I appreciate this analysis, especially as someone considering donating and who falls in the target audience in some ways, and at an opportune / time-sensitive moment.
That said, my gut reaction is that reading this analysis and then holding off on donating to a candidate you like because of these considerations feels… kinda democrat-coded, in a negative way.
It reminded me of this post by Richard Hanania. Of course, Hanania himself is a pretty controversial figure, and could probably not get an appointment in an administration of any political stripe at this point. But he has an influence and reach on the right that is the envy of many, and which has translated to direct impact on policy. Many of his takes are also well-regarded by more left-leaning / centrist public intellectuals and writers (though probably not so much among mainstream elected democrats), especially lately since he has become more anti-Trump.
Anyway, donating to a political candidate is much more tame / low-stakes than anything Hanania posts on Twitter or Substack. So, if you’re interested in politics or policy work (even in a narrow / relatively non-partisan way) and are impressed by what Hanania has accomplished, consider reversing the advice in this post—make whatever donations you want, lean into any controversy / trouble it brings, and don’t be afraid to wear and defend your honestly-held views because of PR / career considerations.
Or, turning it around: if you find that one day you’re an elected official (or staffer / advisor in the PPO) tasked with screening and vetting potential political appointees or otherwise making these kinds of hiring decisions, consider whether taking someone’s past political donations into account is giving in to a culture of lameness and cowardice and femininity, at least in the eyes of Richard Hanania and his fans.
[edit: Not sure if it’s the source of the downvotes / solider mindset react, but to clarify, the last paragraph is the advice I would give to a Trump staffer or hypothetical Vance staffer in the PPO who is considering whether to filter out someone for a political appointment because of past political donations, couched in terms and language (from the Hanania post) that might appeal to them.]
Is the idea that Hanania is evidence that being very public about your contrarian opinions is helpful for policy influence? If so, that seems wrong:
As you said, Hanania would almost surely not get appointed to an actual position by either administration.
To the extent that he has influence/reach on the right, I doubt he has more influence/reach because he pivoted to strong criticisms of Trump and the MAGA-sphere. I would rather guess that this pivot has been really costly to his influence on the right, and if he had self-censored, he’d be more influential.
Also, even if this were the case, it seems unreliable to update more on the evidence from one unusual individual than the many cases (as noted in this post) of people losing out on jobs because of their donations and publicly expressed opinions.
That’s not to say that nobody should be doing the loud contrarian approach; the world would be worse if everyone were self-censoring to the degree incentivized by DC policy careers. But I think people should be clear-eyed about the costs and benefits.
Is the idea that Hanania is evidence that being very public about your contrarian opinions is helpful for policy influence?
No. I’m more saying that the act of carefully weighing up career capital / PR considerations, and then not donating to a democrat based on a cost-benefit analysis of those considerations, feels to me like very stereotypical democrat / blue-tribe behavior.
And further, that some people could have a visceral negative reaction to that kind of PR sensitivity more so than the donations themselves. The Hanania post is an example of the flavor of that kind of negative reaction (though it’s not exactly the same thing, I admit).
Separately, I’m not advising people to follow in Hanania’s footsteps in terms of deliberately being contrarian and courting controversy, but he is a good example of “not caring about PR / self-censoring at all” and still doing well.
I would rather guess that this pivot has been really costly to his influence on the right, and if he had self-censored, he’d be more influential.
Sure, but if he were the kind of person who would do that, he probably would not have gotten as popular as he is in the first place.
No. I’m more saying that the act of carefully weighing up career capital / PR considerations, and then not donating to a democrat based on a cost-benefit analysis of those considerations, feels to me like very stereotypical democrat / blue-tribe behavior.
Strongly disagree with the implication that Republicans/conservatives don’t carefully weigh up career capital and PR considerations when making decisions like this! The vast majority of elected Republicans and even more of their staff are comparably strategic in this regard as their Democratic counterparts. Of course, the exceptions are much higher-profile, which I think could be leading to an availability bias. (Again, notably Hanania is not employed in the government.)
And further, that some people could have a visceral negative reaction to that kind of PR sensitivity more so than the donations themselves.
“Some people,” sure. Federal government hiring managers? No.
Sure, but if he were the kind of person who would do that, he probably would not have gotten as popular as he is in the first place.
I mean, depends on if your goal is serving in the government or becoming a widely read Substacker.
