Epidemic? – Lefties Catching Boycott Fever

Posted by Enrique on 08.20.2009

Speaking power to truth...



You've got to admire the tenacity of American progressives. Even though the Executive and Legislative branches of the U.S. government are safely in the hands of the left-leaning political party, liberals aren't about to rest on their laurels. Many American lefties continue to work diligently to advance progressive causes, and they're not shy about using coercion if they have to. Or even if they don't have to.

Currently, there are two boycott efforts gaining steam among liberals – one targeting Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, and another targeting Whole Foods. Beck's crime was calling President Barack Obama racist. Whole Foods' crime was providing good benefits and a hospitable working environment to its employees. Although at first blush it seems Beck might be more deserving of a boycott, both cases illustrate an untoward desire by some to silence opposing viewpoints.

The story so far…



That clip is from a recent appearance by Beck on "Fox & Friends," Fox News' inconsequential breakfast-time chat show. Like a lot of political commentators who appear on cable news, Beck has made a career of spouting confrontational statements many people find inappropriate. His judgment that President Obama has a "deep-seated hatred of white people" is fairly incendiary, even by the standards of a professional agent provocateur like Beck. Faced with this appalling level of racial insensitivity, dutiful American liberals have untaken a campaign to shame advertisers into pulling their spots from Beck's insanely popular afternoon program. Since many liberals have experience in community organizing, the boycott is turning out to be pretty darn successful:

The boycott of Fox News host Glenn Beck gathered more steam Monday when retailing giant Wal-Mart and seven other companies pulled their ads from his show, organizers said.

Among those bailing on Beck: GMAC Financial Services, Best Buy, CVS and Travelocity. […]

A total of 20 companies have pulled their ads in the last two weeks…including Geico, ConAgra, RadioShack, Men's Wearhouse, State Farm, Sargento and Procter & Gamble.

The boycott is being organized by some outfit called Color of Change, which is encouraging advertisers to abandon Beck for "prey[ing] on race-based fears." Although they've scored some victories up to this point (or have they?), I'm skeptical it will have a long-term impact. According to this Marketwatch story, "Fox News said through a spokeswoman that while some advertisers have ‘removed their spots from Beck,' they have just shifted to ‘other programs on the network, so there has been no revenue lost.'" I suspect advertisers will most likely wait for the fuss to die down and resume buying spots during Beck's show. His ratings are too high to ignore for long.

But what of Beck's assertion that Obama doesn't like whites? It may be in poor taste, but is it so outlandish to think a longtime congregant of Rev. Jeremiah Wright might have some nuanced racial views? In fairness, there isn't any evidence President Obama bears any particular animus toward white people – his mother's white, after all. But I'm not sure Beck's comment was so outrageous as to make him the target of a boycott. Maybe it's because I don't take Beck seriously at all. Cable news talking heads say absurd nonsense all the time, and if I don't care for a host's brand of nonsense, I don't watch. I might suggest to my friends that they don't watch, but I don't need to make a cause célèbre out of it. I find organized efforts to silence controversial political viewpoints (which is what an advertiser boycott is) contrary to the spirit of free speech and debate.

Still, I suppose I can see how some people might find Beck's comments sufficiently objectionable to consider a boycott. Recent calls for a Whole Foods boycott, on the other hand, are an absolute load of tripe. Last week. Whole Foods CEO John Mackey wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that was critical of Obama's healthcare reform objectives, saying "the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system." Mackey's article features an eight-point alternative to government healthcare, and even if some might find his proposals disagreeable, this isn't some kind of Ann Coulter style polemic. In fact, Mackey's suggestions are eminently reasonable, particularly his point that individual health insurance benefits should be tax deductible, as they are for employer-provided health insurance. But some people aren't going to let reason get in the way of a good boycott:

"Certainly when our customers tell us they are unhappy to extent that they are boycotting our stores, we are concerned," said Libba Letton, spokeswoman for Whole Foods. "We don't want them to leave us." […]

The provocative article sparked numerous calls to boycott the retailer and even initiated a dedicated "Boycott Whole Foods" page on Facebook, currently listing more than 13,200 members.

"Health care is a particularly emotional and politically-charged issue," said Robert Passikoff, branding expert and founder of Brand Keys Consulting. "[Mackey] certainly has the right to his opinions, but from the brand's perspective, perhaps it wasn't the wisest thing to do."

Whole Foods is widely-regarded as an employee-friendly workplace, with generous wages and healthcare benefits. By all accounts, it's an outstanding corporate citizen, frequently contributing to charity and buying locally. But because its CEO has blasphemed against the single-payer gods, some self-righteous customers want to take their business elsewhere. Writing in the Huffington Post, some twat named Ben Wyskida says he won't shop at Whole Foods anymore because "by shopping at Whole Foods I'm supporting by proxy a donation to the RNC and to health-scare front groups…I don't give money to anyone who injects misleading right-wing talking points into the public debate, so I won't be giving money to Whole Foods."

Well, that's certainly his prerogative. I'll always defend a person's right to be a petulant shitball, and if Ben Wyskida wants a high five and a slap on the butt for his conscientious consumerism, then bless his heart. But I must admit I can't understand the mentality of a person shops for allergen free cookies based on the political inclinations of the grocer. John Mackey seems to have very sensible reasons for being skeptical of giving the federal government even more control of our healthcare choices, and if that hurts some people's feelings, I can't imagine why.

The results of the last two federal election cycles have decisively put the reins of power in the hands of left-leaning politicians. In spite of that, some progressives apparently won't be satisfied as long as dissenting opinions continue to exist. While people have the right to organize boycotts of businesses they don't care for, I would suggest the desire to impose sanctions on others for misguided political opinions is an instinct better kept to oneself. As John Mackey seems to realize, persuasion is preferable to coercion.