The Montgomery bus boycott didn’t start with sitting out. It started with Rosa Parks sitting in.
Not to mention the easily understood fact that an economic boycott - one which causes direct material consequences - has absolutely no relation to some sort of “political boycott”, which causes zero consequences against anyone in power.
Hell democracy is measured by political votes, a nation with low voter turn out are considered non democratic.
Yes? Congratulations, you are therefore contributing to our continued democratic decline.
This same argument can be used with electoral protest. It would be disingenuous to say none voting in protest materialised from nothing.
Yes? Congratulations, you are therefore contributing to our continued democratic decline.
I don’t see your point. If people aren’t voting then that is a symptom and not a cause. I think also a nuanced lens helps with this. People not voting isn’t binary. some knowingly protest, some are seeing the slow encroachment of inequality and just couldn’t care less which leader will continue to fuck them over.
Not voting is absolutely both a symptom and a cause. How do you think we got here, if not by voting for the people who won the elections for the past century, and by not voting for the people who lost the elections?
This is not a good counterexample. A boycott has immediate financial consequences for the boycotted company/industry. No such pressure is generated by sitting out an election.
In fact, a central strategy of the right wing in the United States is to reduce overall voter turnout, which is achieved either by restricting access to voting or by discouraging voter participation. By sitting out the vote you did exactly what the right wing wanted you to do.
Sitting out has definitely been a form of protest. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_bus_boycott
Hell democracy is measured by political votes, a nation with low voter turn out are considered non democratic.
The Montgomery bus boycott didn’t start with sitting out. It started with Rosa Parks sitting in.
Not to mention the easily understood fact that an economic boycott - one which causes direct material consequences - has absolutely no relation to some sort of “political boycott”, which causes zero consequences against anyone in power.
Yes? Congratulations, you are therefore contributing to our continued democratic decline.
This same argument can be used with electoral protest. It would be disingenuous to say none voting in protest materialised from nothing.
I don’t see your point. If people aren’t voting then that is a symptom and not a cause. I think also a nuanced lens helps with this. People not voting isn’t binary. some knowingly protest, some are seeing the slow encroachment of inequality and just couldn’t care less which leader will continue to fuck them over.
Not voting is absolutely both a symptom and a cause. How do you think we got here, if not by voting for the people who won the elections for the past century, and by not voting for the people who lost the elections?
The reason the Republicans won is that billionaires are funding campaign, popularism is on the rise, class consciousness is low.
This is not a good counterexample. A boycott has immediate financial consequences for the boycotted company/industry. No such pressure is generated by sitting out an election.
In fact, a central strategy of the right wing in the United States is to reduce overall voter turnout, which is achieved either by restricting access to voting or by discouraging voter participation. By sitting out the vote you did exactly what the right wing wanted you to do.