Actually, Voter Shaming Doesn’t Work
jacobin.com
Voter shaming has never been an effective tactic, but the fact that it’s being discussed as one by the likes of Pod Save America’s hosts speaks to the increasingly post-democratic sentiments that have become common among elite liberals.

In the political cosmology of something that calls itself the “Democratic Party,” it is now a widespread belief that support is owed from below rather than earned from above. Instead of building popular coalitions by seeking to represent the hopes, dreams, and interests of a democratic majority, a posture of absolute, uncritical deference toward elite politicians is presumed to be axiomatic — even when an election is still well over a year away.

I shared this on a different instance some months ago, but with this new instance open it might find a different reception.

  • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠
    61·
    9 months ago

    Excellent article and I’ll be looking out for other pieces from Savage in the future. It’s right to the fucking point, too, with no extra fluff.

    you vote for Cornel West, you’re helping Trump become president. That’s it. And you can say “Oh well it’s Joe Biden’s fault . . .” No, no, it’s your decision. You get to decide whether you want to help Donald Trump become president or you don’t.

    There’s so much wrong to unpack with this quote from the podcast.

    First, yeah, it is Biden’s fault, for not being a better candidate. I don’t hold his age or speech impediment against him, but hells yeah his racism is a turnoff.

    Second, failing to provide a barrier between the man and the White House isn’t the same as helping him get there. That’s blatant manipulation, an attempt to paint principled voters (and non-voters) as guilty of someone else’s crime.

    And most repugnant is the final line of the quote. “You decide if you want to help…” Yeah, well, I’m decided not to help any racists get to the Oval Office, thanks. I don’t vote for evil, lesser or greater. I couldn’t live with responsibility for putting Biden there any more than his predecessor. If you want a vote, you’ve got to be better than just the least-bad candidate, you’ve got to actually be a good one, or at the very least one who might be good if I’m feeling like a gamble.

    According to the United States Election Project, more than 40 percent of eligible voters didn’t vote at all in 2016 — a figure that completely dwarfs the less than 6 percent who backed a third party.

    Savage already talked about the failure to persuade voters to vote for a Democrat rather than just against a Republican. But I just want to highlight the bareassed ridiculousness of thinking that voters who have and voted for a preferred candidate are a better target for propaganda than voters who saw nothing they wanted and stayed home. Who’s more likely to buy a cold drink on a hot day, someone with a water bottle in her hand or someone without?

    And the reason for this ridiculousness is that the attempts to castigate third-party voters and abstainees are based in tribalism, not in a genuine attempt to seek converts. It’s an abandonment of rational self-interest in favor of creating an outgroup to scapegoat for election losses.