Theater

When a political coalition stalls trying to find the most in-character way to accomplish something instead of pursuing a path based on its own foundational goals, I call that “alignment theater”. Similar in effect to purity testing, but more divisive and evenly split. In contrast, principled alignment holds outcomes higher than labels.

The purity spiral

When I attended a Progressive Mass potluck this past weekend, I heard folks talk about a few ways smaller organizations have dissolved while trying to figure out the most “progressive” path toward their goals.

In one example, someone was part of a group that was torn between YIMBY pro-housing advocates and anti-megacorp voices. It’s an interesting problem with a carousel of compromises:

  • Housing shortages drive cost-of-living up
  • NIMBYism chokes supply
  • YIMBYism opposes NIMBYism on the grounds that higher supply ought to drive prices down
  • YIMBYism can create a smokescreen for deregulation of developers
  • Developers then have carte blanche to build anything from dumpster-tier cardboard boxes to luxury apartments that further drive cost-of-living up

It’s a subject with deeper trade-offs and motivations for either side the deeper you delve into it, and it’s just one example.

The costs of factionalism

When signal beats substance, movements splinter. The aforementioned conflict led to the dissolution (or close to it) of the Newton chapter of Progressive Mass. Newton now has several environmental organizations and a national-facing outreach group, but this leaves a vacuum in the state-scoped activist space. That seems like a big miss; Newton is home to many people who are well-connected and politically involved. Progressives are missing out on a city’s worth of opportunity due to misalignment on a key issue.

Substance over signal

I can’t claim that I would have had the panacea to any one coalition’s internal ruptures if I were in their shoes; it’s a tough needle to thread to be sure. That said, one of the pitfalls of conservatism that lost me (as a former one) is the appeal to loyalty, i.e. the words and stances that signal “I’m one of you and I know the party lines.” Though I think it’s a more significant factor in those circles, nobody is immune to it. If progressives are tripping over themselves in the same way, it’s just as important to address.

Here’s how I would try to tackle it if I held the reins:

  • Start every strategy discussion with: What principle are we trying to uphold here? (e.g., affordability, climate impact, transparency).
  • Rank proposals by their effectiveness in advancing the stated outcome, not by how “pure” they sound.
  • Encourage factions to call out alignment theater without it being betrayal. Acknowledge when a move is just signaling and redirect back to principle.
  • Agree in advance on what success looks like.
  • Occasionally revisit the group tenets to ensure they continue to align with practical outcomes.

A group escapes alignment theater when they stop asking, “What’s the most progressive way?” and start asking, “What best advances the principle we all share?”