We have to send American business notice that they can not profit by caving in to the demands of hate mongers. We can't let minority groups that promote fear and hate like the Florida Family association define America just because they are shouting loudly. If you think bigotry should be considered unacceptable in America, make your voice heard.
** Yeah I know I'm days behind on this one, but cut me some slack, I'm living in Trinidad and Tobago.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Wow, that is frightfully pathetic. I hadn't heard about this, I've never spent a dime at Lowe's but this is discouraging nonetheless.
Posted by Vasslia Cora (Member # 7981) on :
It seems more likely to me that the ads weren't paying off well enough for the fuss being made of the show wasn't worth the risk.
It's also possible that it wasn't a company decision on a whole but the actions of just a few in the company.
I'm not defending their actions if they did it for the reasons the article states but the article isn't the most unbiased piece I've read.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I say shame on Lowes for letting a bunch of insane people like the Florida Family Association have any influence on what they do, if that's how it happened. I'm more concerned about the Florida Family Association, though. I would boycott them if that were possible.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I don't shop at Lowe's so hard for me to boycott a place I never go to.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Kind of hard to organize a boycott of a place like Lowe's, where most of might not normally visit for a couple years at a stretch.
But for those of us that DO need what they sell, there's usually a Home Depot right around the corner.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vasslia Cora: It seems more likely to me that the ads weren't paying off well enough for the fuss being made of the show wasn't worth the risk.
It's also possible that it wasn't a company decision on a whole but the actions of just a few in the company.
I'm not defending their actions if they did it for the reasons the article states but the article isn't the most unbiased piece I've read
Here is Lowe's official statement on their decision.
quote:Lowe's has received a significant amount of communication on this program, from every perspective possible. Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lighting rod for many of those views. As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance.
I find it deceptive. This show was not a "lighting rod" for any controversy until Lowe's pulled their ad. If Lowe's had not pulled their ad, this would have been nothing more than a complaint from a small group of Islamaphobes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
LAT on Daily Show on Florida Family Association on All American Muslim (guh)
quote:The decision by home-improvement chain Lowe's to cave to a Christian fundamentalist group and withdraw its advertising from the TLC series "All-American Muslim" has ignited a firestorm of controversy -- the very thing the retail giant was supposedly trying to avoid in the first place.
On Tuesday's episode of "The Daily Show," Jon Stewart weighed in on issue. He began with an observation about the sensationalistic, sideshow nature of much of the programming on TLC, a network once known as The Learning Channel. As Stewart pointed out, the only thing a viewer is likely to learn on TLC these days is "what it might be like to have eight children, 17 children or 19 children."
"Sometimes the Learning Channel slips up and creates programming that not only isn't educational, but is downright offensive," Stewart said, cutting to a clip of Fox's Megyn Kelly explaining the supposed controversy over "All-American Muslim."
Stewart reasoned that, based on the outrage, the show must be "jihadi propaganda." But the clip he played, in which a young Muslim father-to-be discusses his wife's pregnancy, was more than benign; it was banal.
"Seriously, that wouldn't have been interesting to hear even if that guy was building a bomb as he was talking," Stewart joked. "That's the most boring reality show imaginable. It seems to just show Muslims living our lives like the rest of us ... idiots."
So why did the Florida Family Assn. have such a problem with the show?
As the organization's executive director, David Caton, explained, "It's the absence of the radical side of the imam's proposition of sharia law that is most concerning."
Stewart was baffled. "Why would you be upset to learn that there are non-jihadi Muslims?" Caton claimed that the show was an affront to his "belief system," but Stewart argued that's what educational programming is meant to do. "I don't like the show 'Nova' because it is harmful to my belief structure that the ocean tides are controlled by monsters," he joked.
Caton's real objection to the show, Stewart claimed, was that it challenged his false stereotype about Muslim Americans. But "All-American Muslim" isn't the only TLC show to challenge negative stereotypes. "I am also troubled that no one on your show 'Little People, Big World' whistles while they work, or makes candy for Willy Wonka," he said.
The clips that Stewart had highlighted on his show with the Florida Family Association were really telling. Someone would ask him what the problem with this show was, and you could just SEE him struggling while thinking: "so how can I put this in a way which doesn't just admit that we just don't want people to see muslims as non-scary"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... this would have been nothing more than a complaint from a small group of Islamaphobes.
Not really convinced that this is a small group. How many Americans still think Obama is a Muslim, "prayer mats in the White House", the blocking of mosques in various communities. The Florida Family Association is really just one example in one state.
Story continues BTW:
quote: The controversy over the reality TV show "All-American Muslim" continues, with Kayak.com apologizing to customers Wednesday for deciding not to advertise on the TLC show next year. But an executive at the travel site said the network "was not upfront with us about the nature of this show" and added that "mostly, I just thought the show sucked."
...
In explaining the decision, he said Kayak's approach to advertising is to place ads based on who watches a program, and not its political leaning. Birge said the company deemed the show a worthy topic at first, but looked into the program more carefully after receiving angry emails over its decision to advertise.
"The first thing I discovered was that TLC was not upfront with us about the nature of this show. As I said, it's a worthy topic, but any reasonable person would know that this topic is a particular lightning rod," he said. "We believe TLC went out of their way to pick a fight on this, and they didn't let us know their intentions. That's not a business practice that generally gets repeat business from us... Sadly, TLC is now enjoying the attention from this controversy."
The responses sound worse than saying nothing at all.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It's a good point. For every company that outright says that they've caving in, there probably is a larger number that will just silently do it and/or simply make it company policy to avoid such "controversy" in the future.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
As silly as I find the pressure that the group was placing on Lowes, I don't find giving in to that pressure a grievous enough crime to justify a boycott.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Why not?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'll answer for MPH, since I agree with what he said. His answer probably varies.
The group exerting pressure on Lowe's is reprehensible. From Lowe's actions, it seems to me that they simply don't want to deal with the controversy (yes I know their action generated even more controversy, but they didn't know it would do that). It seems to me that they decided they don't want to be in the business of making political statements, and a vocal group was treating their sponsorship as a statement. It's spineless, but I don't think it makes sense to boycott companies for not being willing to take principled stands. I'd only boycott if the company was actively taking a stand I found reprehensible.
By the same token, I despise YouTube's policy of removing a video if anyone claims copyright infringement, even if the video in question is clearly fair use. YouTube has decided they don't want to get involved in such disputes, and effectively neutralize them before they can even begin. It's spineless, but I'm not going to boycott YouTube over it.
It's not conventionally good business sense to take stands on principle. Being spineless (in this regard, obviously) is often regarded as the safer strategy. Personally, I disagree, but I don't really fault businesses for trying to stay out of these kinds of frays.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
The only reason Lowe's or any company advertises is to generate business for themselves. It would be stupid for them to pay a large sum of money to a television channel if doing so will cause them to lose business.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Unless caving to these folks will cause them to lose even more business.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lowes didn't want to be in the business of making political statements, so they expressed that desire by...making a profound political statement?
I wonder if their corporation, or whoever owns them, donates to any political campaigns? No, I think what they didn't want was *trouble*, which is actually different from not wanting to make political statements.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Unless caving to these folks will cause them to lose even more business.
