Break up Sinclair

Boycotts are fine, but we need trust busting in the 21st century.

Boycotts are fine, but threats to democracy like the one posed by Sinclair require more than collective consumer action. What we need, instead, is to elect politicians who will implement regulations intended to break up media and other corporate monopolies. As we head toward the 2018 elections in this new age of inequality, it's time for good, old-fashioned trust-busting.

Being the Target of a Boycott - Indiana and Lessons from UIUC

A month or so ago, UIUC professor Susan Koshy wrote a piece on being the target of a boycott. She supports the candidacy of Steven Salaita. She's angry at the administration for their conduct. She writes (behind the paywall. I will quote as extensively as seems reasonable):

For someone like me, who is inside the university and supports Salaita, the boycott represents an experiential impasse. I find myself in the impossible position of being the target of a boycott as a member of an institution whose actions I and many others here have challenged. Unlike faculty members outside Urbana-Champaign whose safe target is another university, our target is our own. The frequently repeated joke here—How do we boycott ourselves?—captures this problem. How do you oppose your own institution yet protect valuable parts of it at the same time?

There's been a lot of shouting about the Indiana bill, with "boycott" as a major part of the strategy to punish the state for its prejudice. I get it. I recommend Melissa McEwan's piece "Stop" on why this is a bad idea.

The boycott is a blunt tool. Koshy writes:

First, in most boycotts, the relationship between external and internal groups is crucial to the campaign’s efficacy. Various arrangements are set up to enable the two groups to coordinate strategies and organize actions together, and to provide support for those on the inside. Throughout, the concerns of those within the boycott help determine the choice of tactics. By contrast, the actions and narrative of this boycott have been shaped mostly by those on the outside. Outside actors have taken the lead in organizing it and defining its stakes, sometimes without sustained input from those on the inside, although often in stated symbolic solidarity with them.

Second, boycotts typically are only one tactic among many—and usually one of last resort—in a multipronged political strategy to bring about change. Boycotts usually work in tandem with economic sanctions and protests that reinforce the boycott’s effects. 

Koshy talks about discourse and the way that the internet, focusing on star political bloggers (I assume this is a veiled call-out at Corey Robin), shape the understanding of the boycott from the outside, with less attention given to the narrative from the inside. She concludes:

Finally, while the primary focus in the last few months has been on the negative actions of the boycott—what outsiders will not do for the university or its faculty and students—affirmative actions, or what outsiders will do for those inside, have been few or largely symbolic.

It has become too easy to support the boycott from the outside—to share, "like," and forward one’s political commitments; to update oneself through the musings of star boycott bloggers; and to "give up" invitations that one could hypothetically receive from the university. Meanwhile, on the inside, the costs are steep and mounting.

Many colleagues outside the university have posted their rejections of university invitations on their Facebook pages, blogs, or websites, or have written open letters to the chancellor condemning the university’s actions. These actions are invaluable in exerting pressure on the university. But despite a few calls to invite Urbana-Champaign faculty and students to their campuses to counter the debilitating isolation those on the inside are facing, few have followed through on those proposals.

Perhaps colleagues could post with as much passion on their Facebook pages the affirming actions they have taken to support the boycott—listing the graduate students they have hired from our university, or the professors they have invited, or the collaborations they have undertaken with groups here.

There are specific issues with the university boycott. But I think Koshy also raises important points about boycotts in general. They can be effective tools, but they have to work WITH the people on whose behalf one is boycotting, and they have to be paired to specific, direct, affirmative actions to support those people.

Calls to boycott Indiana have not, to my knowledge, included affirmative actions to support LGBTQ and other progressive movements within the state. Until that happens, keep me out of your boycott.

Politics or Ethics? - The Wedge Co-op in Minneapolis and Eden Foods

When I was a graduate student in Minneapolis, and I had any extra money, I'd head to the Wedge Co-op to take advantage of their outstanding food. Even today, our close friends with whom we stay when we visit are just a few blocks away from The Wedge, and we love shopping there.

As with most co-ops and natural-food stores, as news about Eden Foods' anti-woman position has spread, they've received lots of customer comment. It was with disappointment that I read this response (name shortened by me):

"From - Wedge Natural Foods Co-op,

Hi J.

