by Arthur in Maine
To my progressive friends (and I am proud to have many) who have been posting memes about boycotting on 2/28, I have a suggestion: Stop.
I mean it. Just stop. You’re revealing nothing other than your own ignorance of how money and commerce work. At best, you’re preaching to your own choir and changing no minds. You’re advocating tactics fifty years past their sell-by dates. I know this, because fifty years ago, I was a left-wing activist. We used the same tactics. They made us feel good. They didn’t work then, and they won’t work now.
More to the point, this boycott gag has been tried numerous times since and nothing ever happened. The companies you’re “boycotting” know they’ll get your money anyway, as soon as you need a tank of gas or a basket of cheap groceries. They don’t care when you buy. February 28, March 3, hey – it all fits neatly in the quarterly projections. First quarter, y’all. At minimum, time these things to the last week of a reporting quarter – that might make a minimal dent. Timing it this way is sheer ignorance.
You don’t like Trump? Fine, I get it. I don’t like him either. But consider that a plurality of the country thought that the agenda the Democrats advanced in the last four years is nuts, and voted accordingly. Consider that a plurality of the country rejected the previous administration and its patch job when it was clear that said admin was led by a puppet, and offered up a another puppet to replace him. From my perspective, a plurality of the country said “we may not like Trump, but he’s still better than what we’ve been offered.”
Consider also that a MAJORITY of the country actually likes what they’re seeing so far, according to recent polls. Not a plurality – a MAJORITY. The issues that Trump has chosen to make news with are ones for which he has overwhelming popular support.
My progressive friends, I share your distaste for Trump. He makes chaos by choice. Some of that is strategic, some tactical, and some of it works. Some of it is because he’s a social media troll (and I hate trolls). My greatest personal fear of Trump is that he does not understand what’s happening in the Middle East and thinks that the Gaza situation can be fixed with a real estate deal. The Israelis know better, but they’re biding their time. That’s a discussion for a different day.
You want to see the end of Trump? Start with this: he’ll be gone in four years anyway, regardless of what else happens. Now, if you want to see the end of Trump’s agenda, get serious. Find a competing message that connects with people. A vision that’s compelling and easy to explain. One that doesn’t separate people by small differences such as racial or sexual identity. One that embraces broad themes – like strength of community, prosperity, success for families, a better life for their kids, a stronger nation that can manage outside threats. Because God knows, those threats exist.
That’s the kind of message that Trump sold. If you want to beat him, find a message that offers a competing vision, and then find candidates who can offer those things in an accessible way that is NOT TRUMP. You might do well in 2026, and better in 2028.
Until you do that, with stuff like this boycott shit, you just look ridiculous.
Ethics Alarms 
I’ve received a number of these meme appeals to “strike”on various dates just returned from Italy where they often experience “scioperos” (strikes). The trains halt for a predetermined 30 minutes everyone sips a coffee or a bit of vino. After the expiration of the proposed time all go back to their life as usual.
Find a competing message that connects with people. A vision that’s compelling and easy to explain. One that doesn’t separate people by small differences such as racial or sexual identity. One that embraces broad themes – like strength of community, prosperity, success for families, a better life for their kids, a stronger nation that can manage outside threats. Because God knows, those threats exist.
Was that not Barack Obama’s campaign message?
It was. And he won. Twice. But his administration fell far short of that unifying message, ultimately relying on a cheerleading media and accusations of racism on the part of its critics. If you want to win the battle, appeal to the broad community of voters. If you want to win the war, deliver.
Democrats act as if winning the battle (the election) is the end of history.
Messaging alone is not enough. One must demonstrate a willingness and spine to follow through with it. Talk is cheap and the reason the majority support what Trump is doing is because it was what he campaign on and he is doing it.
Translation of his message: “It’s time for the US to prove it isn’t racist by electing a black President even if her really doesn’t have much experience or qualifications for a change.”
As usual, AIM delivers a reasoned response to the callers for the boycott. If I were a business selling goods that are hard to get I would join their strike and send all the employees home without pay. Just kidding. However, the idea of boycotts always seems to forget that it is the little guy is often the one most harmed by such actions.
There are a couple of points I would like to see expanded upon here by people more knowledgeable than myself. AIM stated:
“My greatest personal fear of Trump is that he does not understand what’s happening in the Middle East and thinks that the Gaza situation can be fixed with a real estate deal.”
