Response to Rehman and Quirante: Calls to disengage from electoral politics epitomize privilege
Many Americans work hard within our electoral system to shape our country in a positive way. Dismissing their efforts minimizes them and in doing so demonstrates troublesome entitlement. Activism requires a certain amount of time, effort and privilege to work. Not everyone has the resources to engage in activism, but voting is a right, not a privilege, that we must promote.
In the Nov. 7 issue of the Thresher, titled “Tactics of voter suppression and disenfranchisement keep working-class citizens from engaging in electoral politics.” This is certainly true, but we contend that disengaging from or de-emphasizing the merits of the electoral system will not fix these issues. Disengaging only exacerbates the lack of representation of the progressive and marginalized. If we want politicians to take progressive stances, we need to vote for progressive politicians. Problematizing voting doesn’t make you woke; it plays into a conservative strategy by reinforcing the notion that voting is complex, unfair, imperfect and, ultimately, best left up to older, whiter populations.
When you claim that voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering make electoral politics an ineffective method to promote change, you ignore how electoral politics can resolve these problems. In Michigan, Missouri and Colorado, voters overwhelmingly passed ballot initiatives this November to end gerrymandering. Attending a protest or pontificating at a social hour can’t end gerrymandering. Only voting can. Your advocacy not only comes from a position of privilege, it also forecloses the possibility of undoing historic systems of violence.
Engaging in grassroots activism typically requires a high level of privilege. Voting alone is often difficult for the working class, parents, the elderly, people with disabilities, immigrants and others, as Rehman and Quirante note. Voting requires transportation, information and time. If someone doesn’t have the means to exercise their federally protected right to vote, how would activism be more accessible? If people can afford to be politically active only once a year, we would much rather they turn out to the polls than a protest.
Fundamentally, as important as activism is, there is nothing about it that binds politicians to the public’s demands. Writing letters, protesting or engaging in other forms of activism requests a response from politicians, but voting shifts the power to the citizenry. Democracy is a government of the people, but only of those who vote. Voting is a profoundly powerful political act. If you feel like you aren’t being listened to, vote for politicians who will listen. If you feel like the system is stacked against you, vote to change it. By all means, be an activist. It’s an important part of the political process. March, go to protests, write op-eds for your college’s paper. But whatever else you do, voting should be your priority. Don’t give up on a system just because it isn’t perfect.
More from The Rice Thresher
On May 25, Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd. Chauvin, a Minnesota police officer, pressed his knee against Floyd’s neck for almost nine minutes while Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down on the ground. Floyd did not merely “die in police custody” as the Washington Post and other publications continue to insist on phrasing it. As Floyd pleaded that he couldn’t breathe, a police officer killed him. Active voice.
In the midst of a global pandemic, Betsy DeVos, the United States Secretary of Education, announced new Title IX regulations that govern how schools handle allegations of sexual assault and harrassment. Under the guise of restoring due process, the changes harm and undermine survivors by enhancing protections for those accused of misconduct.
The COVID-19 pandemic seems to have given rise to a new phrase that has been thrown around by media outlets and social media users across the country: “We are all in this together.” Don’t get me wrong — I am not denying the fact that every person in this country has been impacted by the virus in some capacity, and I am certainly not denying the rise in local expressions of solidarity. Over the past couple months, we’ve seen students and volunteers across the country donate their time and resources to help their neighbors. Young people have come together on social media platforms to address issues surrounding mental health and online learning, creating a sense of community while also practicing social distancing. I am not denying the presence of solidarity. What I would like to discuss, however, is the fallacy of solidarity in a racialized society.