Thanks so much for sharing your views about the Eden Foods situation with the Wedge. We are aware of the recent news, and while we are disappointed by Eden Foods' stand on this issue, the Wedge has a long-standing tradition (since our earliest days as a co-op) of not engaging in boycotts that are called for political reasons. Our membership includes a wide swath of political, religious and cultural viewpoints, and we leave decisions of this kind to our members.

As an organic foods co-op, we have our own set of values to consider; Eden Foods sources from North American organic farmers. Dropping their products would punish regional organic growers who have no part in Eden company decisions and would leave our co-op with nothing but Chinese-sourced organic beans, in direct opposition to our commitment to healthy regional farm economies and a domestic organic food shed.

Basing health insurance on employment is an altogether different conversation that needs to move forward. This most-recent situation is just one part of that larger discourse, which will get worked out in the courts and in the political arena. Until then, we encourage our members to make their own purchasing decisions based on the values they hold most important to them, and we will follow your lead."

Let's take this apart.

First, it is entirely reasonable for a business to not engage in politically-based boycotts. Companies donate to powerful people, often to the right and the left, and it's going to be very hard for a business to figure out which products to carry based on political issues.

That said, there are moral and ethical reasons for which a company like The Wedge surely would boycott. There has been news about slave labor involving Asian Shrimp. I argue it would be fundamentally ethical, not political, to demand such products are boycotted (I shop at Costco a lot and have written to them about the shrimp). Slave-labor is an easy case, if ad extremum, to draw a line and demand our companies pick a side.

So the question is whether the Eden Foods situation is political or ethical? I suggest it is the latter. This is not about politics - who votes for whom, who gives money where - but about a religious fanatic demanding to impose his views on his workers, refusing to cover contraceptive care as part of an expanding campaign designed to police female sexuality.

Over in Madison, the Willy Street Co-op has taken a different pathway than The Wedge. They have a forum for owners (only) and have asked for comment on Eden Foods. They too want to avoid political boycotts, but write (my emphasis)

The Co-op carries a lot of Eden Foods products (almost 100). Removing their product outright would significantly change our store inventory. Potential replacement products may cost more, and may not have as pure packaging. Some products may simply be no longer available to the Co-op.

However, our Co-op also strives to support a healthy, just, and tolerant food system in which workers are valued and compensated fairly across the board. Out of respect for the diverse values of our Owners and a commitment to transparency, we now bring the question of whether or not the Co-op should continue to carry Eden Foods products to the Ownership itself.

That bolded line acknowledges that here the issue might be ethical, rather than political. I hope Madison locals will let them know.

Meanwhile, back in Minneapolis, we lack the kind of transparent and community-driven dialogue encouraged by Willy Street, which is disappointing. That said, I can understand why The Wedge wants to dodge this issue. Don't let them. They are a store in one of the most liberal cities in America. If you live there, stop buying the product. In addition, politely tell the Wedge that they are making the wrong choice, that this is about fundamental freedoms, not politics. If you are a member, use your power. If you are considering becoming a member, tell the management that this issue matters to you.

Here is their contact page. Or tell them on Facebook. Or Tweet at them. Convince them.

Two more points.

I find the last paragraph of their statement horribly naive. They write:

"This most-recent situation is just one part of that larger discourse, which will get worked out in the courts and in the political arena." 

It reminds me of Eden Foods' statement, "We were convinced that actions of the federal government were illegal, and so filed a formal objection. The recent Supreme Court decision confirms, at least in part, that we were correct." For EF, the courts have ruled, and the issue is over. Obviously, I disagree.

We live in a country in which five conservative Catholic men with life appointments control the Supreme Court. We cannot wait for the courts to solve this. It's not just going to get "worked out." We have to work. 

On the bright side, there's their finish: "Until then, we encourage our members to make their own purchasing decisions based on the values they hold most important to them, and we will follow your lead."

That last line is really important. It says, if you, the customer, stop buying Eden Foods, the store will stop carrying it (or carrying so much of it). And that's true for other companies too. Right now, there's a Change.org petition asking Whole Foods to stop carrying Eden Foods. I can tell you that this petition is not going to work. The libertarian masters of Whole Foods do not care how many people sign a petition.

But they do care about money. 