I doubt a substantial amount of people will end up boycotting Lowes and those that do likely weren't frequent patrons of the business to begin with. Long-time customers and contractors aren't going to jump ship because of this. I'm sure the company will do fine.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Unless caving to these folks will cause them to lose even more business.
I doubt a substantial amount of people will end up boycotting Lowes and those that do likely weren't frequent patrons of the business to begin with. Long-time customers and contractors aren't going to jump ship because of this. I'm sure the company will do fine.
*Glances at thread filled with "Man, if only I shopped at Lowe's so that I could boycott them!"*
Yeah, I think this forecast is accurate.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Lowes didn't want to be in the business of making political statements, so they expressed that desire by...making a profound political statement?
I wonder if their corporation, or whoever owns them, donates to any political campaigns? No, I think what they didn't want was *trouble*, which is actually different from not wanting to make political statements.
I think you're right that they didn't want trouble, but I stand by my statement as well. They didn't want to be seen as making a political statement with their sponsorship. Once it became a political issue, they pulled sponsorship. You classify getting out of the situation as making a statement? By your criteria, once it became a political issue, anything they did can be classified as a political statement. If someone starts a fight with me, I can either fight back or run away. You're essentially saying either response should be defined as "fighting."
PS: Whether or not they make political donations is irrelevant. Making a political donation is not making a political statement (especially if it's the owner who makes donations). If Lowe's also runs a PAC that makes political ads, then you've got a point.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I thought that money now counted as speech? So PAC or not, donations are a political statement.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
PS: You know that the Citizen's United decision had to do with spending money on political ads, right? And not donations?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think you're right that they didn't want trouble, but I stand by my statement as well. They didn't want to be seen as making a political statement with their sponsorship. Once it became a political issue, they pulled sponsorship. You classify getting out of the situation as making a statement? By your criteria, once it became a political issue, anything they did can be classified as a political statement. If someone starts a fight with me, I can either fight back or run away. You're essentially saying either response should be defined as "fighting."
Well, no, it's not analagous to a potential fistfight. And in this situation, 'getting out of the situation' meant...doing basically what a given political (supposedly religious) group wanted them to do. They didn't say, for example, "We're not going to take down our ads now because of this complaint, but we'll re-evaluate them later in the usual fashion." They got complaints and, well, pulled the ads. Strangely the timing of their concern over it being 'not their sort of show' coincided exactly with a political complaint.
If it were analagous to a potential fistfight, we could say that I gave my whole wallet to the guy threatening to beat me up not because I wanted to avoid a fight, but because I owed him money or something. Anyway, here's how it is similar to what you said about fighting: if someone comes along and threatens to fight you, your response to that threat may not be fighting, but it will certainly be an expression of your views on fighting, won't it?
quote:PS: Whether or not they make political donations is irrelevant. Making a political donation is not making a political statement (especially if it's the owner who makes donations). If Lowe's also runs a PAC that makes political ads, then you've got a point.
Setting legalities aside, how on Earth isn't it a political statement? Putting one's very valuable support (campain contributions being, well, vital) behind a political candidate to help in a political race...well, it seems pretty straightforwardly political to me. Not as political as, say, taking out a full page essay in the NYT, of course, but there's plenty of room for politics between 'none' and 'forms a group explicitly and constantly devoted to politics'.
quote:PS: You know that the Citizen's United decision had to do with spending money on political ads, right?
What will politicians be spending much of their campaign contributions on, I wonder?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
PS: You know that the Citizen's United decision had to do with spending money on political ads, right? And not donations?
Dan, what do you think that they buy with donations?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh, you make a good point re: the fact that them pulling sponsorship was precisely what the despicable group was asking them to do. Nevertheless, I still think that this instance taken alone more reasonably displays them as spineless (as you said, they wanted to avoid trouble. I said before and will say again: I think that's a very accurate characterization) than as in some way anti-muslim.
If some other vocal minority group pressured them to remove sponsorship of some other show with a very different message, and Lowe's refused, then I could see the argument that they capitulated because they agree with the group who was pushing them. But to my knowledge that hasn't happened, so it seems to me that they're simply caving in because someone didn't like it. Again: spineless, not wanting to be seen as making a political statement, wanting to avoid trouble, I see all of these in their behavior.
Tangent: Rakeesh, making a donation is certainly political, but I don't see it as a political statement. To me, "making a political statement" requires you to do just that. So yeah, an essay in the NYT, or an ad, or an endorsement, or some other issued statement.
And re: donations = ads... I don't really know what to say to this, guys. Giving someone money that they spend on ads for themselves, and spending money on an ad for someone, are two different things. I love simplified analogies, sooo... buying a hobo a sandwich (or a bottle of wine!) is different than giving a hobo a ten dollar bill. Even if you're sure the hobo is going to spend his ten bucks on what you expect him to, it's still not actually the same as buying that thing for him. Is that really hard to understand?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dan: Super-Pacs can also transfer money to special accounts (I forget the code, but the Colbert Report covered it with McCain's financial adviser) based in Delaware that are not required to disclose how those funds are spent. It's a mere formality that those funds can't be directly spent on anything other than advertisements and attack ads, though that in of itself already makes it nearly impossible for somebody to run for president who is not insanely rich, or willing to sell out to the rich.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... spent on anything other than advertisements and attack ads, though that in of itself already makes it nearly impossible for somebody to run for president who is not insanely rich, or willing to sell out to the rich.
(Setting aside the "special account" thing because, pending more information, I don't really have anything to say about it. It sounds a little shifty)
The above is funny, though, in that it might illustrate a fundamental difference in our outlook. I mean, the insanely rich have been running for president for a long time. But the idea that someone who isn't rich, but whose ideology aligns with some rich ideologues (like, say, the Kochs, or Soros), could have a shot because the rich ideologue does all the heavy lifting for their advertising... doesn't bother me at all. Why would it?
Despite what boots said in another thread, you can't actually buy elections, all you can buy is ads. Your ads still need to convince people that you're the man for the job (or, less interestingly, that your opponent isn't the man for the job). I'm a big fan of dialogues, of arguments, of criticisms, of the free exchange of ideas. I think quality of ideas can overcome quantity, if presented well enough.
Heck, I think Ron Paul is a great example of this, crazy little ball of libertarian caricature as he is. He's raised far less money than, say, Romney, and yet polls shockingly well. He'll never win, and rightfully so, but not because he doesn't spend enough money. He won't win because his ideas don't resonate with enough people, but everyone knows what his ideas are.
I think outspending the other guy only really makes a difference when you and the other guy are both mealy mouthed unprincipled demagogues, so there aren't enough good ideas to actually measure either of you on.
Sadly, those traits define most of the political class, and usually the only people willing to take real stands are, frankly, at least a little batsh*t crazy (Hi Ron Paul!)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, it would be nice if that were true. But it isn't. In a country this size, one guy shouting his head off with a brilliant idea is going to be drowned out by someone who can reach lots of people with their lesser but louder message.
Just look at all the money spent on advertising. If what you wrote were true, good products wouldn't need to advertise and no amount of marketing could induce us to buy bad ones.
EAT: As for Lowes's being spineless rather than political - of course they are. If you want something spineless to move your way, you need to apply pressure. FFA has done that and they moved. If we want them to move our way, we need to apply pressure, too.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I don't shop at Lowe's so hard for me to boycott a place I never go to.
Seems easy...
