What do they (liberals) always say about businesspeople? They put profits before all else and leave the regular folks behind in the process.
Was it not so long ago that republicans and conservatives were bashed by the left for bringing pain to Anheuser-Busch for its stance on the Dylan Mulvaney issue and support of LGBTQ+ issues? After all, according to the left, the makers of Bud Light simply had an opinion, and they were entitled to it.
Enter Mike Lindell who also has an opinion. But of course his opinion, albeit a controversial one (but so was the Dylan Mulvaney opinion from the right) did not and does not align with what the left thinks. His kind of opinion is not allowed and therefore he must be destroyed.
As a result, enduring ongoing legal battles that have wiped his bank accounts clean and destroyed his company as voting machine companies sue him for defamation and many retailers have opted to remove his products from their shelves, the left is rejoicing.
This is what you get, they say.
In a way I agree with the sentiment. I have said often that businesses can have an opinion, and surely their leaders can as well, but that mixing their opinions with their business presence is generally a bad idea. Granted, Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A proved to be exceptions to that rule.
In business the only goal is to make a profit and sell your products, and because certain opinions alienate some customers and potentially threaten one's ability to do that, you probably should just keep quiet.
At the same time, one thing Mike Lindell has been very vocal about is his convictions regarding the matter he is fighting so hard for. He's held his position and held firm in his pursuit of it without regard to profits and even his own riches.
He has put what he believes in ahead of profits.
Shouldn't the left, so hateful of the rich, rejoice in that over the potential devastation of his business and wealth? You don't have to agree with what he says or what he is fighting for. But if you are going to make the statement that a business is entitled to say what it wants and shouldn't be punished when they say things the left agrees with, on the basis of "free speech" as it applies to them, and "doing the right thing" as it aligns with their position, shouldn't the same concept apply even if what is being said is opposite of their side's position?
This is where the double standard always comes in to rear its ugly head. This is where the tell comes from.
Beyond that, doesn't the business who decides to pull a product from shelves also engage themselves in politics when they decide to do that? And why are their "statements" not challenged as well at some level?
Let's think about what may have happened had retailers decided to pull Bud Light from the shelves after the controversy over Dylan Mulvaney took hold? How would the left have reacted to that decision? Would they have said of the businesses who refused to sell the AB product, "Their business, their decision, get over it," like they did when AB decided to double down on their position over the infamous beer can?
Not hardly. Because again, this way of thinking only applies if the reason behind the decision is in lockstep with what they think is right.
The question in a case like the MyPillow one is, why would anyone perhaps not question, just a little bit, what the real motivation is if you are willing to destroy your business and keep on with what you are fighting for?
Beyond that, how does what Mike Lindell is doing align with the left's unrelenting stance that rich people only care about the money and will exploit everything and everyone in order to simply make a profit?
Clearly, he's not doing that.
Regardless of whether or not I agree with Lindell, or even admire his stance, I still stand by my thought that mixing business and politics is a recipe for disaster and should be avoided. But I also think that when it comes to "the response," it should not always be a sort of one-sided one. Because particularly when it comes to product yanks, it tends to happen to conservative leaning opinions as opposed to liberal ones.
If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander.
Some businesses have a different kind of reach, such as Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A, where they have standalone buildings in which to sell their products. MyPillow relied mostly on mail order or the retail stores that carried his wares. It's harder to get your products out if the stores won't carry them or TV stations won't even air your commercials.
The problem I have with all of this is that so often the left gets its way, and they are happy about that, but get fit to be tied if the tide turns against them for the very same reasons they win on their side.
Take the Washington Redskins or Aunt Jemimah pancake syrup. The indian figure on Land O' Lakes products or Uncle Ben's rice. Clearly all evidence of a cancel culture the right does not embrace that the left does. And yet, while the left will cry foul if anyone is against their cancellations, they are perfectly fine if something aligning with the right is cancelled.
I think as a people and as a society, we need to decide what we want. And more importantly, to decide why we want it? Is it to get our way and simply have our say? Or is it because we truly believe in the underlying fundamental basis for shutting down anything.
Because the same woes facing Elon Musk's X could also be an example. Does X experience issues because of the business itself and what it offers? Or is it affected only because the views of the guy who owns it leans conservative in his views?
Ultimately, we're not going to stop businesses or business leaders from having opinions. It's still a free country and these people and businesses are entitled to exercise their constitutional rights just as much as anyone. But when it comes to the products they sell? I think it should be left up to the buying public to also support or not support something. If the decision had been made to pull MyPillow from the shelves because the consumer decided to let the products collect dust on the shelves, that's one thing. But taking away the choice of the consumer to send their own message is wrong. Just like in the case of the Bud Light controversy, the opinion of the consumer was clear. Bud Light beer stayed on the shelves while competing brands flew off them.
Yet no one pulled Bud Light entirely to avoid any potential backlash for carrying the product despite the clear opinion of the buying public. And that's the very reason MyPillow was pulled. The retailers did not want to be associated with the opinion of the brand. But again, this decision sides with the left and once again leaves conservative opinion behind.
Like what I have to say or the way I say it? Follow me on YouTube or on my Facebook page to keep up with all the latest goings on of The Springboard.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment