I was interviewed for a Chicago Tribune piece about the new Web sites that have spurred up encouraging people to buy blue.1 The idea is to get people to spend money in the stores of companies whose political action committees and employees support Democratic candidates and causes. It’s an interesting idea, but it’s completely unclear whether: 1. people’s purchasing behavior is that connected to their political ideology; 2. the blue side will use the compiled information more than the red side (after all, the information can also be used to boycott companies instead of supporting them). Regardless, it is certainly interesting to see where people are channeling their political frustrations.. and how quickly news has spread of these sites.
[Accessing the article requires registration. Bugmenot may be worth checking.]
1 I’m glad to see that the reporter quoted me in the right context, which is not always a given. Unfortunately, she got my departmental affiliation wrong. My primary appointment is in the Department of Communication Studies.
…and 3. whether or not a Law of Unintended Consequences bites would-be boycotters.
Boycotts don’t work.
Unintended consequence one. Moral hazard.
Companies main aim is to make money. If a company feels it will make a bigger profit by saying it supports the Democrats, it will do so. Problem is that while the Democratic Party may think that it is gaining the support of “business”, the company does not sincerely support the Democrats. So if it starts issuing policies that don’t appeal to Business people its not going to get honest feedback from these bribed companies. Result is that the message over time becomes increasingly unattractive to the business community.
Unintended consequence one;- sends out the message that Democrats are a) divisive b) dependent on “bought votes”.
But my main question is why? The Democrats raised more money than the Republicans this year and still lost. More importantly (I think) Kerry didn’t spend all his cash implying that his problem was having too much rather than not enough funds. Why does anyone think that raising even more money is somehow going to help?
Giles, I don’t think either side worries about using (political rather than commercial) muscle to get donations. I believe I remember DeLay or Gingrich saying that companies that donated to both sides were going to have to stop that after the GOP took over Congress. Pecunia non olet.
That said I think your other concerns are right, and this is not the most efficient way to get Democrats back in power.
“Effectiveness” of boycotts aside, I don’t think any of the above commenters have caught on to the central issue - and Eszter only hints at it in using the word frustration:
Angry Dems don’t want to give their cash to companies that turn around and give it to the likes of Bush and DeLay. We (more “we angry Dems” than “we BuyBluers”) don’t see any reason to support companies who work against our interests. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Whenever I hear someone argue that boycotting - or avoiding - a given business over a moral issue is pointless, ineffective, counterproductive, or even somehow immoral, I wonder which of two bakers they would patronize: Bull O’Connor’s Firehose o’ Flavors or Coretta’s Cupcakes? Put in those terms, it’s a no-brainer. But somehow, we’re supposed to look past the sins of corporations, lest we somehow subvert the free market by considering any factors other than price per pound.
There is a visceral repulsion at supporting businesses that support all of the sickening things that the Republicans are doing to this country. I don’t care whether they give less money to the Other Side; I just care that they don’t give MY money to the Other Side.
Funny related story: when I was young, foolish, and conservative, I would discourage people from buying Domino’s Pizza (run by an anti-abortion zealot). People would ask, “Oh, because of the owner?” and I’d say, “No, because it’s crap.” But I don’t really have a problem with the former reason, either.
Jroth, you make an interesting point but I think that you also illustrate the problem at the core of the Democratic party.
The first question is why would you think that a) business owner should vote democrat and b) if they don’t they should be persuaded to?
It seems likely to me that a) business owners normally, every where in the world, vote for the low tax right wing. B) since they are only a small percentage of the electorate their votes aren’t worth fighting for.
The problem I think lies in the Democrats are still “third wayers” – they still think that with the right policies they can appeal to anyone. By contrast a genuine left wing party whose primary concern was (poor) workers would recognize that this policy line puts them in inevitable conflict with business owners – so they’re only compromising themselves by either trying to woo business, or even worrying that business doesn’t vote for them.
Giles—
Did you go to the sites? Many business owners do not vote for the so-called “low-tax right wing.”
