Intersectional feminists necessarily have a complicated relationship with electoral politics. For one, the system of electoral politics never meant for women, people of color, and then women of color in particular to participate in its so-called “democratic” process. For another, the electoral system is meant to allow citizens* to be represented in government, but all too often, feminists are forced to choose between the “lesser of two evils” on a ballot, neither of which represents them. For many feminists, voting is an act of damage control, not a viable avenue for change.
The myth of feminist change wrought through electoral politics is perpetually attached to the success of woman candidates. Yet even when the country might have elected a woman president, Hillary Clinton, she was not interested in manifesting the structural change that feminists have demanded for generations. Clinton was not even a particularly progressive candidate. Instead, she represented an establishment, centrist position within the Democratic Party, as President Barack Obama did before her. It should be noted that in both cases, Obama’s race and Clinton’s gender marked them (albeit differently) as subversive candidates, political agendas aside. Clinton was forced to play into respectability politics in her campaign to appeal to voters who were skeptical of putting a woman in the oval office. But even so, given Clinton’s staunchly centrist politics, it’s inaccurate to suggest that electing a woman president means instituting feminist change.
This election cycle feels exceptionally painful. More than ever, feminists wonder how, if the system is patriarchal and white supremacist, will a politician (and even a president) dismantle harm? How will my vote really lead to worthwhile transformation?
*Undocumented residents are unable to vote in the U.S. political system which clearly demonstrates the falsehood of "democracy” as “representation.”
Dispelling the logic that democracy is a matter of “choice.”
The U.S. democracy operates through an ideology of “choice.” Voters are enticed to believe that we are being accurately represented in government because we get to make a personal selection on a ballot. However, there are many definitions and forms of democracy. The U.S. “choice” model promotes a belief that the act of choosing is the marker of freedom, but intersectional feminist thought and Marxist critique have long put pressure on the framework of choice. As George Jackson reminds us, “an electoral choice of ten different fascists is like choosing which way one wishes to die.”
In the context of reproductive justice, Black feminists and other feminists of color have critiqued the “my body, my choice” political narrative. The greatest argument against “choice” is in the idea that “choice” belies a false freedom, a limited freedom. In the case of abortion, to say that every person has the right to choose to terminate or to continue a pregnancy fundamentally overlooks the societal institutions that shape the decision an individual makes about their reproductive health. What good is a choice between having a child and ending a pregnancy when you know you will be bringing a child into a world where law enforcement systematically targets them for incarceration and/or death? What good is choice to have or not have an abortion when you are deciding whether or not to bring a child into a world where your neighborhood and health are degraded by factory runoff every day?
SisterSong, the Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, coined the term “reproductive justice” to call attention to the systemic conditions which impact personal reproductive decisions. A similar critical outlook is needed when considering how “democracy” and “electoral choice” are defined in the United States. What good is a ballot choice between two candidates who have a history of perpetrating sexual assault? What kind of choice is that? What kind of vote is that?
Framing democracy and civil rights as the ability to exercise choice dangerously overlooks societal and structural nuance. To consider the feminist stakes in electoral politics requires thinking about the failing notion that ballot choice is the ultimate political action. In reality, most––if not all––voters have no control over who appears on their ballot during any given election cycle. Choice always presupposes a limited set of options. Thus, feminists have an obligation to interrogate which candidates, what systemic change, and what politics are always absent from the ballot.
It helps to reframe voting as a severely limited freedom (through the “choice” paradigm) in order to illuminate the problems with seeking massive structural change through the ballot. Indeed, electoral politics are not a means toward liberation or transformative justice. Simply put, elections are not designed to create the type of change that feminists call for. Instead, electoral politics often result in reform -- gradual change ushered in from within the system itself.
