American politics has a ridiculously low tolerance of criticism of Israel, so much so that Sarah Palin got away with saying we shouldn't be allowed to "second-guess" the policies of a foreign nation. It seems like the mainstream tolerates almost no criticism, so what there is comes from looney-tune antisemitism on the far right and ridiculous claims on the left that Israel is exactly like the former South Africa.
The left does have a point when it comes to the occupied West Bank, that Israel has an apartheid policy there. The comparison to Tibet seems pretty valid to me as well - while the West Bank occupation was provoked and Tibet wasn't, at least the Chinese give the petty rights of citizenship in a dictatorship to Tibetans.
Left-wing radio here in the Bay Area had an Israeli activist talking about how we should boycott companies and products involved in the West Bank occupation (more info here). I wouldn't support a broad boycott of everything Israeli or everything Chinese, but a boycott related to their illegal occupations sounds proper and well-targeted, even if it's mostly symbolic.
In related news, Matt Yglesias points to the hissy fit rightwingers threw when Jimmy Carter labeled Israeli politics in the West Bank as "apartheid" and notes that former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak has just used the same term. It would be helpful if conservatives could stop having the vapors and drop some of their political correctness.
Showing posts with label boycotts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label boycotts. Show all posts
Friday, February 12, 2010
Friday, August 21, 2009
More on the Mackey/Whole Foods boycott
I'll start by noting that in contrast to my usual blogging subjects here, I actually have a fair amount of direct personal experience with boycott campaigns. I played a somewhat central role in the successful boycotts that got Columbia Sportswear and Pepsi out of Burma,* was heavily involved in the mostly-unsuccessful boycott of Unocal for its travesties in Burma, and I studied the successful tuna-dolphin boycotts before starting my own activism.
Some thoughts:
1. If Mackey owned Whole Foods instead of working for it, I'd have no problem with a boycott and might have to join it myself.
2. Part of a successful boycott strategy is a coherent goal - so what's the goal here, when the boycott target, Whole Foods, has done nothing wrong? Get it to fire Mackey for his political opinions expressed on his own time? Is that ethical?
3. The ever-nuanced Jonathan Zasloff says what he wants from Mackey is intelligent disagreement, and not to shut him up. Fine, but the demand isn't being made of Mackey, it's being made of Whole Foods.
4. Matt Yglesias says shutting down CEOs from prominence in the public media isn't that bad/unethical anyway as they get undeserved attention to spout off on issues unrelated to their business. So do other people though, like Hollywood liberals. That's life. Anyway, it's Whole Foods that's being punished for something Whole Foods didn't do.
5. Somewhere in the Yglesias comment thread, someone says this isn't about ethics, it's about political maneuvering, and objectors like myself should get off our high horses. Interesting point, but Your "Ends Justifies the Means" Mileage May Vary (maybe I can invent a new Internet acronym, YEJMMMV).
6. Boycotts need both favorable sentiment and an organizer. A "Boycott Whole Foods" group has sprung up, but what they want is unclear. They call for a boycott, but don't say what they want Whole Foods to do. I think a successful boycott requires that the target company know exactly what it needs to do in order to make the problem go away.
7. Boycotts succeed not by turning customers away, but by affecting brand image and taking the time of important people. That's the sole advantage I see here for a boycott, in that Whole Foods relies heavily on its image.
8. The boycott may not be about Whole Foods or Mackey at all, but rather about health reform. That might make it more logical, but I'm not sure if it makes it the right thing to do.
9. Given his past, Mackey seems dumb enough to pull stunts like this again in the future. I remember hearing somewhere that company board members never want to see the company name in the newspaper, unless it's to report on record profits. Either he's really good at what his actual work entails, or the guy will eventually have to go.
*I should qualify these as "tactically" successful. We got the companies to withdraw, but have obviously failed on the broader strategic goal of forcing Burma's dictators to change.