And even then I’m not sure it’s true; many, many media figures with huge followings on both sides of the aisle are hardcore partisans. See for example (most of) the hosting lineups of MSNBC and Fox. LessWrong is an extreme outlier in how much readers intentionally consume heterodox and disagreeable content; the vast majority of political media consumers trust and prefer to listen to their co-partisans.
I agree / believe you that it’s common for Republican staffers to have refrained from ever donating to a Democratic cause, and that this is often more of a strategic decision than a completely uniform / unwavering opposition to every Democrat everywhere.
I still think that the precise kind of optics considerations described and recommended in this post (and other EA-ish circles) are subtly but importantly different from what those staffers are doing. And that this difference is viscerally perceptible to some “red tribe”-coded people, but something of a blind spot for traditionally blue-tribe coded people, including many EAs.
I’m not really making any strong claims about what the distribution / level of caring about all this is likely to be among people with hiring authority in a red tribe administration. Hanania was probably a bad example for me to pick for that kind of question, but I do think he is an exemplar of some aspects of “red tribe” culture that are at a zenith right now, and understanding that is important if you actually want to have a realistic chance at a succeeding in a high-profile / appointee position in a red tribe administration. But none of this is really in tension with also just not donating to democrats if that’s you’re aspiration, so I’m not really strongly dis-recommending the advice in this post or anything.
Another way of putting things: I suspect that “refrained from donating to a democrat I would have otherwise supported because I read a LW / EAF about optics” is anti-correlated with a person’s chances of actually working in a Republican administration in a high-profile capacity. But I’m not particularly confident that that’s actually true in real life [edit: and not confident that the effect is causal rather than evidential], and especially not confident that the effect is large vs. the first order effect of just quietly taking the advice in the post. I am more confident that being blind to the red-tribe cultural things I gestured at is going to be pretty strongly anti-correlated, though.
I still think that the precise kind of optics considerations described and recommended in this post (and other EA-ish circles) are subtly but importantly different from what those staffers are doing.
It’s true that LessWrong readers would be doing a subtly but importantly different thing from what the staffers are doing. But the way that it’s different is that Congressional staffers, of all political persuasions, are much more intuitively and automatically doing these kinds of considerations because they’re pursuing careers in policy and politics in DC, whereas LessWrong readers tend to be technical people largely in the Bay Area who might someday later consider a career in policy and politics, and therefore they need to have these considerations explicitly laid out, as would anyone who’s considering a career pivot into an industry with very different norms.
I appreciate this analysis, especially as someone considering donating and who falls in the target audience in some ways, and at an opportune / time-sensitive moment.
That said, my gut reaction is that reading this analysis and then holding off on donating to a candidate you like because of these considerations feels… kinda democrat-coded, in a negative way.
It reminded me of this post by Richard Hanania. Of course, Hanania himself is a pretty controversial figure, and could probably not get an appointment in an administration of any political stripe at this point. But he has an influence and reach on the right that is the envy of many, and which has translated to direct impact on policy. Many of his takes are also well-regarded by more left-leaning / centrist public intellectuals and writers (though probably not so much among mainstream elected democrats), especially lately since he has become more anti-Trump.
Anyway, donating to a political candidate is much more tame / low-stakes than anything Hanania posts on Twitter or Substack. So, if you’re interested in politics or policy work (even in a narrow / relatively non-partisan way) and are impressed by what Hanania has accomplished, consider reversing the advice in this post—make whatever donations you want, lean into any controversy / trouble it brings, and don’t be afraid to wear and defend your honestly-held views because of PR / career considerations.
Or, turning it around: if you find that one day you’re an elected official (or staffer / advisor in the PPO) tasked with screening and vetting potential political appointees or otherwise making these kinds of hiring decisions, consider whether taking someone’s past political donations into account is giving in to a culture of lameness and cowardice and femininity, at least in the eyes of Richard Hanania and his fans.
[edit: Not sure if it’s the source of the downvotes / solider mindset react, but to clarify, the last paragraph is the advice I would give to a Trump staffer or hypothetical Vance staffer in the PPO who is considering whether to filter out someone for a political appointment because of past political donations, couched in terms and language (from the Hanania post) that might appeal to them.]
Is the idea that Hanania is evidence that being very public about your contrarian opinions is helpful for policy influence? If so, that seems wrong:
As you said, Hanania would almost surely not get appointed to an actual position by either administration.