It is helpful to contextualize voting in the distinct approaches of abolitionist politics and reform politics in order to examine how electoral politics can impede transformative change. While both political philosophies utilize some types of reform, abolitionist politics require the dismantling of the same systems that support the electoral system. As artist @vrye puts it, “a woman president of a genocidal empire that is built on the continued murder and disappearance of Indigenous women and Two Spirit people, the mass incarceration of Black women, policies that deny healthcare and housing to poor women, the exploitation of Global South women, and imperialist wars that bomb and kill women in the Middle East - is not a win for feminism.” @vrye deftly explains the failure of intersectional feminism turning to electoral politics in order to dismantle white supremacist, cisheteropatriarchy.
Yet, if electoral politics really are a type of reform, then there may be a place for voting “in our tool belts,” to use the argument of Sonya Renee Taylor. Just as abolitionist politics utilize non-reformist reform to dismantle systems from all angles, electoral politics may have a role in how feminists pursue the world we want to build. Like reform, electoral politics alone won’t get us to the society we want to live in. But, voting still matters.
Harm reduction, as a framework, references an approach to systemic injustice that prioritizes the overall reduction of violence as its singular objective. Harm reduction is associated with the prison abolition movement because it is generally acknowledged that the prison system causes more harm than it claims to prevent. If the state approach to violence was a harm reduction philosophy, prisons could not exist.
When appropriated to a discussion about electoral decisions, it makes sense that feminists approach a failing proposition with the intention to reduce harm. This thinking requires us to vote. When feminists vote, we take advantage of an opportunity for harm reduction, however marginal. And as Angela Davis puts it, we may give ourselves the opportunity to sustain our transformative movements better. From this perspective, feminists must vote because successfully electing the lesser of two evils on a ballot makes a material difference in our lives and our resistance.
Voting brings out a tension between staying true to feminist principles versus promoting harm reduction. The benefit of thinking of electoral participation as harm reduction is that it better allows us to see that participating in a white supremacist, patriarchal democracy has a material impact on all of us, particularly the most marginalized. In other words, voting has consequences for our movement. The politicians and policies that fail to live up to our feminist standards still have impact on people’s lives. We have to take advantage of the opportunity to relieve the material conditions imposed by far-right agendas, even if it means compromising our idealistic vision. The myth is that we can vote feminism into our government, but the reality is that we can vote to disempower those who would most demobilize our movement most fervently. A feminist approach to voting must be grounded in an understanding of what is really at stake on any given ballot.
Recognizing what’s on the ballot.
When we recognize that the 2020 election will not determine the end of anti-Black police brutality, climate change’s targeted degradation of Indigenous communities, and the systemic protection of perpetrators of sexual assault, we can free ourselves of the false promise of electoral politics and begin to view the ballot as a limited strategy in our larger movement. Sadly, feminists will be protesting and mobilizing no matter the outcome of the presidential race in November. Feminist solutions aren’t on the ballot; we are not off the hook for political action if we cast our vote. So what actually is on the ballot? What is at stake when we do or don’t vote?
Focusing on the example of reproductive justice provides a clear example of the stakes of electoral politics. While intersectional feminists work towards reproductive justice, we also recognize that the material conditions of reproductive health access are largely determined by elected officials in all branches of government and the policies they put in place. Yet, reproductive justice will not be achieved through electoral politics, but instead through transforming community relations to build autonomy, access, and safety. Trump might be capable of stripping reproductive health access, but Biden is not capable of granting the reproductive justice we are fighting for. Thus, in November, reproductive health access will be on the ballot but reproductive justice will not.
The imperative to participate.
Despite the recognition throughout this post that feminists cannot rely on elections and politicians to advance our fights, the imperative for feminists to vote remains. We deserve and demand better than Joe Biden… but that won’t stop us from working to put him in the Oval Office if it disempowers Donald Trump. Biden will have the most progressive agenda of modern Democratic candidates while Trump has proven in four years that he can cause increased material harm in the lives of Black Americans, poor Americans, trans Americans, women, migrants, disabled people, and other marginalized communities. We have to vote this November --- and then we have to get back to doing the transformative, grassroots work.
What will be on the ballot in November: the choice to get one of the most harmful presidents ever out of office.
What won’t be on the ballot in November: the systemic and transformative change that we really want to see.