Aren’t all resolved military conflicts ultimately a real estate development deal? Given that Gaza is basically rubble who should take its residents during reconstruction if reconstruction is even the goal? It could just as easily and cheaply be bulldozed over. It is obvious that a two state solution is unobtainable so the choice left is who will control Gaza when its residents remain willing to offer their children up a human shield martyrs. They are not innocents when they cheer the mutilated bodies of murdered Israeli babies being returned to their father.
AIM recommended that Democrats:
“Find a competing message that connects with people. A vision that’s compelling and easy to explain. One that doesn’t separate people by small differences such as racial or sexual identity. One that embraces broad themes – like strength of community, prosperity, success for families, a better life for their kids, a stronger nation that can manage outside threats. Because God knows, those threats exist.“
I believe that progressives believe that that is what their message is. They just believe that “President Cheeto” and his followers are racist bigots unwilling to accept all the great ideals that they have because MAGGATS are inherently greedy and do not wish to relinquish their privileges so others may have them.
Democrats rely on intersectionality to amass power because none of the identity groups individually have the power to unseat the majority demographic group. The problem with intersectionality is that eventually some new or existing group will aspire to the top of the victimization hierarchy which will threaten the privileges of those at the top. The fact that Trump made large inroads among Hispanic and black voters is the first bit of evidence that some within the intersectional groups are not happy with committing to a group that does nothing for them except make many of them dependent on government.
I am not a fan of labels at all and that includes MAGA. However, if we all began to spend less time calling the Make America Great Again slogan a battle cry of racists who wish that we return to the era of Jim Crow and women being barefoot and pregnant to enrage their followers and instead view it as a slogan that helps us come together as a people who are willing to fight for truth an justice – even if it requires some personal sacrifice – then we might just make America and its people economically resilient when the loss of one job opens the door to a new and better opportunity. America needs to be sound as the proverbial dollar to be able to manage those outside threats. When Democrats stop demanding that others do as they are told – or else – that would be a giant stride toward a unifying message.
Chris,
I find your comments enlightening and excellent. Without fail, I see your name and read with interest. I may not agree with your position but you are thought-provoking, offering insight I may not have considered. Nicely done, sir.
On the larger issue, though, I recently watched a YouTube interview/podcast with Trevor Noah and Princeton professor Ruha Benjamin, discussing whether the 1960s civil rights movement calling for integration was not only unsuccessful but misguided. Here is a link to the podcast on Real Clear Politics:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/02/19/trevor_noah_was_racial_integration_the_right_solution.html
Some of the things Noah said are just dumb. For instance, the fact that he automatically and reflexively gives credibility to someone of his own race is immature and stupid: When as Al Sharpton said anything even remotely worth considering? If I said I gave Alex Jones the benefit of the doubt because he is a white dude, people would call for my stoning, and with good reason. Alex Jones is a moron.
Conservatives are in an uproar over the discussion because it Noah and Benjamin seem to be calling for resegregation or reverse discrimination. They are missing the point, though.
I watched it. I came away thinking, “well, what the hell is the nation supposed to do? Jim Crow laws were/are immoral and unethical. Yet, these two seem to be arguing that integrating blacks into the dominant US (read that as white) culture is doubly harming blacks because the dominant culture does not reflect or represent black experience. Well, no kidding. The dominant culture may not necessarily reflect my experience (especially living here in Houston) because I am a Catholic boy from Cleveland, OH, who believes Rush is the greatest band on the planet, but the culture provided me with opportunities to attend college, figure out I wanted to be a lawyer (God only knows why . . .!), get my law license, get married to the most amazing individual, and raise our son with combined religious and social values hoping to plant seeds for his future success. More importantly, they seem to calling for disintegration and separate but better. Dr. King was an integrationist; Medgar Evans was a separatist. Who is right? What do we do about it?”
It seems the Great Society was and is a wholescale failure. It did not address the issues and only kicked the can down the road. Pres. Obama had a unique opportunity to move the culture forward, heal long-standing wounds, and attempt to unify the country. He, though, decided to be Divider-in-Chief, setting back cultural and social progress by at least 50 years. Who knows if Trump is capable of addressing the problems. He is a big-mouthed, blustering, bloviating real estate guy from lower Manhattan. Yet, perhaps his idea that racism is bad for business is not wrong.
jvb
Thank you for your comments. I will say that we can agree that Geddy Lee is a standout musician an incredible talent that makes Rush one of the greatest of all bands.