To the extent that he has influence/reach on the right, I doubt he has more influence/reach because he pivoted to strong criticisms of Trump and the MAGA-sphere. I would rather guess that this pivot has been really costly to his influence on the right, and if he had self-censored, he’d be more influential.
Also, even if this were the case, it seems unreliable to update more on the evidence from one unusual individual than the many cases (as noted in this post) of people losing out on jobs because of their donations and publicly expressed opinions.
That’s not to say that nobody should be doing the loud contrarian approach; the world would be worse if everyone were self-censoring to the degree incentivized by DC policy careers. But I think people should be clear-eyed about the costs and benefits.
No. I’m more saying that the act of carefully weighing up career capital / PR considerations, and then not donating to a democrat based on a cost-benefit analysis of those considerations, feels to me like very stereotypical democrat / blue-tribe behavior.
And further, that some people could have a visceral negative reaction to that kind of PR sensitivity more so than the donations themselves. The Hanania post is an example of the flavor of that kind of negative reaction (though it’s not exactly the same thing, I admit).
Separately, I’m not advising people to follow in Hanania’s footsteps in terms of deliberately being contrarian and courting controversy, but he is a good example of “not caring about PR / self-censoring at all” and still doing well.
Sure, but if he were the kind of person who would do that, he probably would not have gotten as popular as he is in the first place.
Strongly disagree with the implication that Republicans/conservatives don’t carefully weigh up career capital and PR considerations when making decisions like this! The vast majority of elected Republicans and even more of their staff are comparably strategic in this regard as their Democratic counterparts. Of course, the exceptions are much higher-profile, which I think could be leading to an availability bias. (Again, notably Hanania is not employed in the government.)
“Some people,” sure. Federal government hiring managers? No.
I mean, depends on if your goal is serving in the government or becoming a widely read Substacker.
And even then I’m not sure it’s true; many, many media figures with huge followings on both sides of the aisle are hardcore partisans. See for example (most of) the hosting lineups of MSNBC and Fox. LessWrong is an extreme outlier in how much readers intentionally consume heterodox and disagreeable content; the vast majority of political media consumers trust and prefer to listen to their co-partisans.
I agree / believe you that it’s common for Republican staffers to have refrained from ever donating to a Democratic cause, and that this is often more of a strategic decision than a completely uniform / unwavering opposition to every Democrat everywhere.
I still think that the precise kind of optics considerations described and recommended in this post (and other EA-ish circles) are subtly but importantly different from what those staffers are doing. And that this difference is viscerally perceptible to some “red tribe”-coded people, but something of a blind spot for traditionally blue-tribe coded people, including many EAs.
I’m not really making any strong claims about what the distribution / level of caring about all this is likely to be among people with hiring authority in a red tribe administration. Hanania was probably a bad example for me to pick for that kind of question, but I do think he is an exemplar of some aspects of “red tribe” culture that are at a zenith right now, and understanding that is important if you actually want to have a realistic chance at a succeeding in a high-profile / appointee position in a red tribe administration. But none of this is really in tension with also just not donating to democrats if that’s you’re aspiration, so I’m not really strongly dis-recommending the advice in this post or anything.
Another way of putting things: I suspect that “refrained from donating to a democrat I would have otherwise supported because I read a LW / EAF about optics” is anti-correlated with a person’s chances of actually working in a Republican administration in a high-profile capacity. But I’m not particularly confident that that’s actually true in real life [edit: and not confident that the effect is causal rather than evidential], and especially not confident that the effect is large vs. the first order effect of just quietly taking the advice in the post. I am more confident that being blind to the red-tribe cultural things I gestured at is going to be pretty strongly anti-correlated, though.
It’s true that LessWrong readers would be doing a subtly but importantly different thing from what the staffers are doing. But the way that it’s different is that Congressional staffers, of all political persuasions, are much more intuitively and automatically doing these kinds of considerations because they’re pursuing careers in policy and politics in DC, whereas LessWrong readers tend to be technical people largely in the Bay Area who might someday later consider a career in policy and politics, and therefore they need to have these considerations explicitly laid out, as would anyone who’s considering a career pivot into an industry with very different norms.
Re your last paragraph: as the post notes, it is illegal to discriminate based on political donations when hiring for civil service roles.
EDIT: Readers of this thread should bear in mind that Max H is not Max Harms! I was confused about this.