Quantcast

«

»

Sep 27 2011

“Economic Terrorism”

Mike Huckabee’s opinion of a boycott.

Terrorism as a word is thrown around far too often these days. The word has become increasingly muddled in recent history, just take a look at the Wikipedia page devoted to its definition.

Calling anything a form of “terrorism” is a cheap yet effective way of tossing any such labeled idea or action straight into the “anti-America” pigeonhole.

In response to Stuart Wilber’s activism to get companies to cease their relationships with internet marketer Charity Giveback Group over their ties to anti-gay religious organizations. Mr. Huckabee said,

“This is economic terrorism. To try to destroy a business because you don’t like some of the customers is, to me, unbelievably un-American.”

/sigh. Boycotts are as American as apple pie. Many conservatives champion the idea of money equals free speech, at least until that money, or the denial of patronage by consumers, is used against something that they like.

Then again, it could just be that Mr. Huckabee likes his money as he is a consultant for the Charity Giveback Group.

(source: HuffPost)

4 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    YankeeCynic

    Wasn’t the response by many on the right when labor unions criticized Walmart for their anti-labor stance? “People are voting with their feet.”

    Amazing how that dies out when its working for a cause they don’t like.

  2. 2
    ralphwiggam

    When American Colonist started a boycott of British tea was that un-American?

    When they boycotted the stamps mandated by the Stamp Act was that un-American?

    When those boycotts escalated to violence, was that terrorism?

    By the rude bridge that arched the flood
    Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled
    Here once illegal combatants stood
    And fired the shot heard ’round the world.
    (apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

  3. 3
    drlake

    Funny, I bet they are fine with boycotts of businesses owned by liberals or atheists. Just a guess…

  4. 4
    jamessweet

    And all this noise about whether boycotts are a legitimate tactic (seriously, Huckabee?!?) is obscuring the fact that this is a more subtle issue than it first appears.

    You do not have to ask me twice to affirm that FRC and FoF are hateful douchebags.

    And you don’t need to do much work to convince me that CGBG are making a way-wrong call by including those fuckwads in their program, and that someone who otherwise agreed with CGBG’s aims really ought to boycott them on those grounds alone.

    But I’m less convinced that a company doing business with CGBG is boycott-worthy. I lean towards saying, “Yeah, probably,” but it’s dicey, as this is on the boundary of where businesses ought to interfere with who they do business with.

    Certainly, we would not boycott Apple for cutting a paycheck to an employee who then, of her own free will, donated part of her paycheck to FRC. That’s a silly notion.

    So is the line drawn when it is business-to-business, i.e. Apple ought not to get involved in the politics of the individuals it pays, but it should care about the politics of the companies it pays?

    But then the question becomes, how far does this extend? Would Apple be boycott-worthy if they outsourced their custodial work to a company that happened to buy their mops from a Christian-owned company that donated to FRC? That seems like a stretch.

    Again, I lean towards thinking that businesses ought to be pressured to end their relationship with CGBG. But it’s a tough call as to whether that is crossing a line…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>