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dan, it would be nice if that were true. But it isn't. In a country this size, one guy shouting his head off with a brilliant idea is going to be drowned out by someone who can reach lots of people with their lesser but louder message.
Just look at all the money spent on advertising. If what you wrote were true, good products wouldn't need to advertise and no amount of marketing could induce us to buy bad ones.
Is Google the most commonly used search engine because of the advertising campaign it ran when it rolled out in 1998?
[ December 15, 2011, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
If it won't make any difference for people to boycott Lowe's for canceling their sponsorship, why was Lowe's so concerned about the business they might loose from people who were complaining about their sponsorship in the first place.
Do you think there are really that many more people who would have boycotted Lowe's for sponsoring the show than those who would boycott Lowe's now that the controversy has blown up?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The big problem is not that Lowes decided to back down from what was a political show because one group demanded it of them.
The big problem is that Lowes quit a non-political show because one group decided that it should be political.
American Muslim is far from political, and far from espousing any political or religious agenda. This group said, "we don't want the word Muslim on our TV. We don't want Muslim's portrayed as human. Get rid of it." Plain and simple fear mongering.
If Lowes or the majority of corporations agree that backing down to these types of created fears is good for business, then what is next? Oprah because she's liberal? Magyver reruns because there are good people who don't carry guns? Mythbusters because they teach the scientific method and question things?
Dan, you are right that Lowes does not deserve a boycott for dropping American Muslim. Yet they did not deserve the boycott that church group threatened for supporting American Muslim either. The only way to fight this fear-mongering attack on sanity is by wielding a bigger financial threat than the one the church group is swinging.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, I can see that.
Rabbit, Boots, Darth (is your name Dan too, or am I misremembering?) et al... I think I need to check my assumptions. I tend to interpret boycotts as "This company has committed a terrible sin so I will no longer do business there."
But you guys are presenting it more as "Lowe's caved in to a stupid vocal minority's pressure, we should be a more vocal larger minority so that they have financial incentive to resist the stupider minority."
Which I don't really have a problem with. I normally associate this sort of action with a letter writing campaign or similar, and think of boycott's more as ongoing, principled stands (my mom still refuses to buy Nestle).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Dan, I find your position very strange coming from an outspoken libertarian. Libertarians are usually pushing boycotts as a free market alternative to regulation. How do you see market forces working to solve problems if consumers don't choose to reward companies that share their values and penalize companies that don't?
I can't figure out how to say this so here's an example. Libertarians often argue that we don't need laws against businesses that discriminate based on race. The argument is that if enough people care that a lunch counter won't serve blacks, they will stop doing business with them. Lunch counters that don't discriminate will benefit and eventually the invisible hand of the market force all lunch counters to serve blacks. But that only works if the people who care about discriminatory practices stop spending their money at businesses that discriminate.
Any way, it seems totally inconsistent to me to hear a libertarian saying that people shouldn't boycott a business they think is unethical.
[ December 15, 2011, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I don't shop at Lowe's so hard for me to boycott a place I never go to.
Seems easy...
Is it boycotting if you continue to not shop somewhere you've never shopped before, but now with intent?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Dan, I find your position very strange coming from an outspoken libertarian. Libertarians are usually pushing boycotts as a free market alternative to regulation. How do you see market forces working to solve problems if consumers don't choose to reward companies that share their values and penalize companies that don't?
I can't figure out how to say this so here's an example. Libertarians often argue that we don't need laws against businesses that discriminate based on race. The argument is that if enough people care that a lunch counter won't serve blacks, they will stop doing business with them. Lunch counters that don't discriminate will benefit and eventually the invisible hand of the market force all lunch counters to serve blacks. But that only works if the people who care about discriminatory practices stop spending their money at businesses that discriminate.
Any way, it seems totally inconsistent to me to hear a libertarian saying that people shouldn't boycott a business they think is unethical.
Hmm?
Kay, well, first of all... the way that people have recharacterized the boycott resulted in it making a lot more sense to me, now. So, there's that.
I generally view boycotts as "I refuse to have anything to do with your company until you stop murdering Lithuanian children and using their blood to lubricate your machines," For sentiments like "Hey, I think this recent decision you guys made was lame, you should re-think it" I imagine letter-writing campaigns or similar. So it's a matter of degrees. The recent couple of posts above mine characterize the reasons for the boycott in a way that make more sense to me. This is all academic as I don't shop at Lowe's anyway.
More importantly, even if I was still against it, I would never try to stop someone else from boycotting a company (except by telling them why I think their boycott is a silly idea). As a libertarian I support everyone's right to boycott, but that doesn't mean I agree with every boycott anyone might put forth. Sometimes people boycott for dumb reasons. Same way I support legalization of all drugs, but the only drug I've ever consumed was alcohol, and even that one I haven't partaken of since I was a teenager.
I will continue to support the legality of boycotts and drugs, rarely partake in boycotts and never in drugs, and tell people not to participate in ill-conceived boycotts or take drugs. I really don't see how any of those positions are inconsistent.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Quick thought: I've barely heard of a Lowe's. Quick areas of business are "Lowe's continued its hold on the South, its heartland, and gained in the Northeast from 2006, but Home Depot leads in the Midwest and West, according to the survey." Given the political leanings of homeowners as well, I have to wonder if Kayak might be a better target for the pissed-off plugged-in "liberal" demographic than Lowe's.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I don't shop at Lowe's so hard for me to boycott a place I never go to.
Seems easy...
Is it boycotting if you continue to not shop somewhere you've never shopped before, but now with intent?
I would say, at least it's not *not* boycotting...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't think Lowe's intends this as an anti-Muslim statement. I think Lowe's intends this as a 'We don't want far-right Christians saying bad things about us in the media.' But just because Lowe's, or anyone really, doesn't explicitly intend to make a statement about something doesn't mean I'm not making a statement, actions or inactions sometimes being statements-that is, expressions of ideas, intent, personality, what have you.
As for ads bought by political campaigns and contributions made to those campaigns, well sure they're not the same. No one is saying they're *identical*. But just as, should you give $10 to a panhandler who has a visible needle highway and is shaking you can't claim complete separation from his drug buy, if you give $1m to a campaigning politician it doesn't seem reasonable to claim very much separation from that politician's politics, either.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Only if you write them to tell them why.
quote:Dear Lowe's,
I've never actually been inside your store, but the next time one of my appliances break, or I need some wainscoting for my kitchen, I will NOT be getting it at your store, at whatever hypothetical future date I may need it, regardless of how old this controversy is.
The only way to effectively enact this boycott is to hold a serious grudge for years to come.
Sincerely, Angry Consumer
I dunno. Most people I know who boycotted BP after the oil well disaster no longer drive past them (with one exception, my best friend still refuses to buy there), and that really hasn't been that long. I question whether or not this will be long enough for an effective boycott.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Is Google the most commonly used search engine because of the advertising campaign it ran when it rolled out in 1998?
This seems very strange to me, Dan, the example of Google paling in comparison to, well, basically all of business-products and service. I mean, either advertising works or advertisers have just pulled the world's biggest con on *everyone* to make us think it works...which, come to think of it, isn't that different.
