Last month’s Chick-fil-A controversy got me thinking about boycotts (and retaliatory “buycotts”). In particular, I wondered why our side doesn’t do them.
The thought occurred to me again as I read an article called “Basketball Coaches and Starbucks Push for Affirmative Action.”
It was published at ColorLines.com, a minority-oriented website that at least describes itself honestly as “a daily news site where race matters.”
The title of the article speaks for itself but here is a snippet:
They may be strange bedfellows, but there is one issue of national import that the National Association of Basketball Coaches, the Obama administration and Starbucks have come together to support: affirmative action.
Last week these parties, alongside more than five dozen other groups, told the Supreme Court they believe universities ought to be able to take race into consideration in their admissions policies. Their court filings set the stage for the Supreme Court, which is set to take up the politically fraught issue this fall.
Starbucks has a long history of anti-white activism. The company funded the opposition to the 1998 Washington Civil Rights Initiative, which targeted racial preferences in the state.
It also worked with the NAACP to fund something called “Civil Rights Schools,” which promote black interests.
If homosexuals can boycott Chick-fil-A over its CEO’s personal stance on marriage and Christians can support the company for the same reason, why can’t whites boycott Starbucks for supporting and funding discrimination against our children?
Foregoing a cup of coffee is not a hardship. There are many coffee shops in most towns, and boycotters would not have to take a public position that could threaten their jobs. They would just stop buying anything at Starbucks.
Such a boycott would not have much impact if it were organized by American Renaissance or the Council of Conservative Citizens. The media would either ignore it or write headlines like “White Supremacists Threaten Starbucks for Defending Civil Rights.”
But what if a mainstream conservative such as Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, or Sean Hannity started the boycott in the name of equal rights and color-blind justice? The “buycott” in support of Chick-fil-A began with a single tweet from former Arkansas Governor and current talk show host Mike Huckabee.
The support of Chick-fil-A resulted in lines out the door and some restaurants ran out of food. The media—no fans of anyone who opposes homosexual marriage—was forced at least to mention the event, and even had to admit that boycott had backfired.
If a mainstream conservative advocated a boycott of Starbucks because of its support for racial preferences it would inevitably get media attention—mostly negative. However, what if Rush Limbaugh mentioned it on his program to 20 million listeners? What if The Drudge Report picked it up? What if some Tea Party groups joined the boycott?
Perhaps a few enterprising restaurant or coffee shop owners would offer “discrimination-free” coffee to entice new customers. Conservative groups could hold meetings at Seattle’s Best, Dunkin’ Donuts, or other Starbucks competitors.
In the age of Facebook and Twitter, the boycott could be promoted to millions of people instantly.
Starbucks would probably hold its ground initially. But what if sales declined by even 1 or 2 percent? The company is listed on the NASDAQ exchange. What if the stock price started slipping? What if a few shops had to close?
It’s safe to say a retaliatory “buycott” wouldn’t work, since all the liberals who would get worked up about it already
Even lefties have a bottom line, and a boycott of Starbucks could succeed, if planned and executed properly.
Boycotts seem to be almost entirely a tool of the left. In fact, I can’t recall a single nationwide boycott started by conservatives. I would love to be involved in a boycott of an anti-white company or organization. Count me in if one is ever organized.
Peter Bradley lives in Washington, DC.