Effective altruism and political power

Impact concerns notwithstanding, there are some practical constraints: Elon Musk and Sergey Brin are naturalized US Citizens, which makes them ineligible to serve as US President.

At a Singularity Summit I asked Peter Thiel if he would consider running for the U.S. Senate. He said no.

Peter Thiel - unlikely candidate due to his libertarian and more fringe views. Doesn't appear to have the type of personality or media presence that a president needs.

Musk is interesting because he already has a strong following and that vague 'charisma' factor. I don't know much about his political views other than pro-space.

I'm somewhat doubtful that 'becoming president' is a straight forward strategy for maximizing impact. Winning a presidential election is very difficult. Winning and also having a high impact presidency is even more difficult.

In general it's arguable to what extent presidents are leaders vs figureheads that the true powers rally behind.

Elon Musk & Sergey Brin are atheists. Most (but not all) sane people are [EDIT: I probably should have said: most highly rational and highly effective people are atheist/agnostic]. 50% of the US will not vote for an atheist. A large proportion of the population think that hedge fund managers are evil, either because (a) they get paid too much or (b) they think markets work by forcing people to buy/sell things.

I don't mean to just shoot down your idea, but... I just don't think its going to happen in a democratic system without raising the sanity waterline a lot.

Knowing how to build a sucessful tech start-up and how to be a good president are two incredibly different skill sets. All of them are smart people so will have some much more interesting and thoughtful comments than the average bear but more interesting and thoughtful is a long ways off from saying most interesting and thoughtful. I also find it surprising that you left Bill Gates off because he seems to have the most relevant knowledge. Candidates have to slowly build respect and support within a major party over several years before they can have a shot at president. Politicians are by their nature safe and careful individuals when it comes to campaigns. There are a lot of ways to lose and only a few to win.

I think lobbying for particular high-impact, neglected issues is likely to be a better path. Or else try to educate the general population and hope that politicians will follow... game theory suggests that politicians who optimize more for common opinions win more often.

Most of these people would not want the constraints and demands imposed by holding the POTUS office (or even VP). It's a full-time bureaucratic and diplomatic job, though VP is less so. Maybe advising through the OSTP?

If GH from my party keeps his word, I'll be balls deep in policy work that I can orient to EA aims. I just have to remember to follow up with him in a handful of days if he forgets, but this is my only reminder to myself. I was on a political party's party's economics and attorney general's policy committee and find policy making and governance boring as hell. I even did a temp role advising a shadow minister but basically stopped showing up to work after a few days when the thrill of meeting politicians and lobbyist came to an end and the inane admin work began. Everyone at the office was too busy to ever action anything or communicate with me after I just didn't rock up. It was surreal. Accumulating power in modern demoracies with good anti-corruption mechanisms has little private gain unless your insanely hungry for validation. Real power comes from wealth. I don't even put political stuff on my resume.

would any of the big names in tech have a chance at being elected president of the US?

No.

As far as maximizing altruistic impact goes, would it be a good idea for them to become president? ... Do these people care about maximizing altruistic impact?

The impact of what? The whole of the US policy? That's an unrealistic goal. Besides, I don't know if any of them is particularly altruistic. They have lots of money which means that giving away large (in absolute terms) chunks of it leads to zero marginal impact on their life, but that's a different thing.

I also find it... ironic that Bill Gates is missing from your list.

What other "sane" people have enough reputation in the public eye to have a chance at acquiring a lot of political power?

You're thinking technocracy and that's not necessarily a good idea. What you want above all in a political leader is that his value system be aligned to yours. If it is not, the fact that he is effective at reaching his goals becomes a threat, not a benefit.

It is also the case that the US political process is set up to filter away the sane people. Would anyone sane really want a team of competent and malicious lawyers and investigators to go through his entire life with a fine-toothed comb looking for any dirt (or for what can be made to look like it)?

P.S. You should distinguish between actually running for Presidency and "let's pretend I'm running for President because it will be fun and I'm an attention whore, anyway".

What does EA have to say about acquiring political power?

CEA just started the Global Priorities Project which does political lobbying. They already successfully got an amendment into a bill.

Peter Thiel?

It's difficult to estimate the amount of political power that Thiel has. Thiel does sit in the Bilderberg Steering Committee. Palantirs CEO is also a member.

this was an unhelpful comment, removed and replaced by this comment