Is Coca Cola a substantially different product than your grocery store's generic coke, aside from price and packaging? Not at all. But even though it costs at least double, it sure makes a lot more money than the generic brand-more people buy it. And I can't turn around during Christmas without seeing a cool, nasty polar bear mugging it all cute and friendly for Coke either.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: For sentiments like "Hey, I think this recent decision you guys made was lame, you should re-think it" I imagine letter-writing campaigns or similar.
But what would one say in such a letter? I submit that if it doesn't include at least the implication "and if you don't quit making such lame decisions I will quit spending money at your store" the letter is not likely to accomplish much of anything.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
DKW: Yep, you're absolutely right. As I said before, I was making assumptions about what people meant by boycott, and those assumptions were at least partially mistaken. This crow tastes terrible, but you guys just won't stop putting it on my plate. D:
Rakeesh: I'm not saying that advertising doesn't work. I specifically acknowledged that it *does* work, when you're comparing two unimpressive and/or similar products.
But unique products need far less advertising to be noticed. Especially terrible products get publicity far outstripping their ads. Amazing products spread like wildfire by methods totally unrelated to advertising. Do you disagree with this?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
They spread without advertising, but spread even better *with* advertising. It's my understanding that advertising will hit diminishing returns eventually, but that there's hardly ever not a benefit to *some* advertising.
Recognizing that an extraordinary product or service will need less advertising seems a strange reason for dismissing the major impact ads have in elections, as you appeared to do above.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Then I apologize for not being clear. It's a chronic condition.
I was objecting to the idea that people can buy elections. I was objecting to the idea that corporate sponsors can, via the Citizens United decision, flood the airwaves with oodles of money worth of ads and guarantee victory for their guy.
I never intended to say that corporations can't help the guys they like by flooding the airwaves. But it's only going to get them so far. And is made even less effective by the fact that even the evil super rich fat cats are actually pretty split about who they want to get elected, so it's not actually as if a single candidate is floated miles above the competition.
I cited Ron Paul because he has very little corporate sponsorship as far as I know, but he is extremely well known and has a dedicated following. As I said before, I don't think his ultimate failure is due to lack of funding. It's due to the fact that he's crazy, and only so many people are willing to get behind a crazy guy. So, despite being crazy, he's carved out an impressive stake for himself, simply by being principled and outspoken.
It's also worth mentioning that advertising is getting cheaper and cheaper, what with these old intertubes and all, so having an effective message is even more important. Do you think Rick Perry's "Strong" ad helped him? Last I checked it had well over half a million dislikes on YouTube, to something like 20,000 likes. YouTube skews young and liberal, but even then, that's pretty damn stark.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I would say, at least it's not *not* boycotting...
I wouldn't.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Only if you write them to tell them why.
quote:Dear Lowe's,
I've never actually been inside your store, but the next time one of my appliances break, or I need some wainscoting for my kitchen, I will NOT be getting it at your store, at whatever hypothetical future date I may need it, regardless of how old this controversy is.
The only way to effectively enact this boycott is to hold a serious grudge for years to come.
Sincerely, Angry Consumer
I disagree with the last part of this letter. If a boycott is perpetual, it doesn't provide any incentive for a business to change a practice that they're engaging in. You really need to have the carrot of promised future business along with the stick of the boycott action itself.
quote:I dunno. Most people I know who boycotted BP after the oil well disaster no longer drive past them (with one exception, my best friend still refuses to buy there), and that really hasn't been that long.
Really? I'm still not buying from them, and most of the people I know locally who gave a crap still aren't buying from them either.
In terms of Lowes and Kayak.com, I shopped at the former at least once a month, and used the latter when booking flights, and I won't be doing either for a while.
[ December 16, 2011, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Jake ]
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Is Coca Cola a substantially different product than your grocery store's generic coke, aside from price and packaging?
Yes, it is.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Dobbie- I can taste the difference too. People think I am nuts but my husband has blind taste tested me because he was convinced I couldn't tell the difference. I am also constantly amazed when people tell me Pepsi and Coke are the same thing. My sister in law has her rules regarding soda choices include cans versus fountain drinks. If it is a can, she will order differently than a fountain drink. She and I get each other. Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I get you too, scholarette.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sure, I can as well. Heck, I can tell if it's Coke, Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, or generic versions of `em. It's just how I grew up-my Dad, when I was a kid, actually dipped bagels in Diet Coke in the morning sometimes, that's how much he drank and liked the stuff.
I'm not as much of a fanatic as him, and have switched almost entirely to water as the drink of choice over the past couple of years, but I've got an *ahem* refined palette when it comes to discerning retail cola tastes.
That said, though, I was always perfectly happy with Diet Pepsi if we didn't have Diet Coke (it depended on what was on sale), and the generic versions were very little different either. Of course tastes are subjective, and everyone will experience a food or drink at least a little (or even a very lot) differently, but would either of you say that Coke is substantially different than Pepsi? To the extent that their retail rivalry would imply? And would you say Coke or Pepsi are two or three or even four times better than the generic versions?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Heh, Rakeesh, my mom was the same way about Diet Coke. I can taste a difference, but it is absolutely irrelevant to me.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Coke and Pepsi fundamentally taste the same to me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I will be able to tell you every time whether I'm drinking coke, pepsi, or RC cola. Even though I haven't had RC cola in a long time.
Once upon a time I could tell when I was drinking mountain dew that had been bottled in WV. It was .. weaker, more pallid.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I can tell the difference between canned, tap, and bottled Dr. Pepper. I've never tried to differentiate Cokes or Pepsi.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I will only drink Coke. I don't like off brand, pepsi, RC Cola, etc. I prefer cold cans poured into a glass with no ice. I think I can tell the difference between cane sugar and corn syrup, but the cane I have had is always from the fountain and fountain is less reliable in taste consistency.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I just have to say it's fantastic that Rakeesh's analogy led to this incredible derail. I love this place.
It occurs to me that the reason the difference is irrelevant to me is I'm not terribly fond of any cola. If I'm being offered a canned soda, I'll probably reach for a root beer (only real preference there is not Barq's) or a ginger ale (no preference re: the can options).
Come to think of it, though, I'm more of a water or juice guy. The only sodas I really buy these days are the ones that really market themselves as being different than the typical brands. Things like Reed's Ginger Beer, or Steelhead Root Beer. They're the Ron Pauls of the soda world!
Except, you know. They're not freaking crazy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Come to think of it, though, I'm more of a water or juice guy. The only sodas I really buy these days are the ones that really market themselves as being different than the typical brands. Things like Reed's Ginger Beer, or Steelhead Root Beer. They're the Ron Pauls of the soda world!
Magic words! Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Fountain = Coke. Can = Pepsi.
Mexican when possible.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Come to think of it, though, I'm more of a water or juice guy. The only sodas I really buy these days are the ones that really market themselves as being different than the typical brands. Things like Reed's Ginger Beer, or Steelhead Root Beer. They're the Ron Pauls of the soda world!
Magic words!
I'm guessing your winky face is trying to imply you "caught" me or something. Dude, for the last time, I'm not saying marketing has zero effect, okay? Sheesh.
All I've said is buying advertising is not the same thing as buying supporters/customers/voters. Terrible products fail, even with good advertising. Amazing products often succeed with no advertising at all.
And unique products are especially good at distinguishing themselves without much advertising. How many commercials have you seen for a Roomba? I don't watch TV much these days, but I did years ago, right around the time the Roomba made its debut, and I don't remember seeing many ads. It didn't need them, because people wanted to talk about it!
