My personal politics

Craig Newmark wrote a fairly cryptic post describing his politics, which seemed almost defensive. It made me want to come back to mine, and maybe be a little less cryptic about it.

I’ve said before that my professional mission is to work on projects that have the potential to make the world more informed and equal. That connects pretty directly to what I want to see from the world, but I think I’m maybe missing an adjective and a clause.

Here’s what I mean:

Equal is hopefully obvious. Nobody should be left behind. Nobody should be successful at the expense of anybody else. Everyone has the right to live a good life, regardless of their geography, context, or background. In practice, that means I’m in favor of things like universal healthcare (which I loved when I lived in Europe and miss every day), public schools, public transit, and other common infrastructure that ensures that someone from a vulnerable background has the same opportunities as someone from a prosperous background.

I’m in favor of affirmative action and DEI policies. I think free markets only make sense when there are controls to prevent large entities from tipping the scales, and free speech only makes sense when we take steps to make sure vulnerable voices can be heard over the din of the majority. I believe in taking action on the climate crisis, which will disproportionately affect vulnerable people. We should have broad religious tolerance, including for people with no religion. I genuinely hate both patriotism and nationalism, which promote interest in and appreciation for one country over another. I can’t stand American exceptionalism, or any country’s exceptionalism. I’m proud to be human.

Informed is important because I believe deeply in democracy, which in turn is only effective if you have an informed voting population. People need to know what’s happening in the world around them in order to make smarter choices; they need context and nuance. A world where, for example, everyone gets their information from a small number of platforms that are in turn controlled by very powerful people with a vested interest in adjusting the narrative is undemocratic.

So I’m in favor of a free press, decentralized platforms, and free public education at every level, for example.

Here’s the missing adjective:

Empowered means people can act on the information they have. They can vote in free and fair elections. And they have rights to individual expression and identity: you can have an equal society that is under relatively authoritarian rule, and that’s not what I want at all. I want a world where people can be who they are with impunity, and they have a strong say over how they are governed and the world around them is run. This dovetails with my equal principle in the sense that without an equity and inclusion, the majority will be disproportionately empowered and vulnerable groups will effectively be disempowered. We need to take steps to make sure that people are effectively rather than just technically empowered. And by making sure people are informed, we’re enforcing evidence-driven, grounded decision-making.

And here’s the missing clause:

With a bias towards action. It’s not enough to have the right principles. God knows people can subject each other to purity tests and argue about their values until the cows come home, without actually making change. We need to make change. We need to do stuff. That means making pragmatic decisions, knowing everything can always be iterated on and improved.

So in total:

I believe in working towards an equal, informed world where everyone can live a good life and is empowered to make decisions about their lives, with a bias towards pragmatic action.

And that principle governs my political decisions, my professional decisions, and how I try to live my life. I’m not perfect, this is not perfect, but I think it’s a decent north star.