Benjamín Schultz-Figueroa

Benjamín Schultz-Figueroa @benspky.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 06, 2024 at 04:21 UTC

Do you doubt that they are actually trying to change Biden's policy towards I/P? That seems bizarre given how much work goes into an organization like Uncommitted National Movement. It's all based on self-regard and irrationality?

1 replies 1 reposts 1 likes

Benjamín Schultz-Figueroa @benspky.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 06, 2024 at 02:48 UTC

This is the rationale. It may not be one you agree with, and it may be wrong or ineffective, but it is *a* rationale that is based on trying to change policy around a particular issue and not just moralism or egotism.

bsky.app/profile/bens...

1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Benjamín Schultz-Figueroa @benspky.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 06, 2024 at 02:20 UTC

I agree! Trump's approach is horrible! I just don't see much gain in treating groups like The Uncommitted National Movement as if they are selfish idiots, lazy do-nothings, or irrational actors. They have a rationale that can be respectfully engaged with and debated.

1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Benjamín Schultz-Figueroa @benspky.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 06, 2024 at 01:24 UTC

I just don't think it makes sense to act as if they are doing it for no reason at all or simply because they are selfish. They care about an issue and are trying to enact change. They probably have the political calculus wrong, but that doesn't mean that they are irrational.

2 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Benjamín Schultz-Figueroa @benspky.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 06, 2024 at 01:22 UTC

I really wasn't trying to argue for this theory, and it may be totally ineffective. It's your area of expertise and I trust you on that. But I would still insist there is a rationale, even if it's not a good one, which is frequently espoused by leaders representing groups that care about this issue.

3 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Benjamín Schultz-Figueroa @benspky.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 06, 2024 at 00:53 UTC

Okay. I've been pretty intentional about not cheering anything on but trying to have a conversation about an issue that is vitally important. That said, things got ugly fast so, yeah, I think it's safe to stop talking now.

1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Benjamín Schultz-Figueroa @benspky.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 06, 2024 at 00:44 UTC

And, again, I'm not saying this is necessarily the right approach, just that there is a theory of political change behind it and it's wrong to just call it pure self-centered moralism.

3 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Benjamín Schultz-Figueroa @benspky.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 06, 2024 at 00:42 UTC

Sorry, I'm having trouble keeping up. I think you can see many instances of this working. Don't Republicans do it all the time. They will refuse to vote for a candidate that isn't to their liking on an issue (like gun rights) even if that means losing the election.

3 replies 0 reposts 1 likes

Benjamín Schultz-Figueroa @benspky.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 06, 2024 at 00:20 UTC

I'm not saying that I agree with this approach, just that it makes sense to me and certainly isn't unprecedented or even that unusual in politics.

1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes

Benjamín Schultz-Figueroa @benspky.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 06, 2024 at 00:18 UTC

Well, that's where the first part matters. I also think politicians will certainly notice if constituencies that said this is important to them (young people, Arab Americans, African Americans, several Indigenous nations, etc.) show up in significantly lower numbers than 2020.

4 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Benjamín Schultz-Figueroa @benspky.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 06, 2024 at 00:13 UTC

I think that clearly stating there will be political consequences for not changing course on an issue (such as the uncommitted vote drive) and then exacting those consequences by withholding your vote makes your constituency one that must be dealt with next time.

10 replies 0 reposts 1 likes

Benjamín Schultz-Figueroa @benspky.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 05, 2024 at 23:45 UTC

You may not agree with the use of this tactic, but it seems pretty straightforward and reasonable to me.

6 replies 0 reposts 3 likes

Benjamín Schultz-Figueroa @benspky.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 05, 2024 at 23:40 UTC

Is the rationale really that strange? A constituency says, "Here's an issue I care deeply about, change your policy, or we won't vote for you." When the politician doesn't change on the issue, the constituency doesn't vote for them. Isn't that just how voters exercise political power?

13 replies 0 reposts 7 likes