Besides, anyone who thinks that Steelhead's superiority is due to it's marketing campaign (What marketing campaign? I've never actually seen it advertised. Anywhere. Ever.) has obviously never drank a bottle of Steelhead. Just sayin'.
Edit: I re-read this and it comes off slightly hostile in the first sentence or two. Not intended. Added my own emoticon. Just in case it's necessary.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:All I've said is buying advertising is not the same thing as buying supporters/customers/voters. Terrible products fail, even with good advertising. Amazing products often succeed with no advertising at all.
It's not *exactly* the same thing, and yet that is frequently how politicians, campaigners, and contributors view it: we need this much advertising in the mail, radio, TV, on the ground campaign workers, to get the votes we need in this area. If we don't, we're sunk!
Your stance just seems to handwave that away, "Well it's not as though they're buying supporters!"
Who do you think overwhelmingly, disproportionately benefits from that opinion? Is it the average Joe (insofar as he can be named), the guy holding down a $40K/yr job? How much advertising will *he* be able to indirectly buy? Sure, he can be effective if he's a damn rhetorical genius with great gimmicks and knows where to put his stuff on the web. But the guy nailing down the max individual contribution while also supporting PACs, he don't hafta be a genius. He just has to write a check, and his guy gets as much if not more exposure than the average guy's genius essay.
Of course this is known, which is why politicians court big donors. But...hey, it's not the same as buying supporters!
ETA: As for Ron Paul...OK, that's one Congressman. Out of hundreds and hundreds. Advertising 'helps'.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ron Paul also has years behind him of face recognition of advocating a fringe ideology, mostly from over the internet and just about unimpeachable consistency resulting in someone who does do well with fundraising from individual contributors but nevertheless lacks broad public appeal to win the elections.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:just about unimpeachable consistency
People keep saying this about Ron Paul as though it were an undeniable virtue. The foolishness of being too consistent has been noted by so many great thinkers, it's difficult to decide who to quote but I think this one is most apropos.
quote:Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago. Bernard Berenson
An awful lot of major things have happened in the last 30 years, but none of it has changed Ron Paul's message one iota. Yes, that shows we can trust he believes what he says. But it shows an inability to learn from new data and adapt to the changing needs of society.
That kind of slavish devotion to any ideology, particularly one that is thoroughly untested like libertarianism, is not a virtue in a politician. A President is expected to solve real practical problems by working with thousands of people with different ideologies in congress, state and local governments, foreign countries, businesses, religions.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: As silly as I find the pressure that the group was placing on Lowes, I don't find giving in to that pressure a grievous enough crime to justify a boycott.
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Why not?
Let's assume that there's nothing really objectionable in the TV show in question. (I have no idea to think that there is, but I don't know nearly enough a out the show to have any kind of real opinion about it.) Given that, the choice for any person or company to advertise with that show is morally neutral. In this situation, we've got a company that has made a morally neutral decision for a bad reason, and did it in such an obvious way.
But the problem isn't that Lowe's has been spineless and has given into pressure from a group that it may or may not agree with. After all, the whole point of a boycott is to apply that sort of pressure to get them to change how they do things.
In the end, besides terrible PR about it, what Lowe's is really guilty of is guessing wrong about which group would cause them more of a headache and should be appeased.
I'm a little worried that these events will make companies even less likely to advertise with shows that could conceivably be perceived as controversial by some segment of the population. After all, if Lowe's had steered clear of this TV show from the start, there would be no story here.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Or, perhaps they thought that a show about normal people living their boringly normal lives wouldn't be controversial? There are loads of shows like this - people with one interesting detail about themselves, like, for example, being a little person, showing how that detail fits with everyday life. Nobody's boycotting all of those.
Does putting 'Muslim' in the title automatically make something controversial? I guess we and Lowes just found out. I wonder how many really interesting shows don't even get off the drawing board, once the potential sponsors have been spoken to.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:All I've said is buying advertising is not the same thing as buying supporters/customers/voters. Terrible products fail, even with good advertising. Amazing products often succeed with no advertising at all.
It's not *exactly* the same thing, and yet that is frequently how politicians, campaigners, and contributors view it: we need this much advertising in the mail, radio, TV, on the ground campaign workers, to get the votes we need in this area. If we don't, we're sunk!
Your stance just seems to handwave that away, "Well it's not as though they're buying supporters!"
Who do you think overwhelmingly, disproportionately benefits from that opinion? Is it the average Joe (insofar as he can be named), the guy holding down a $40K/yr job? How much advertising will *he* be able to indirectly buy? Sure, he can be effective if he's a damn rhetorical genius with great gimmicks and knows where to put his stuff on the web. But the guy nailing down the max individual contribution while also supporting PACs, he don't hafta be a genius. He just has to write a check, and his guy gets as much if not more exposure than the average guy's genius essay.
Of course this is known, which is why politicians court big donors. But...hey, it's not the same as buying supporters!
ETA: As for Ron Paul...OK, that's one Congressman. Out of hundreds and hundreds. Advertising 'helps'.
Yeah, so... I don't disagree with anything you said here. In fact, earlier I even mentioned that I think the Super PAC is an interesting idea, because historically it has usually only been the individually wealthy who could muster enough name recognition via advertising to do well in a presidential election. In theory, a flat broke rhetorical genius who caught the attention of a Super PAC could have all of his advertising done by them (the rule is they don't coordinate, right? So maybe they take his tiny townhall appearances and YouTube videos a la Chris Christie and then they blast those clips all over the airwaves or something). Since there are so many famous politicians already in the game, I doubt a Super PAC is actually going to take that big a risk anytime soon, but it's an intriguing idea to me. And I bet it happens eventually.
Of course, the above idea once again confirms that I recognize that it's undeniable that a certain level of fundraising and advertising is necessary. I'm pretty sure I haven't actually said otherwise this whole thread, but you seem to think I have so maybe there's a place I implied it? If so, my apologies.
I do think that after a certain point advertising starts receiving diminishing returns. If Herman Cain had received the support of a new billion dollar Super PAC right before he dropped out, I don't think they would've been able to flood the airwaves enough to drown out the story being reported on every channel. Cain still would've dropped out. I'm similarly really skeptical that the previously mentioned Super PAC that has sided with Gingrich is going to be able to effectively counter the narrative.
Hey, one last thought re: diminishing returns. Today, presidential hopefuls spend more than ever on their campaigns. Are politicians today more popular than the ones, say, fifty or a hundred years ago? Do they get better voter turnout? Why or why not?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Jones, it still carries some of that "treat" trait that soda used to have, and they have a service where you can order soda from them with your choice of photo on the bottle. Got a twenty-four pack for my brother a couple of years ago with a picture of him standing next to his first car, and ever since any gift we try to think of is still judged against it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Of course, the above idea once again confirms that I recognize that it's undeniable that a certain level of fundraising and advertising is necessary. I'm pretty sure I haven't actually said otherwise this whole thread, but you seem to think I have so maybe there's a place I implied it? If so, my apologies.
You didn't suggest it specifically-my thoughts on this subject stem largely from these words of yours:
quote:Despite what boots said in another thread, you can't actually buy elections, all you can buy is ads. Your ads still need to convince people that you're the man for the job (or, less interestingly, that your opponent isn't the man for the job). I'm a big fan of dialogues, of arguments, of criticisms, of the free exchange of ideas. I think quality of ideas can overcome quantity, if presented well enough.
