Scott argues that Trump supporters and conservative-aligned people who push back on bad administration policies should be supported rather than pressured to publicly denounce Trump, as they're often the only ones who can effectively prevent worse outcomes. Longer summary

Scott argues that Trump administration officials who maintain credibility with the administration while pushing back on bad policies are a valuable resource that should be supported rather than condemned. He explains how the Trump administration ignores liberal criticism but sometimes listens to loyal Republicans and Trump supporters, making these 'thoughtful collaborators' crucial for preventing worse outcomes. The post defends people who work within conservative institutions or refrain from publicly denouncing Trump while privately working to improve policy, arguing that demanding they explicitly condemn the administration would eliminate their effectiveness. Scott addresses concerns about collaboration legitimizing the administration by noting that voters are too uninformed and polarized for policy details to significantly affect political outcomes, making the real-world benefits of good policy more important than theoretical electoral effects. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander compares political spending to the almond industry, revealing surprisingly low amounts in politics due to coordination problems. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the surprisingly low amount of money in politics compared to other industries, using the almond industry as a benchmark. He notes that all US spending on candidates, PACs, lobbying, think tanks, and advocacy organizations combined is less than the annual revenue of the almond industry. The post examines various sectors of political spending and media properties, highlighting their relatively low monetary value. Scott discusses three reasons why this is surprising: ordinary people's political engagement, wealthy individuals' interests, and corporate influence post-Citizens United. He considers potential explanations, including Ansolabehere's argument about the ineffectiveness of political spending, but ultimately suggests that coordination problems are the main factor preventing more money from entering politics. The post concludes by drawing a parallel between political spending and charitable giving, arguing that the same coordination problems affect both areas. Shorter summary