Anti-Boycott Boycott?

Michelle Malkin, the most prolific tweeter whom I follow, has been a leading proponent of boycotting businesses who succumb to lefty boycott threats and abandon support for conservative causes like ALEC or Rush Limbaugh. Bradley Smith, in today's WSJ, argues that we are all the worse for the secondary boycott, because it frays civil society.

All these examples are what are called "secondary boycotts"—attempts to influence the actions of the target by exerting pressure on a third party. Secondary boycotts should not be confused with primary boycotts. A decision not to patronize a business that discriminates on the basis of race is an example of a primary boycott. Primary boycotts—used to great effect during the Civil Rights Movement—have a long and often laudatory history.

But secondary boycotts have long been recognized as harmful to civil society. They rend the social fabric by making it difficult for people to simply live their lives.
. . .
People have a right not to do business with companies or individuals. But blacklists—never a healthy part of political debate—endanger the very commerce that enriches us all.

I admit that I participated by pulling the renewal of my Carbonite subscription. Smith's reasoning has me wondering if direct retaliation is the best way to fight back. Consider the climate. Businesses are often cautious, having the broadest possible base to sell your wares is just good business. If boycotts become routine, then potential advertisers might conclude its best to avoid all politically charged broadcasting. The nation is the poorer for having fewer points of view on display, left or right. Secondary boycotts in retaliation by conservatives only increases the wariness of advertisers, because they get in a lose-lose situation.

What's the other option? I think a buycott and similar action improves the climate. A buycott would be buying extra from the business that is being targeted by the left. This would help them weather the temporary storm of lost sales. And the storm is almost always temporary. Look at Rush Limbaugh, he doesn't appear to be suffering, and isn't allowing some of his fickle advertisers back on his show. Buycotting maintains civil society, because it encourages businesses to have fewer worries about the potential boycott. When Whole Foods CEO John Mackey proposed free market alternatives to Obmacare in 2009, there were sporadic attempts to boycott Whole Foods that went nowhere. Tea party types organized a buycott and we had great fun. Given our generally more cheerful nature than the left, buycotts are more appropriate to conservatives and libertarians.

B-Daddy in 2009 at the Whole Foods Buycott, having fun buying good food.

Barack Obama's Enemies List

Obama for America is vilifying Americans for the twin sins of donating to Romney and being successful in their various business ventures. H/T Heritage via Doo Doo Econ. This is consistent with the new leftist tactic of using economic pressure to get sponsors of conservative causes to pull out from sponsorship. We saw this with Rush Limbaugh's sponsors, mostly a failure. Another example was the pressure that resulted in Coca-Cola withdrawing from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) over claims that voter ID laws are somehow racist.

In the case of the new Truth Squad, called Keeping GOP Honest, the alleged sins of Obama donors include making money in financial deals that include offshoring, donating to anti-gay causes, and ties to oil companies. This is politics, but when the President's campaign vilifies Americans for donating to his opponents, isn't that a little CREEPy? It reminds of the people who publicized the names and addresses who had donated to the Prop 8 campaign. How is that anything other than intimidation? The left isn't content to try to win on the merits, intimidation seems an important part of their strategy. But this only angers free people, who will fight back against intimidation.

Obama has a history of using snitching and intimidation as part of his campaign. During the health care debate he used the office of the Presidency to ask his supporters to snitch on those who were "spreading lies" about health care to send an email to flag@whithouse.gov. Note the address, which meant your tax dollars were paying for that initial snitch campaign. Fightthesmears.com was replace in 2011 by Attack Watch. (BTW, fighthesmears.com will now redirect you to Attack Watch.)

I am reposting the Live Leak parody of Obama's campaign efforts, because these kinds of efforts need to be ridiculed.