The thing is, you can't directly buy elections, it's true, at least not in our system which is monitored sufficiently. But you can buy ads...which, well, aren't guaranteed to buy an election but without which almost no politician anywhere is going to win against a politician who does use ads. In realistic terms, you can't buy elections. You have to buy ads, which buy elections.
You've even specifically acknowledged the very real power of advertising, but despite that the disproportionate ability of the wealthy to use advertising is somehow untroubling...because if a politician is a super-duper genius charismatic dynamo, he'll be able to overcome this handicap? It just seems like you're a bit all over the place on this.
----------------
quote:Let's assume that there's nothing really objectionable in the TV show in question. (I have no idea to think that there is, but I don't know nearly enough a out the show to have any kind of real opinion about it.) Given that, the choice for any person or company to advertise with that show is morally neutral. In this situation, we've got a company that has made a morally neutral decision for a bad reason, and did it in such an obvious way.
It seems to me that you're skipping a step here-doesn't the intent behind any action color, at least to some extent, what quality of morality that action has? For instance, the choice to drink kool-aid or not is morally neutral. If a hood-sporting sheet-wearing Klansman demands that you don't drink kool-aid at all because that's what black people drink and you don't...well, doesn't that change things in that artificial (though in the list of bizarre demands made by racists, it's not too bizarre) example?
The thing that makes their decision immoral, quite aside from spineless and stupid in terms of trouble-making, is that they submitted to the demands of a bunch of bigoted schmucks. It would still be immoral, by the way, even if it would have cost them customers to keep the ads, even though they are a private enterprise and need to generate profit (not that you've suggested this is an excuse).
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The thing that makes their decision immoral, quite aside from spineless and stupid in terms of trouble-making, is that they submitted to the demands of a bunch of bigoted schmucks.
If the threat were realistic and the harm/loss were sufficiently substantial, I would most likely also submit to the demands of a bunch of bigoted schmucks. I'm pretty sure most everyone would as well. I don't think that in itself is immoral.
For example, I don't think most people would say that it would be immoral for Lowe's to pull their ads if, say, they were doing it as a result of the group having kidnapped the CEO's son and were threatening his life.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If the threat were realistic and the harm/loss were sufficiently substantial, I would most likely also submit to the demands of a bunch of bigoted schmucks. I'm pretty sure most everyone would as well. I don't think that in itself is immoral.
Put another way, you would stop doing something because a bigot threatened you. Is it understandable? Well, sure, but that's not mutually exclusive with immorality.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Is it understandable? Well, sure, but that's not mutually exclusive with immorality.
Right, I'm not saying they are mutually exclusive.
So you feel it is always immoral to submit to the demands of a bigot, regardless of the threat or any other circumstance?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Always? Well, if he's got a gun to your head, perhaps not. I'm not sure. (It would certainly be understandable, though! I certainly would.)
If he says, "Do what I say or I'll make sure you (peacefully) lose money," I'm less unsure.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If he says, "Do what I say or I'll make sure you (peacefully) lose money," I'm less unsure.
Right. Which makes me feel that one important factor, if not the primary one, is the threat and potential loss involved rather than the mere act of caving in to someone else's demands.
In other words, the issue is not that they are selling out, but rather that they are selling out for such a seemingly low price.
<edit> Personally, I would limit my description of their action to 'cowardly' but not 'immoral.'
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Given that, the choice for any person or company to advertise with that show is morally neutral. In this situation, we've got a company that has made a morally neutral decision for a bad reason, and did it in such an obvious way.
You have some good points mph but I think its more complicated than that. There is, in my opinion, a serious problem with negative stereotypes about Muslims. There are an estimated 1.5 billion Muslims in the world and only a tiny fraction of them are terrorists. Anti-Muslim bigotry is sadly socially acceptable and I think that's a problem.
As Edmond Burke once said, ""All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." If the people who think anti-muslim bigotry is unacceptable do nothing, the bigots win.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think there's a pretty big difference between doing evil and not actively opposing it. In that way, I am no pragmatist.
While it may have been a great thing for Lowe's to take the group to task and stand up for what was right, I don't think that the company had any moral obligation to fight that particular fight. Declining to do so was not evil.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Perhaps not evil but lacking in moral "compass" and spine. If a company is going to waft along with the wind produced by blowhards, it makes a certain amount of sense to demonstrate the the wind blows in more than one direction.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
You are misunderstanding my point. I don't think what Lowe's did was evil. I think the bigots who pressured Lowe's to drop its ads from the show were evil. If good people who think that kind of bigotry is unacceptable do nothing, the bigots win.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:While it may have been a great thing for Lowe's to take the group to task and stand up for what was right, I don't think that the company had any moral obligation to fight that particular fight. Declining to do so was not evil.
Huh, whereas my belief is that when issued a challenge by deceitful bigots (though when aren't they, of course), the moral obligation is to oppose them-or at the very least, not help them.
There are plenty of circumstances in which failure to do so makes it understandable and mitigates the fault, but I feel the obligation is still there. It's a bit different from choosing to remain aloof. That's not what they did-they chose not to have the fight by *surrendering*.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Of course, the above idea once again confirms that I recognize that it's undeniable that a certain level of fundraising and advertising is necessary. I'm pretty sure I haven't actually said otherwise this whole thread, but you seem to think I have so maybe there's a place I implied it? If so, my apologies.
You didn't suggest it specifically-my thoughts on this subject stem largely from these words of yours:
quote:Despite what boots said in another thread, you can't actually buy elections, all you can buy is ads. Your ads still need to convince people that you're the man for the job (or, less interestingly, that your opponent isn't the man for the job). I'm a big fan of dialogues, of arguments, of criticisms, of the free exchange of ideas. I think quality of ideas can overcome quantity, if presented well enough.
The thing is, you can't directly buy elections, it's true, at least not in our system which is monitored sufficiently. But you can buy ads...which, well, aren't guaranteed to buy an election but without which almost no politician anywhere is going to win against a politician who does use ads. In realistic terms, you can't buy elections. You have to buy ads, which buy elections.
You've even specifically acknowledged the very real power of advertising, but despite that the disproportionate ability of the wealthy to use advertising is somehow untroubling...because if a politician is a super-duper genius charismatic dynamo, he'll be able to overcome this handicap? It just seems like you're a bit all over the place on this.
Sorry to seem all over the place, let me try to focus this down.
First of all, I don't see any way to viably keep advertising from being a resource available to the wealthy while still maximizing liberty. That might be a failing on my part! If so, hey, I'll gladly change my stance. But barring that, I tend to default to liking any plan that further maximizes freedom in this situation. I also hate the idea that one would have to be personally wealthy in order to generate the funding needed to advertise.
From an ideological standpoint, that's really the sum of my position. Through this lens, the Citizens United decision boils down to: people are even more free to spend their money however the hell they choose with regards to elections. My ideological side sees that and says "Yay, freedom that doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights!"
However, and this is probably why I seem to be bouncing around, Rakeesh... I'm not wholly an idealist. So, the pragmatic side of me is also analyzing the situation, and I'll freely admit that my pragmatic side tends to throw out theories and arguments with wild abandon, and then discard them when someone points out some glaring flaw I overlooked. That's what you've been doing, and that's rad. Thank you!
