this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
1889 points (90.1% liked)

Political Memes

5506 readers
2060 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1889
Way to go, guys! (lemmy.world)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
981 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He was a 90 something year old black man when he wrote this piece in 1956. Compared to the things he lived through earlier in his life, the stakes in 56 were a little less urgent. Likewise the stakes he lived through in 56 weren't as urgent as the stakes this year.

He also wrote it in the hopes that voter apathy would send a message. He was right... but not how he hoped. It sent a message that spreading voter apathy was a better tactic than changing policy. Again, there's a reason why this piece is trotted out every four years.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

He also wrote it in the hopes that voter apathy would send a message. He was right... but not how he hoped.

I’d be interested to read more about how he intended it differently, if you have it available.

Edit: I can’t find where he regretted it. You didn’t just make that up, did you?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I didn't say he regretted anything, just that unscrupulous people seized on the perceived theme of apathy and have tried to weaponize it ever since.

Edit: from this op-ed

W.E.B Du Bois (1868-1963) was an African American civil rights activist, sociologist and philosopher. He developed a theory of how one should vote tactically. Crucially, Du Bois did not equate voting tactically with voting for the lesser of two evils. In his essay I won't vote (1956), Du Bois outlines his general strategy for how to cast your vote. You should:

  • Research who best represents your interests. Go with the candidate, not necessarily with the party (in Du Bois' case, he looked at the extent to which a candidate was willing to help the cause of African Americans)
  • If none of the main candidates represents your interests, you should vote "for a third party even when its chances [are] hopeless."
  • "If the main parties were unsatisfactory; or, in absence of a third choice, [you should be] voting for the lesser of two evils."
  • If there is no third choice, and you are deeply dissatisfied with the candidates on offer, it is acceptable not to vote. This was controversial, especially given Du Bois' earlier insistence on tactical voting. Yet, Du Bois believed this could send a strong signal "It is hope that if twenty-five million voters refrain from voting in 1956 because of their own accord…this might make the American people ask how much longer this dumb farce can proceed without even a whimper of protest."

So Du Bois' understanding of tactical voting is much richer than merely voting for the lesser of two evils (although he did think it was sometimes necessary, see (3)). You don't always vote to change the outcome. You may also wish to vote — especially in a safe seat — to give a signal. Refraining from voting also sends a signal, but needs to be done only in extreme cases where you have not a single acceptable candidate and all candidates are equally bad.