues and working together to achieve the most effective solutions. It’s more about trying to ask the best questions to work on, rather than finding one arbitrary answer to apply everywhere. EA in politics could represent a model applicable to multiple contexts. This framework could thus be adopted by various actors in different countries and sides of the political spectrum. I’m not necessarily arguing for the creation of an “EA party:” EAs often disagree on the answers – and this constant debate is a valuable source of growth. Ideally, EAs with different political orientations could collaborate with government and opposition forces thanks to the presence of a common ground of shared values and reciprocal respect. The EA approach of searching for solutions to existential issues can represent a bipartisan standard. Regardless of which party rules a country, if this model was applied, governance could generally become more aligned with EA and more effective. As I argued for the "EA label," the matter lies again in the substance, not in the surface. The aim is to enhance national and transnational governance's response to existential problems by working inside the institutions. Whether the adopted policies resonate more with the left or the right wing doesn't matter, as long as they effectively tackle the most pressing issues for the global society (These are often in conflict with domestic priorities. To make them coincide, a radical mindset shift should take place. For instance, the wealthiest people living in the most developed countries world – we – could accept to compromise part of their interests for the sake of a more even global well-being. I sadly have to admit that enormous efforts and a long time will be required to achieve that kind of reading among the electorate, which would in turn prompt different elect. In the meanwhile, there’s no option other than finding the least detrimental compromise between local and global interests.).
Ideally, EA core values will eventually become universally agreed common sense. Sadly, the reality is currently far from that. Provided that many politicians act based on their personal – geopolitical, financial, etc. – interests, it is difficult to imagine the shift to an approach that considers the whole society, future generations, and even animals as crucial stakeholders. However, from a long-term perspective, starting to raise grassroots awareness now is the first step to achieve institutional systemic change in the future (i.e.: a mindset shift in the electorate will be mirrored by a future change in their choices for their elected representatives). The introduction of EA values in the political arena is crucial to spreading them to the broader electoral community. Significative public campaigns should be used to inform more people about the presence of a bipartisan community that strives to do good for society.
Personally, the last time I voted in my country's general elections (Italy), I couldn't find an option that resonated with my values. A strategy to fill this gap could be pushing the existing parties to integrate EA ideals. In case of their excessive hostility towards change, alternative voices to the establishment should try to reach the voters, allowing them to have a choice that differs from the status quo. The latter is clearly not working most effectively – often all the opposite. Therefore, EAs’ active political engagement as a politically heterogeneous group of people who set forth EA principles across all sides of the political spectrum could initiate the process of modifying how political debates – do not – work. An institutional systemic change can begin thanks to the spread of an approach based on constant debate, mutual improvement, reciprocal respect, and the shared goal of doing the most good for society.
Lobbying is generally more supported than direct political involvement. However, the one does not exclude the other. Lobbying can have an impact on the short-medium term. Lobbying specific politicians is effective for the implementation of a policy about a currently pressing issue. Notwithstanding, once new elections prompt changes in the elected representatives, the operations of networking and lobbying need to start anew. Whereas, building career capital, direct experience, and rooted networks within the institutions can constitute an asset in the long term. If through democratic elections EA-aligned candidates substituted former public officials, there would be no need for external lobbying to push EA causes into political agendas – since the EA representatives would already have them listed at the top of their campaign programs
Simple concepts spread faster. However, conciseness must not forego the meaning of the broader picture. Although challenging, I think that the shared values that unite EAs’ general mindset can be synthesized without diving into specific cause areas and focusing on ideals, excluding numerical formulas.
Not only politicians but also voters are usually driven by short-term personal interests. How can long-termism become appealing? First and foremost, humanity does not have many chances of surviving unless it adopts a more forward-looking approach to resource exploitation and development. Secondly, long-termism has already been introduced into public debate thanks to institutional initiatives such as the UN 2030 Agenda, which proposes sustainability not only for the present but also for the next generations. Long-term thinking has begun to be included even in private corporations' policies through requirements such as sustainability reporting. In general, I would say that, willingly or not, long-termism is doomed to become the widespread mindset in the coming years for reasons that deal with the mere survival of humankind. Having already internalized this principle, EA is a step ahead in this cultural shift.
Politics corrupts even the most well-intentioned person. One starts with great ideals and ends up prey to the system of greed and thirst for power. At the end of the day, loyalty to one's values is up to one's integrity. Although the final choice is only yours, being part of a community that reminds you of the importance of your principles can partially prevent you from going astray. That's why the presence of a strong network within EA can represent a powerful positive factor that could counter the tendency of being corrupted by the existing, self-reinforcing system of power that oftentimes dominates politics.
Both the EA community and the electorate that feels underrepresented in politics include mostly young people. If EA managed to achieve more widespread support and active political involvement, it could represent one of the tools for the young generations to promote radical change of the status quo. Generally, younger generations are more open to progress, and that can be an advantage in favor of a mostly youth-composed movement such as EA.
EA is a decentralized network, which exists thanks to links between its members. Similarly, connections between people are key in politics. Building an influential network within established institutions and governments requires time. But, since the very structure of EA is based on links and cooperation between its components, this already existing structure can easily be applied in the political environment.
Most notably, climate change and the growing global socioeconomic inequalities are issues that show the pressing need for systemic change in how the world is governed. The existing actors in domestic and global governance have not yet managed to solve this dilemma. At the same time, the main question that drives EA's philosophy is how to optimize the available resources to help others most effectively. I would argue that the answer to the latter could also solve the former. The involvement of EA in global and local governance would hence be highly positive for the overall society.
I list here some practical steps that could be taken to translate the words written in this post into actions:
All in all, complex problems cannot have simple solutions. But, that’s not a valid reason for not trying to solve them.
What do you think of the Carrick Flynn campaign? This seems to be a case of "EA in politics". Would you like to see more attempts like this?
Thank you for your comment!
I agree that Carrick Flynn represents a case of “EA in politics.” Although it was not a success story, I don’t think this should be considered evidence of the necessary failure of future efforts related to “EA in politics.” I would rather analyze it as a case study. Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of his attempt might prove useful to improve the next ones. It must also be noted that the events took place in the US, whose political arena (scale, rules, campaigns) differs from other countries’ systems (e.g.: European). Moreover, I understand the main reason for his failure to be the link with Bankman-Fried’s funding and the subsequent mediatic scandal about the possible conflict of interests and eventual lack of transparency. This aspect relates to this specific event and does not extend to all other attempts of direct political involvement carried out by EAs. In general, I think transparency, especially regarding finances, is of utmost importance in representative roles and political campaigns, be it associated with EA or not. A valuable lesson that we can learn from Flynn’s case is the necessity to be very careful and straightforward in differentiating the individual candidate from the overall EA community. The decisions of a single person do not represent the “will of the movement” – which does not exist because EA is not a political actor itself. EA is a network of people. A candidate that supports EA values is part of this network but does not represent it.
About the second question, I firmly believe that one single instance is not representative enough. For an accurate judgment about the effectiveness and potential success of this path, we need to gather sufficient data. Thus, more attempts at EAs' direct political engagement are required.
In the end, practice won’t make us perfect, but for sure more effective, experienced, and improved.