In any case, I have long favored sending my money in the direction of good companies, by which I mean not necessarily companies that donate democratic, but rather companies that treat their employees well and do not drag down the entire salary structure of the U.S. with their low pay and benefits. The companies that tend to treat their workers well, interestingly, do tend to donate to the democratic party. One example: Costco, whose founder insists on paying a living wage to his workers and who refuses excessively high compensation for himself. Every progressive should cancel any memberships they have in other price clubs—especially the ones associated with Walmart—and immediately join Costco. That’s one thing we could do today to make the country a slighly better place, and at little to no cost to ourselves.
I think that we should expect companies to be moral institutions, and should absolutely punish them if they are not. There are enough progressives in this nation to do these companies harm. The righties already know their financial power well—from getting the Reagan series cancelled, to promoting companies owned by right-wing religious folk, they’re already doing it. Why would they be doing it, if there’s no point? And who else, frankly, is going to hold immoral companies accountable?
“we should expect companies to be moral institutions”
That to me is a vision of hell - if you imbue companies with “moral” responsibilty, you give them moral power. I’d prefer a world in which companies just made things and profits but otherwise stayed out of the rest of our lives. The last thing I want is for the ceos’s of companies to try to pretend to be our mothers. Makes me shudder.
I’ve found the arguments surrounding the boycotts rather muddled. Is it to punish “red” companies? To make “blue” companies stronger? By emphasizing campaign contributions, the sites seem to make a more specific argument: To shift campaign donations away from Republicans and to Democrats. If so, then these boycotts are a poor way to go about it.
Firms make donations for two reasons: To get favored candidates elected, and to gain access among those who win. While the first may be driven by ideology (or at least by policy positions), the latter is much less so. In fact, the single best way to shift donations to Dems is for them to win back the majority in the House and Senate. In a post I put up a week ago, I gave some figures comparing donations before and after the ‘94 GOP victory. Whereas before there was parity overall and the Dem incumbents received the largest share of donations, after the election it swung strongly to the GOP. Among open seats, the GOP held a big advantage before and after. In other words, business PACs prefer to elect Republicans, but if the Dems are in the majority they’ll gladly donate to them as well.
Boycott as an expression of outrage? Sure, if it makes you feel good. But as a way to leverage campaign donations for Dems? A highly inefficient and almost certainly ineffective strategy.
There’s really nothing else I can do right now, so I might as well buy blue and boycott red. I don’t really care how effective it is. Spite alone is a good enough reason not to give Republican-supporting companies my money.
One followup to Giles, on companies as “moral institutions.”
First of all, ever since conservative activist judges read an anti-slavery amendment as bestowing personhood on corporations, we have the right - responsibility - to treat them that way. The notion of the “death penalty” for corporations who do harm is one I endorse - if the American people can bestow personhood on a business, then we should have just as much right to rescind. Horrifying? Potentially, yes. Give up your claim to the 14th Amendment, and I’ll give up my claim over your existence.
Aside from that rather radical (absurd?) stance, it’s no use, giles, pretending that companies can be anything other than moral actors. Just as no reporter can be “unbiased” in his reportage, no company can avoid making decisions with moral impacts. The thought of CEOs dictating employees’ personal lives is old-fashioned and, indeed horrifying, but of course it’s also contemporary reality. When WalMart chooses to place health insurance beyond the reach of all but a few employees, they are making a profoundly (im)moral decision, one that resonates deeply into a society that will have to pay dearly for emergency care for ailments that should have been prevented, had the victims had the means to address them.
It’s like Libertarians pretending they can act without impacting others. We’re all in a society together, and it does no good to act as if we’re not, because we find the implications hellish.
Given where I live, my one vote has no impact in a presidential election. However, I am aware of the influence of every spending choice that I make. It’s not just about buying blue or red. It’s about supporting local merchants and farmers. Choosing products that have less environmental impact. Deciding if I will spend more for “made in the usa”…if I will do business with the PRC. Choosing recycled paper products. Buying second-hand instead of new. Buying decisions make one’s individual imprint on our culture and environment.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review