It’s educate, AGITATE, organize

edit: putting this at the top so people understand the basis for this:

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

Letter from Birmingham, MLK

  • NaibofTabr
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Sure, they exist, but they aren’t worth wasting any time or campaign effort on - unless you’re suggesting that the campaign should simply promise these people what they want to hear without any intent to actually deliver.

    Pandering is really the only way to bring such people into your camp - and it’s the tactic that the GOP uses to pull in fringe groups and religious nuts. I don’t think the Democratic party should start operating that way, even if it means losing elections.

    My opinion is not that single-issue voters should be disenfranchised. Everyone should vote.

    My opinion is that no reasonable person should waste their time listening to the opinions of single-issue voters or trying to have any kind of political discussion with them, and that no serious political campaign should waste time trying to pander to them.


    Side note, this “you”:

    If you can’t grasp nuance, you really aren’t qualified to have political opinions.

    wasn’t directed at you personally, but broadly/generally. I thought that was obvious in context, but I was wrong. My apologies for the confusion.