From a pragmatic standpoint, I'm still not convinced this is a catastrophe. Yes, advertising makes a difference. You keep focusing on how I think that if someone is truly amazing they will shine regardless of how much they have to spend on advertising, but from a pragmatic position I actually care a bit less about this than I do about the flip side: the possibility of a truly reprehensible candidate "buying" an election. If the dynamo can't convince people to give 'im funding he may not be that dynamic after all, but if a single mega corporation can buy an election for an evil nation-destroying human apocalypse that would have serious long-reaching repercussions.
But I think this is even less likely than the dynamo not finding his funding. A single scandal can undo a hundred million dollars of advertising in moments. I'm incredibly skeptical that anyone so awful that they would destroy our country is going to survive the vetting section of the election process, no matter how much money they have.
That was still probably all over the place. Meh, if you want perfect consistency, just read my first couple paragraphs and write me off as an anarcho-capitalist wacko. I'm very consistent in my sympathies towards that philosophy, so you wouldn't be too far off.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That's not what they did-they chose not to have the fight by *surrendering*.
If someone wants to fight and comes at you swinging, you don't have an obligation to punch back. Not doing so isn't "surrendering."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
By what definition is it not surrendering? Not that I'm saying surrender is always immoral or even cowardly, mind.
And anyway, your comparison wasn't analagous anyway. The choice wasn't between 'take the hit myself' or 'fight back', it was 'take the hit and respond (not caving) or 'go along with bigotry and cave'.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:from a pragmatic position I actually care a bit less about this than I do about the flip side: the possibility of a truly reprehensible candidate "buying" an election
In Wisconsin, Russ Feingold -- one of the very few truly principled Senators we had -- was defeated by Ron Johnson after a truly ridiculous amount of money was donated to Johnson's campaign by corporations (mostly ones from out of state) in the wake of Citizens United. To avoid rocking the boat (and to maximize the value of his campaign ads, which blanketed the state in the final weeks), Johnson actually refused to take positions on anything; he would, when asked about what he'd do about the many horrible problems that he insinuated were plaguing the state, say that the problem was with a "bigger picture" and that no one would benefit from having a conversation about the details until he was elected and had a chance to look at the whole shebang.
Seriously. That was his campaign: "elect me, and I'll work out the details later."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Tom, that sounds pretty terrible, but I think our definitions of "truly reprehensible" in this context vary by quite a lot.
For example, despite holding rather a lot of congressmen in a sort of baseline level of contempt, I can't off the top of my head think of any that meet my above criteria for "truly reprehensible." Remember, the criteria I'm using is roughly: able to do serious and permanent harm to the country.
Incompetent or even corrupt politicians have been getting elected since long before Citizens United. Some of the most damaging laws to come about for this country in recent years, in my opinion, wouldn't have happened without support from nearly all of congress. For my pragmatism to overrule my "maximal freedom uber alles" idealism I would need to see a much more marked step down in quality, with a clear causative chain back to Citizens United.
I know you liked Russ, I've seen you say it many times before. I'm sorry that what you seem to have seen as the one honest guy left in congress got beaten by someone you think was a figurehead propped up by special interests. As a data set, though, I'm not sure how compelling it is.
(It also might be worth mentioning that you seem pretty strongly biased on the issue. A quick google search resulted in an article dated October of 2010 that detailed Johnson's stated positions on most of the typical major issues, and they all seemed to be standard tea party republican boilerplate.
I also found, for example, a video where someone is trying to get him to describe his "jobs plan" and he says he will cut spending. The person asking him seems to feel this is a non sequitur, because presumably she wants a comprehensive "jobs plan" to try and put the middle class back to work. Except most fiscal conservatives and conservative(Austrian) economists think that a plan like that is a terrible idea! Of course he won't offer up a plan like that. That's not quite the same thing as not having any position on stuff.
Basically, I just wonder how much your fondness for Russ and your contempt for conservatives colored your impression of that particular election.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...still maximizing liberty.
Maximizing liberty for who? Certainly not most Americans. The kinds of ideas you're expressing 'maximize liberty' most for the very wealthy individuals or corporations and businesses. Full stop. Some liberty is also gained by the rest of us, it's true, but again, real world here: advertising works, and all other things being equal, the more of it the better when it comes to persuading people to do *anything*, such as vote for someone.
You're absolutely right, advertising isn't the only thing needed. But if you've got two candidates, heck even of equal mediocrity let's say, but one has an extra 33% of the ads among their potential constituency...who's going to win? Be honest. The guy with more ads, every time. He won't win because his ideas are more effective, or because the other guy made a gaffe, he'll win because he managed to put his mediocrity in front of more people and, surprise, they picked him.
I think your pragmatic concern, as you put it, is misplaced. Someone outright buying an election isn't a problem we have to face in 21st century America. We used to, in places, but not anymore. But even if that *were* a valid fear, its mere existence wouldn't be grounds to simply brush aside the massive lesser problems we have with how we let our politicians run campaigns for *our* elections.
As for scandals having the potential to overthrow advertising's effectiveness, I'm really not sure I see how that's relevant. Again, the point is not that ads can get *anyone* into office.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:...still maximizing liberty.
Maximizing liberty for who? Certainly not most Americans. The kinds of ideas you're expressing 'maximize liberty' most for the very wealthy individuals or corporations and businesses. Full stop.
Rakeesh, legalizing gay marriage maximizes liberty for gay people. It doesn't maximize liberty for everyone, except insofar as everyone can choose to marry someone of their own gender if they want to. Ditto for, say, legalizing pot. Only the pot smokers (or potential pot smokers who were scared off by the illegality) actually experience increased liberty.
Nevertheless, I am an advocate for those things.
Fundamentally, saying "You can't spend all of your money making a TV spot where you tell people why you think Joe Blow would make a good president" is restricting liberty (to be clear, I freely acknowledge that it's doing it in a very small way). Yes, if you're setting some specific dollar cap on it, you are only restricting the liberty of people rich enough to be effected by that cap. I don't think that they are any more or less deserving of that freedom to choose how they want to spend their money than anyone else.
Out of curiosity, what would be your ideal campaign situation, Rakeesh? If you could make the laws, how would you handle it? I'm not trying to pick you apart or anything, I'm just genuinely curious because a lot of times you have really interesting ideas. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, legalizing gay marriage maximizes liberty for gay people. It doesn't maximize liberty for everyone, except insofar as everyone can choose to marry someone of their own gender if they want to. Ditto for, say, legalizing pot. Only the pot smokers (or potential pot smokers who were scared off by the illegality) actually experience increased liberty.
Actually, it does. It's another step towards clearing out religion from government-and religion is the only real reason that stands on its own, so to speak, for prohibiting SSM-and that's good for everyone, even if they never ever marry or even look sexually at the same gender. As for pot, the liberty involved in ending a stupid, harmful drug policy speak for itself, I think.
quote:Yes, if you're setting some specific dollar cap on it, you are only restricting the liberty of people rich enough to be effected by that cap. I don't think that they are any more or less deserving of that freedom to choose how they want to spend their money than anyone else.