Some thoughts:
1. If Mackey owned Whole Foods instead of working for it, I'd have no problem with a boycott and might have to join it myself.
2. Part of a successful boycott strategy is a coherent goal - so what's the goal here, when the boycott target, Whole Foods, has done nothing wrong? Get it to fire Mackey for his political opinions expressed on his own time? Is that ethical?
3. The ever-nuanced Jonathan Zasloff says what he wants from Mackey is intelligent disagreement, and not to shut him up. Fine, but the demand isn't being made of Mackey, it's being made of Whole Foods.
4. Matt Yglesias says shutting down CEOs from prominence in the public media isn't that bad/unethical anyway as they get undeserved attention to spout off on issues unrelated to their business. So do other people though, like Hollywood liberals. That's life. Anyway, it's Whole Foods that's being punished for something Whole Foods didn't do.
5. Somewhere in the Yglesias comment thread, someone says this isn't about ethics, it's about political maneuvering, and objectors like myself should get off our high horses. Interesting point, but Your "Ends Justifies the Means" Mileage May Vary (maybe I can invent a new Internet acronym, YEJMMMV).
6. Boycotts need both favorable sentiment and an organizer. A "Boycott Whole Foods" group has sprung up, but what they want is unclear. They call for a boycott, but don't say what they want Whole Foods to do. I think a successful boycott requires that the target company know exactly what it needs to do in order to make the problem go away.
7. Boycotts succeed not by turning customers away, but by affecting brand image and taking the time of important people. That's the sole advantage I see here for a boycott, in that Whole Foods relies heavily on its image.
8. The boycott may not be about Whole Foods or Mackey at all, but rather about health reform. That might make it more logical, but I'm not sure if it makes it the right thing to do.
9. Given his past, Mackey seems dumb enough to pull stunts like this again in the future. I remember hearing somewhere that company board members never want to see the company name in the newspaper, unless it's to report on record profits. Either he's really good at what his actual work entails, or the guy will eventually have to go.
*I should qualify these as "tactically" successful. We got the companies to withdraw, but have obviously failed on the broader strategic goal of forcing Burma's dictators to change.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Defending Whole Foods from John Mackey and a boycott
Whole Foods CEO John Mackey wrote a shallow and unaware Wall Street Journal Op-Ed (are there any other kinds?) attacking real health care reform and proposing nonsolutions like shopping at Whole Foods. The outraged liberal customer base of Whole Foods is now proposing a boycott.
I don't agree with a boycott. Mackey may be like the evil denialist Lee Raymond who funded anti-global warming astroturf groups when he ran Exxon, but the difference here is that Whole Foods isn't being used by Mackey to fight health care. I don't object to a corporation having a prominent officer espousing stupid beliefs on his own time.
Mackey did go slightly further, putting the unedited version of his op-ed on his part of the Whole Foods blog, but he says he did it to distinguish between his words and the edits by the Journal that made it expressly critical of Obama. IMO he shouldn't have posted it, but simply said that his views are only his own, and at most given a link to some personal blog he could set up independently of Whole Foods and rant to his heart's content.
That's a relatively minor sin, though, and I don't think it should be a requirement that corporations I use have every officer share my views.
I don't agree with a boycott. Mackey may be like the evil denialist Lee Raymond who funded anti-global warming astroturf groups when he ran Exxon, but the difference here is that Whole Foods isn't being used by Mackey to fight health care. I don't object to a corporation having a prominent officer espousing stupid beliefs on his own time.
Mackey did go slightly further, putting the unedited version of his op-ed on his part of the Whole Foods blog, but he says he did it to distinguish between his words and the edits by the Journal that made it expressly critical of Obama. IMO he shouldn't have posted it, but simply said that his views are only his own, and at most given a link to some personal blog he could set up independently of Whole Foods and rant to his heart's content.
That's a relatively minor sin, though, and I don't think it should be a requirement that corporations I use have every officer share my views.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)