You said there were no politicians who would advocate for voting in general.
And you’ve provided no exceptions. All of these guys preceded over expansive and thorough voter suppression. 2010 was a high water mark for gerrymandering and voter caging under Obama. When he wasn’t placidly abiding by Red State governors demolishing voting rights, he was actively complicit in defunding and denigrating outreach groups (specifically ACORN, although there were quite a few others) that sought to enfranchise more people.
Hayes ended Reconstruction and turned the southern states over entirely to a century of white nationalism. Our modern system of majority black neighborhoods enduring six hour voting lines where reactionaries can accuse people of fraud for handing out bottles of water could be traced precisely to this moment in history. But that just leads us into the next name on the list.
Lincoln is probably the strongest name on your list, on account of the 13th amendment, if you ignore the machine politics that got him over the line to begin with. Cooping was a common practice in both parties and was instrumental to swinging both his national campaign and the midterms that gave him a Radical Republican majority. Also, don’t ask how many votes the Native Americans got while he was purging them from western territories.
I’m not even sure why FDR is on the list, given that he was a Democratic President elected in the thick of Jim Crow.
None of these political leaders was fussy about winning a rigged game. All of them benefited - either through active malice or complicity - in pursuit of their political ends. And you can definitely argue the necessity of these underhanded tactics given the alternatives. But you can’t - with any amount of seriousness or credibility - claim that any of these candidates seriously supported enfranchising their opposition.
Once again, because I feel like you’re derailing here by attempting to drag this discussion into 200 year old minutiae
If you consider some of the most pivotal elections in US history and the means by which they were won “minutiae”…
I mean they still advocated for everyone voting in general.
You can do that if you’re confident you can win. Which is why the gerrymandering apes could do it. But they still did it, because they knew they didn’t have to worry about the election, so they could say the right thing, even if it isn’t what they did. Because advocating for everyone voting you makes you seem confident, and the perception of the people would be “must be an honest man” instead of “oh shit they’re that confident, how have they fixed this system I know to be crooked”.
Or that’s how I perceived this conversation of you guys.
And you’ve provided no exceptions. All of these guys preceded over expansive and thorough voter suppression. 2010 was a high water mark for gerrymandering and voter caging under Obama. When he wasn’t placidly abiding by Red State governors demolishing voting rights, he was actively complicit in defunding and denigrating outreach groups (specifically ACORN, although there were quite a few others) that sought to enfranchise more people.
Hayes ended Reconstruction and turned the southern states over entirely to a century of white nationalism. Our modern system of majority black neighborhoods enduring six hour voting lines where reactionaries can accuse people of fraud for handing out bottles of water could be traced precisely to this moment in history. But that just leads us into the next name on the list.
Eisenhower and his hatchet man Nixon perpetuated enormous deliberate disenfranchisement as part of the Southern Strategy.
Lincoln is probably the strongest name on your list, on account of the 13th amendment, if you ignore the machine politics that got him over the line to begin with. Cooping was a common practice in both parties and was instrumental to swinging both his national campaign and the midterms that gave him a Radical Republican majority. Also, don’t ask how many votes the Native Americans got while he was purging them from western territories.
Lyndon Johnson was almost certainly involved in voter fraud in his 1948 Senate primary and only escaped indictment on technicality.
I’m not even sure why FDR is on the list, given that he was a Democratic President elected in the thick of Jim Crow.
None of these political leaders was fussy about winning a rigged game. All of them benefited - either through active malice or complicity - in pursuit of their political ends. And you can definitely argue the necessity of these underhanded tactics given the alternatives. But you can’t - with any amount of seriousness or credibility - claim that any of these candidates seriously supported enfranchising their opposition.
If you consider some of the most pivotal elections in US history and the means by which they were won “minutiae”…
I mean they still advocated for everyone voting in general.
You can do that if you’re confident you can win. Which is why the gerrymandering apes could do it. But they still did it, because they knew they didn’t have to worry about the election, so they could say the right thing, even if it isn’t what they did. Because advocating for everyone voting you makes you seem confident, and the perception of the people would be “must be an honest man” instead of “oh shit they’re that confident, how have they fixed this system I know to be crooked”.
Or that’s how I perceived this conversation of you guys.
Tldr you’re both right essentially