Stop buying Eden Foods. Tell the management at your local store, politely, why not, and suggest they consider carrying less of it. We don't need to put Eden Foods out of business, but let's see by how much we can reduce their profits.

Because given the incoherence of Potter on his religious values, I suspect what he really cares about, at the end of the day, is also money.

As consumers, organized, we have power. Let's use it. 

Eden Foods - Grotesque Mischaracterizations and Fallacious Arguments (#HobbyLobby)

Yesterday I began following the story of Eden Foods (this is a good place to start), an organic food company whose products are beloved by many friends, especially my vegetarian and vegan friends (they make beans and soy milk, among other products).

In 2013, the company and their chairman and sole shareholder, Michael Potter, sued the federal government for the right to deny contraceptive coverage to their employees.
Here's the court filing.

The plaintiffs, Eden Foods, Inc., and Michael Potter, appeal from a denial of their
request for a preliminary injunction that would forbid federal agencies from enforcing
that mandate against them. They contend that offering such contraceptive services to the
employees of Eden Foods would substantially burden the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs

Potter refers to contraceptives as "lifestyle drugs." He has compared buying birth-control pills to Jack Daniels. He believes that "Obama's in your bedroom" and that he a defender of freedom, and has also characterized Obama as a dictator. Moreover, he actually can't identify which religious principle in particular leads him to object to providing birth control.

Two things interest me here. First, I have my doubts whether an organic food company can survive a boycott from progressives. Whole Foods has managed to be an anti-union corporation with CEO who likes to go on Obama-is-a-fascist rants (speaking as a historian, this is not what fascism looks like) and yet still thrive. I rarely shop there, but they seem to do alright, in part by providing the only option for high-quality insanely-expensive fancy foods in many area. Eden Foods has to compete with other, less offensive (in public anyway. I assume almost all CEOs are terrible people), brands.

Second, I am always interested in the way that white wealthy Christians present themselves as victims (in the language and power section of the blog). There is power in simultaneously claiming righteous might while also under assault by powerful and nefarious forces. It's an old rhetorical move and remains widely spread among the American Christian right (see my piece on Sarah Palin at the NRA). In response to the outrage at their position, Eden Foods has gone on the defensive-offense.

Here is what I wrote to them.

Dear Eden Organic (info@edenfoods.com)

I love organic food and I try to buy it as much as possible. Due to your position on providing birth control to your employees, I am now boycotting your products. I will let any grocery store at which I shop that carries your products know this as well.
Sincerely,
David M. Perry

Short and polite. They responded (this is also their press release):

Dear David,
Eden Foods is a principled food company. We were convinced that actions of the federal government were illegal, and so filed a formal objection. The recent Supreme Court decision confirms, at least in part, that we were correct. We realized in making our objection that it would give rise to grotesque mischaracterizations and fallacious arguments. We did not fully anticipate the degree of maliciousness and corruption that would visit us. Nevertheless, we believe we did what we should have.
The objection we filed has never been part of the Hobby Lobby lawsuit.

Note that I never mentioned Hobby Lobby. Who cares whether they are part of that lawsuit or another?

What interests me is the "grotesque mischaracterizations and fallacious arguments." I've been trying to get an answer as to how they have been mischaracterized to no avail, as I'm sure they have bigger PR fish to fry than some blogger. I also suspect that they believe it. They believe NOT that they are denying coverage of an essential health item, but that they are the principled heroes in an iniquitous world. The attacks strengthen their resolve.

My response was:

I will share your statement with my readers.

However, I have read the statements of your CEO and believe your company is discriminating on the basis of your religious beliefs. The Supreme Court has ruled, for now, that you are legally allowed to do that. I, on the other hand, am legally allowed not to buy your products, to suggest to my readers that they not buy your products, and to tell stores at which I shop that I will not be buying your products and to suggest they don't either.
Sincerely,
David Perry

Boycotts are tricky and I've written about them before. Usually, the goal is to change behavior and you need to leave your target an out. I'm not sure what the out is here, given Potter's statements. I think, instead, the goal here is to send the message more broadly that imposing your religious views on your employees will result in financial penalties. It may be too late too change Eden, it may not be possible to put them out of business (again, see point 1 above). But it's not too tell other companies that they better watch their brands.

Happy Independence Day.