As it happens EVERY two years, people are coming out of the woodwork to bash people like me who refuse to vote on political candidates. We're told we should not shirk our "civic duty". We're told that voting for the "lesser evil" is nothing to be ashamed of. We're told that people who don't vote will have no room to complain later. We're told we must vote to save mom, apple pie and the whole of humanity. This same tired litany goes on and on and on.
But what if instead of referring to political candidates we were speaking of consumer products or big corporations? Many of the same people who argue that we must vote today are the very same people who support the concept of the boycott. So, what's wrong with boycotting candidates?
We've all seen this scenario before. It is discovered that a company is peddling a toxic product or the company supports some sort of draconian policy. What is the remedy that many people suggest as a way to punish the offender or to send a message to the world at large? A boycott is called. Don't buy the product, we're told. Don't support the company. Hit 'em in the pocketbook.
If two or more companies are found to be colluding in their misdeeds, many will suggest we boycott them both. If you continue to buy what they're selling, we're told, we let them off the hook. We provide no incentive for them to mend their evil ways. They ONLY way we can hope to motivate them to change course or policy is to turn away from them completely.
So, why can't this rationale be employed with our political process? Both companies -- the Democrat and Republican Parties -- are guilty of marketing an inferior product. Both are guilty of catering to wealthy special interests. Both pursue policies that are detrimental to the vast majority. Both support endless war. Both have blocked any meaning campaign finance reform. Both have helped to dismantle the social safety net.
If not buying a product or service is viewed as an incentive to motivate a company to change it's miscreant behavior, then the same principle can be applied to our political process as well. What if they held an election and no one showed up to vote? Wouldn't that send a damning message in and of itself?
But what if instead of referring to political candidates we were speaking of consumer products or big corporations? Many of the same people who argue that we must vote today are the very same people who support the concept of the boycott. So, what's wrong with boycotting candidates?
We've all seen this scenario before. It is discovered that a company is peddling a toxic product or the company supports some sort of draconian policy. What is the remedy that many people suggest as a way to punish the offender or to send a message to the world at large? A boycott is called. Don't buy the product, we're told. Don't support the company. Hit 'em in the pocketbook.
If two or more companies are found to be colluding in their misdeeds, many will suggest we boycott them both. If you continue to buy what they're selling, we're told, we let them off the hook. We provide no incentive for them to mend their evil ways. They ONLY way we can hope to motivate them to change course or policy is to turn away from them completely.
So, why can't this rationale be employed with our political process? Both companies -- the Democrat and Republican Parties -- are guilty of marketing an inferior product. Both are guilty of catering to wealthy special interests. Both pursue policies that are detrimental to the vast majority. Both support endless war. Both have blocked any meaning campaign finance reform. Both have helped to dismantle the social safety net.
If not buying a product or service is viewed as an incentive to motivate a company to change it's miscreant behavior, then the same principle can be applied to our political process as well. What if they held an election and no one showed up to vote? Wouldn't that send a damning message in and of itself?
If only an election could be considered invalid if a certain percentage of the population doesn't vote!
ReplyDeletethe reason boycotts work for corporations is that a small change in revenue can make a huge change in profits. and when a corp is not profitable, it goes out of business (unless it's politically connected, like the auto companies or the banks.)
ReplyDeleteeg, the average corp in america makes about 5% profit on each dollar of sales. so, if you can get just 1% of the customers to stop purchasing their product by a boycott, (and assuming that in the very short term all costs are fixed), then that 5% profit turns into a 4% profit, which doesn't sound like much when expressed that way, but is a 20% decline in the overall profits! (with associated impact on stock prices, stock market expected growth rates and hence P/E multiples, and executive stock option and bonus calculations.)
of course, not all costs are fixed. if it's a long-term decline in revenue, then they can lay off people. if they have hourly employees scheduled on a weekly basis (eg, starbucks, mcdonalds, etc), then they can react much faster. but still, most businesses have fairly large fixed costs in buildings, leases, etc.
unfortunately, gov't doesn't work that way. so long as a candidate gets a plurality of the votes in his/her district, they're good to go for another 2-6 years. there is no effective cost to them if they lose a few percent of the votes. they have to lose the election entirely before there is any pain. and then they have a opportunities to become a lobbyist, or go to work at the corps that donated to their campaign.
that's why i'm a libertarian -- the role of gov't is for police/court system, and national defense (*not* running an empire, mind you).
my view, it's the socialists, such as yourself, that have been pushing for increased gov't involvement in every aspect of life for the last 80 years. and now you've gotten the logical outcome of what you've wished for -- gov't control! so you should be thrilled! why aren't you happy?
as for my voting, i watch the pre-election polls. if the "lesser of two evils" candidate that i would vote for is ahead, or else so far behind it doesn't matter, then i vote for the 3rd party candidate that i really want. not that they'll win, but the few percentage that the libertarians get is my way of telling the politicians which way i want them to head if they really want my vote. i've voted for 3rd party candidates for president since 1992, and for a many other offices as well.
i won't be voting in this election at all, however. frankly, we're too far gone, and there are no grown-ups in washington, or elsewhere in business or gov't. i've read enough history to know the next decade will be quite bumpy, as the political class struggles to maintain any legitimacy.
--sgl
I have been feeling exactly the same this year. I am completely un-enthused and disgusted by the endless tirade of mudslinging. Why spend money that way, rather than simply say what you stand for? It sounds so basic, like 3rd grade stuff, and it blows my mind that these adults, these big shots in suits market themselves by spending every penny of the millions of campaign dollars they've somehow acquired to merely slander and discredit the opponent. We never grew up! And voting makes me feel stupid and dirty, like I'm part of it, like I support it.
ReplyDelete