I dont agree that Johnson’s Great Society was a wholesale failure. Even when we do not completely eradicate a problem we do make inroads toward making things better. The MIssouri Compromise did not end slavery and may have led to the Civil war but it did force the issue to a point that slavery did end. Yes, it came at a heavy price but then, even the civil war did not end racism. I believe that we have come to believe that major societal changes must occur overnight or else. That I believe is the problem – we all want instant gratification and are often unwilling to sacrifice anything of our own toward some lofty goal. In addition, we have those in our society who profit handsomely by exploiting a human desire to get instant pleasure or the elimination of pain. These people know full well that such exploitation requires division among different groups of people.
We see it today among those complaining the rich don’t pay their fair share. Even today I watched a press conference in which the Mayors of some small towns in New Jersey were criticizing ICE for arresting a small business owner. Their complaint centered on the notion that the arrestee was a good member of the business community yet none of them seemed to ever help this good person navigate the immigration system, let alone help him defray the legal costs. The Mayors’ goal today was to bash Trump for political gain.
As for the differences between MLK and Medgar Evers regarding integration I can argue neither are wrong. What was and is still wrong is forced integration, especially if it legislatively seems to be a one way street.
It is through voluntary associations that people begin to feel “safe” within their skins. What I mean by this is that socialization that either prevents people from coming together or forces them together will not engender good will between different people. It really does not matter if the differences are based on race, sex, ideology, or some other differentiating characteristic. The harder they are pushed together by outside forces the more friction between the two will result. Relationships must be symbiotic to be successful. Forcing people apart results generates friction between members of similar characteristics.
I grew up in Baltimore City long before the Civil Rights Act of 64 was passed. As a child, most of my friends were “negro” in the parlance of the day. My best friend was Michael and his dad worked for RC Cola as a truck driver. Natalie, the little negro girl lived in the big house at the end of Montpelier Street. Maurice lived a little ways away on Kirk Avenue. All of us got along without issue. The only kid I ever had an issue with was kid name Doc. He was white and a bully. Michael and I spent many Saturday morning watching the Lone Ranger and Sky King. We built forts and never once did his color or my color cause a problem. As I grew older, most of my group was relatively inclusive. If you liked to play baseball or football you were welcome to join in our group. It was not until, 1968 did I experience any negative issues with black kids. These new kids were not in my usual circle but I nonetheless felt uneasy about registering a complaint about them with the black kids in my group. Some of the new kids were not born and bred in Baltimore but instead were transplants from the deep south. Something had definitely changed. By 1970, most of the white kids in my neighborhood had moved and a new culture had become entrenched. The culture of work and private ownership was eroding away. Before, kids had dads and now mothers ruled the roost. I was routinely told that my house was “Guvment property”. People like me were viewed with suspicion. I was the honkey or cracker on the block. I was also heavyset and seen as an easy mark. That was when I retreated to the safety of my demographic group. I can appreciate the idea that one’s racial affinity group provides a measure of safety. But safety alone is not a reason to exclude others until they give you a reason to exclude them from your voluntary associations.
My principal argument against pushing DEI is that it is only a one way street. If diversity and inclusion were a means to achieve superior results as McKinsey Consultants claim, why do we not see DEI programs at HBCU’s or in predominantly minority owned institutions like BET. We celebrate segregated minority focused groups when those group’s leadership mandate that only those with the same characteristics such as the NAACP or the Congressional Black or Hispanic Caucuses can hold leadership positions and white members are supposed to serve as allies or simply window dressing with money. It appears that voluntary associations based on some racial or ethnic affinity is perfectly acceptable when it is not mandated or restricted by law. People who are pushing DEI are just grifters who make a living creating disharmony.
You don’t need to force people together. It will happen you just need to be patient and let nature take its time. Maybe that’s what geopoetic movements is all about.
Thanks for the expanded comment, Chris. Excellent, as always.
jvb
Performative virtue-signalling has absolutely zero value, even to the “artist.” Making yourself feel good by acting stupid is simply not valuable at any level, and who in their right mind thinks acting stupidly for whatever reason can be anything other than… well, stupid.
Well done on the guest post. Worth the read.