W.E.B Du Bois (1868-1963) was an African American civil rights activist, sociologist and philosopher. He developed a theory of how one should vote tactically. Crucially, Du Bois did not equate voting tactically with voting for the lesser of two evils. In his essay I won’t vote (1956), Du Bois outlines his general strategy for how to cast your vote. You should:
Research who best represents your interests. Go with the candidate, not necessarily with the party (in Du Bois’ case, he looked at the extent to which a candidate was willing to help the cause of African Americans)
If none of the main candidates represents your interests, you should vote “for a third party even when its chances [are] hopeless.”
“If the main parties were unsatisfactory; or, in absence of a third choice, [you should be] voting for the lesser of two evils.”
If there is no third choice, and you are deeply dissatisfied with the candidates on offer, it is acceptable not to vote. This was controversial, especially given Du Bois’ earlier insistence on tactical voting. Yet, Du Bois believed this could send a strong signal “It is hope that if twenty-five million voters refrain from voting in 1956 because of their own accord…this might make the American people ask how much longer this dumb farce can proceed without even a whimper of protest.”
So Du Bois’ understanding of tactical voting is much richer than merely voting for the lesser of two evils (although he did think it was sometimes necessary, see (3)). You don’t always vote to change the outcome. You may also wish to vote — especially in a safe seat — to give a signal. Refraining from voting also sends a signal, but needs to be done only in extreme cases where you have not a single acceptable candidate and all candidates are equally bad.
So you made it up. Stop trying to sanitize the man’s words for your own needs. He said what he said. You just don’t like what he said. I’ll trust what he said:
In 1956, I shall not go to the polls. I have not registered. I believe that democracy has so far disappeared in the United States that no “two evils” exist. There is but one evil party with two names, and it will be elected despite all I can do or say. There is no third party. On the Presidential ballot in a few states (seventeen in 1952), a “Socialist” Party will appear. Few will hear its appeal because it will have almost no opportunity to take part in the campaign and explain its platform. If a voter organizes or advocates a real third-party movement, he may be accused of seeking to overthrow this government by “force and violence.” Anything he advocates by way of significant reform will be called “Communist” and will of necessity be Communist in the sense that it must advocate such things as government ownership of the means of production; government in business; the limitation of private profit; social medicine, government housing and federal aid to education; the total abolition of race bias; and the welfare state. These things are on every Communist program; these things are the aim of socialism. Any American who advocates them today, no matter how sincerely, stands in danger of losing his job, surrendering his social status and perhaps landing in jail. The witnesses against him may be liars or insane or criminals. These witnesses need give no proof for their charges and may not even be known or appear in person. They may be in the pay of the United States Government. A.D.A.’s and “Liberals” are not third parties; they seek to act as tails to kites. But since the kites are self-propelled and radar-controlled, tails are quite superfluous and rather silly.
I’m not trying to sanitize anything, I’m saying that people like you who seemingly never read the whole essay love quoting it out of context and acting like it absolves them for being too edgy to vote.
I’d be interested to read more about how he intended it differently, if you have it available.
Edit: I can’t find where he regretted it. You didn’t just make that up, did you?
I didn’t say he regretted anything, just that unscrupulous people seized on the perceived theme of apathy and have tried to weaponize it ever since.
Edit: from this op-ed
So you made it up. Stop trying to sanitize the man’s words for your own needs. He said what he said. You just don’t like what he said. I’ll trust what he said:
I’m not trying to sanitize anything, I’m saying that people like you who seemingly never read the whole essay love quoting it out of context and acting like it absolves them for being too edgy to vote.
Please. It’s manipulation and unseemly. Find your own civil rights icon that supports your point and stop whitewashing history.
Providing context is manipulation and whitewashing? Sure sure.
Absolutely, when no context is needed. Dubois wrote an article to express his intent. He doesn’t need any interpretation.