The Case for Being Nonpartisan

Modern politics often turns moral issues into tribal contests. Crucial debates about what we should value and how we should act quickly devolve from truth-seeking to status-defending, as ideas and causes become signals of identity and allegiance.

If we hope to reduce suffering, this pattern is dangerous. When a cause gets caught up in a political culture war, it invites backlash and shrinks the coalition of people willing to help. For that reason, there is great value in being nonpartisan in our efforts to reduce suffering. By nonpartisan, I don’t mean unprincipled, centrist, or reluctant to take strong stances. Rather, I mean not identifying with a pre-defined political tribe, like the Red or Blue (or Grey) tribe. Resisting the tribal logic of modern politics is difficult but important: it helps to keep the movement to reduce suffering healthy—with norms of cooperation and open inquiry—and focused.

The Dangers of Tribal Politics

We have seen how easily good ideas can become associated with a particular political tribe. Recently, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called out effective altruism in a post on X, decrying the “sanctimonious rhetoric” of this “Silicon Valley ideology.” Not long after that, White House AI Czar David Sacks reposted an article portraying effective altruism as a left-wing movement using AI safety as a Trojan horse for censoring conservatives.

The message is clear: effective altruism is them, not us. It is not a reasonable set of ideas that anyone can engage with, even in disagreement, but rather the outlook of a rival tribe that’s fundamentally opposed to you and your values.

This kind of framing pulls issues out of the realm of reason and cooperation and into the realm of emotion and rivalry. We should work hard to prevent this slide. Arguably, several causes associated with effective altruism—such as improving animal welfare and mitigating climate change—have already become excessively politicized.

Making suffering reduction a tribal issue would be especially tragic. Across the political spectrum, people recognize the importance of protecting the vulnerable, preventing cruelty, responding to disasters, and avoiding catastrophes. Even those who do not embrace a strongly suffering-focused ethic often accept weaker principles, such as reducing severe suffering when it can be done at low cost.

That common ground is enormously valuable. If a suffering-reduction movement comes to appear threatening to particular political coalitions, many people who share the underlying moral impulse will simply disengage. But this is not the only risk. Politicizing suffering reduction along party lines also feeds the broader dynamics of polarization and tribal hostility. These dynamics erode trust, undermine cooperation, and increase the risk of conflict—itself one of the most powerful drivers of suffering. In a world already facing serious dangers, from geopolitical tensions to technological disruption, we should be lowering the temperature, not raising it.

A Nonpartisan Movement

What would a nonpartisan movement aimed at reducing suffering look like?

Above all, it should be inclusive and cooperative. Reducing suffering at scale requires participation from many different people, institutions, and traditions; no single ideology or political camp can accomplish it alone. The aim should be to invite as many people as possible into the movement while avoiding unnecessary alienation. This not only brings more resources and support into the effort but also enables win-win moral trade with others, allowing groups with different values to secure more of what they care about than they would through conflict.

Such a movement would therefore welcome those who disagree in good faith about politics. It would encourage tolerance and open dialogue, even with those whose views we consider deeply mistaken. This approach has limits—there are some views we should not tolerate. Fanatics bent on domination or revenge come to mind. In general however, we should engage with others and seek shared ground and compromise where possible.

To support this aim, the movement may do best to avoid highly polarizing framings. Grand narratives that revolve around, say, the evils of capitalism or the defilement of nature may energize some audiences but will alienate others. The same is true of more right-coded narratives about civilizational collapse, or moral decay.

In addition to alienating potential allies, overemphasizing such narratives risks distracting the movement from its central purpose. When a cause becomes entangled with sweeping political narratives, there is a danger that participants begin pursuing those ideological battles for their own sake, rather than keeping their attention fixed on the aim of reducing suffering.

Finally, such a movement would resist status politics. The goal of a movement aimed at reducing suffering is not to signal moral superiority or humiliate ideological opponents. Rather, it is to reduce the amount of agony in the world. Signaling moral superiority can distract from the ultimate aim, and it can easily backfire. People may perceive it as a threat to their status and respond with defensiveness or resentment.

Conclusion

Being nonpartisan does not require sacrificing ambition or moral clarity. One can argue strongly for the urgency of reducing suffering while still working to cooperate across political divides and avoid inflaming hostility. After all, many of the core aims of this movement are widely shared. It may be tempting to draw partisan battle lines and fall into familiar political camps, but doing so risks turning this crucial project into just another tribal contest. That temptation should be resisted, and the focus kept firmly on the central task: reducing suffering wherever it occurs.