Budding Controversies

In which we see Starbucks take a right turn

Targeted: The Right has begun to play by the Left’s rules.

Let me tell you about a strange experience I had last weekend. I was over on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, where I went to see the terrific “Juan de Pareja, Afro-Hispanic Painter” exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. As is my wont when I go to the Met, I arrived before the museum opened and headed over to the Starbucks over on Madison Avenue between 84^th and 85^th Streets. And that’s when things got really weird.

There was a big MAGA (“Make America Great Again”) banner draped on the wall opposite the coffee bar with a red, white, and blue flag. Though the store was unusually empty, it took a while for me to get my plain croissant and iced coffee because, as a barista explained, the store was short-handed as a result of some sudden staff departures. This was all disconcerting enough—as were the furrowed faces peering in the window from outside—but I was further unsettled when I logged onto the wi-fi there only to find the following corporate communication: “In seeking to foster a more inclusive environment, Starbucks celebrates those members of our community who affirm traditional values. As part of that effort, we stand in solidarity with those who fight the genital mutilation of minors. Keep the faith!”

Seems surreal, doesn’t it? That’s because I made it up. I did so to invite you to consider how you might react when confronted with a marketing message that felt ideologically loaded and didactic. My guess is that you’d be appalled, though I won’t make a specific prediction beyond that about how intense your reaction might be. (Grim silence? Expression of distaste? The end of your relationship with Starbucks?) I reckon that such responses would be plausible, given my supposition that if you’re reading this piece, you’re unlikely to be a Trump supporter. Me neither.

I am of course offering you this scenario in the context of recent controversies about Dylan Mulvaney and Bud Light, the issue of trans-themed clothing at Target, and anger surrounding the hiring of a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion executive at Chick-fil-A, whose website speaks of “ensuring equal access,” “valuing differences,” and “creating a culture of belonging,” which are now seen by some as code words for specific racial and gender preferences.

Before going any further, I want to make clear that I believe a company should be able to market what it likes the way it likes in any manner consistent with consumer protection law. And I am firmly opposed to intimidation or threats to employees or anyone who might wish to buy such products. (I will sheepishly observe that I currently have Bud Light in my refrigerator, a confession I make not in the context of gender politics but with some embarrassment over my plebian taste in beer.) If the cleverly named Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence wish to perform an anti-Catholic minstrel show, they have every right to do so, as do the Los Angeles Dodgers to invite them to appear at a Major League Baseball game as part of Pride Night. I don’t think you can call that “inclusive,” however. (The club is now backtracking at the behest of pitcher Clayton Kershaw to hold a “Christian Family and Faith Day” next month.)

By my reckoning, the roots of current controversies over ideologically-driven marketing date back to 2018, when Nike ran an ad campaign celebrating Colin Kaepernick’s decision to take a knee during the National Anthem at National Football League games over police brutality. That paid off. This wave accelerated in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder, when a series of companies from Microsoft to Tinder made donations to Black Lives Matter, an organization about which one can have legitimate reservations, ranging from its role in rioting to its highly dubious accounting practices. This was accompanied by efforts to remove books like To Kill a Mockingbird from library shelves because it promotes a white savior complex, and to rewrite the language of classic children’s literature of writers such as Roald Dahl to suit enlightened sensibilities. In general, the Left has been more sophisticated in seizing the commanding heights when it comes to terminology and erecting institutional structures in cultural institutions (notably universities) to advance its interests. What we’re seeing now, to borrow a phrase from Malcolm X, is chickens coming home to roost. The Right has caught on and is fighting back, using some of the same tools, notably “bans”— an imprecise and ambiguous term on all sides—and boycotts. And so the culture war continues.

In the wake of such controversies, I’ve heard a number of people say: why do they care so much? Why not just live and let live? I basically agree with this position. But I do want to point out that virtue-signaling has a price: self-righteous preening provokes self-righteous anger, particularly when it edges toward hypocrisy. (Here I’m thinking of pronouncements that New York, Chicago, and Washington are Sanctuary Cities defying the federal government on immigration policy, which is beginning to sound hollow now that state of Texas is calling their bluff and shipping migrants there, leading politicians to seek federal aid to handle the surge.) I think we’d do well to stick to our knitting with as much interpersonal decency as we can muster. That’s hard enough, even without unnecessary distractions by loud minorities, whether left or right. Enough with the polarization!

Will you drink to that?