Nonsense. We already decide how, when, and how much people can spend their money in this country, and rarely does anyone bat an eye. Keeping to this example, you can't for example pay someone to vote for you. You can't pay the employee of another company considering bids to value yours most. So on and so forth. As for how this would limit the rich, bear in mind they would *still* have an enormous advantage over the majority of the population in the even of capping campaign spending. They'd be able to spend the max more easily.
As for campaign financing ideas, oh, man, where to start. Total transparency on campaign contributions in all cases, for one, and not just on the contributions themselves but for the organizations soliciting them. That's just a start.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Fundamentally, saying "You can't spend all of your money making a TV spot where you tell people why you think Joe Blow would make a good president" is restricting liberty (to be clear, I freely acknowledge that it's doing it in a very small way). Yes, if you're setting some specific dollar cap on it, you are only restricting the liberty of people rich enough to be effected by that cap. I don't think that they are any more or less deserving of that freedom to choose how they want to spend their money than anyone else.
You are ignoring the big picture. Laws and governments are not the only things that restrict our liberty nor are they the most fearsome. Any powerful person or organization can restrict our liberty. The school yard bully controls people by intimidation and is thus a much larger threat to overall liberty than rules that restrict bullying. There are many types of power and if you are concerned about liberty, you need to be concerned about limiting all types of power not just government power.
Any concentration of power in a few hands threatens liberty. There are many types of power such as wealth, social connections, physical strength, knowledge, moral authority, legal authority and armaments. If those powers are distributed among many people, they can check and balance others to limit the abuse of power and maximize overall liberty. That's why the US founding fathers tried to build a separation of powers into the US system.
Wealth is one of the most readily abused types of power because the ability to control resources that wealth affords can be verily easily used to control people. The wealthy have been abusing their power since the dawn of time and restricting those abuses is one of the central reasons governments and laws were formed. Laws restricting commerce, contracts, property, and common resources like water constituted over half of the Code of Hammurabi.
Because economic power is one of the easiest types of power to abuse, it is critically important to that there is a strict separation between economic and legal power. When the wealthy can use their money to gain political power it endangers everyone's liberty.
Well designed laws, rules and regulations will actually increase overall liberty, even if they decrease the liberty of a few individuals. The loss of liberty that would result from restricting the use of money in political campaigns, is far less serious than the loss of liberty that results when you concentrate political power in the hands of the very wealthy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Very well put, Rabbit.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Very well put, Rabbit.
Thanks!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Wealth is one of the most readily abused types of power because the ability to control resources that wealth affords can be verily easily used to control people. The wealthy have been abusing their power since the dawn of time and restricting those abuses is one of the central reasons governments and laws were formed. Laws restricting commerce, contracts, property, and common resources like water constituted over half of the Code of Hammurabi.
Because economic power is one of the easiest types of power to abuse, it is critically important to that there is a strict separation between economic and legal power. When the wealthy can use their money to gain political power it endangers everyone's liberty.
Well designed laws, rules and regulations will actually increase overall liberty, even if they decrease the liberty of a few individuals.
Agreed so far.
But...
quote:The loss of liberty that would result from restricting the use of money in political campaigns, is far less serious than the loss of liberty that results when you concentrate political power in the hands of the very wealthy.
...this worries me. How do you answer the idea that donations to a campaign are protected under the aegis of free speech?
I'd prefer to concentrate on corruption and strengthening sanctions against legislators who violate established ethics rather than limiting speech.
Alternatively, I'd consider the idea that corporations are not citizens, and cannot contribute to campaigns. Is that the kind of thing you're going for?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...this worries me. How do you answer the idea that donations to a campaign are protected under the aegis of free speech?
I'd prefer to concentrate on corruption and strengthening sanctions against legislators who violate established ethics rather than limiting speech.
Would you agree one of the reasons we have trouble with flat-out corruption, as well as much less obvious beholden politicians, is at least partially due to the vast sums of money that can be contributed, and the way in which it can be contributed?
Another consideration: how much time do politicians spend seeking contributions? It's my understanding that this is a major part of campaigning, and we all know how much time politicians spend on that. We've structured our system such that large chunks of their time aren't spent going about our business, but rather seeking wealthy donors they need to survive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What one can broadcast on TV is not unlimited - there are restrictions. What about restrictions - perhaps not of content - but of amount of TV ads per candidate or group?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: How do you answer the idea that donations to a campaign are protected under the aegis of free speech?
That's where you lose me, but the Supreme Court agreed with you 5-4.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:...this worries me. How do you answer the idea that donations to a campaign are protected under the aegis of free speech?
I have a pretty fundamental disagreement with equating regulations on what one can do with money with regulating free speech. I think it was a bad decision and one that endangers basic democratic values.
quote:I'd prefer to concentrate on corruption and strengthening sanctions against legislators who violate a ethics rather than limiting speech.
I think that fails to deal with the central problem. As long as raising large amounts of campaign money is necessary (or perceived to be necessary) to win an election, candidates who appeal to the people with lots of money to donate will have a major advantage over candidates who appeal to people with little money. As the cost of political campaigns escalates, the problem get more and more severe. Even if we could completely eliminate direct corruption, the playing field simply isn't level. Candidates who appeal to the interests of the very wealthy will have a strong advantage over those who don't.
quote:Alternatively, I'd consider the idea that corporations are not citizens, and cannot contribute to campaigns. Is that the kind of thing you're going for?
I think that would be a step in the right direction but that much more is needed to create a level playing field where political ideas win on their merits rather than the money behind them.
I think we should amend the constitution to clarify that limit liability corporations are not persons and do not have the rights guaranteed to persons in the constitution.
I think we should also amend the constitution to replace the electoral college with a direct popular vote and a nation wide primary held two months before the general election. And as long as I'm wishing, I'd amend the constitution to guarantee public campaign financing for all presidential candidates who could establish a minimum level of support via petition and permit strict limitation on all privately funded political advertising from one month before the primary until after the general election. Along side that, I'd support similar amendments to state constitutions regarding the the campaigns of senators and representatives along and anything that would prevent gerrymandering.
It's a radical proposal that has a snowflakes chance in hell of making beyond the interwebs, but I think it would make the US fundamentally more democratic and just.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for campaign financing ideas, oh, man, where to start. Total transparency on campaign contributions in all cases, for one, and not just on the contributions themselves but for the organizations soliciting them. That's just a start.
I agree with your start. What's your middle? Your end?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:...this worries me. How do you answer the idea that donations to a campaign are protected under the aegis of free speech?
I have a pretty fundamental disagreement with equating regulations on what one can do with money with regulating free speech. I think it was a bad decision and one that endangers basic democratic values.
So, I think there is a worthwhile distinction here that you aren't acknowledging. IANAL, but my understanding of the Citizens United decision is that it equates spending money on speech... with speech. Not just spending money. That is to say, it effects whether or not companies can spend their cash on political ads in the run up to an election. Fundamentally it does seem to me to be a sort of speech. Now, then we can point out that not all forms of speech are protected, and you certainly have a long list of legislation backing you up, so that's a valid point.
Still, it irks me when people say that Citizens United defines money as speech. It doesn't. It defines money spent on speech as speech.
PS: Rabbit I actually thought much of your earlier post about the balance of power really interesting, and don't want you to come away just hearing my nitpicks and squabbles. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Still, it irks me when people say that Citizens United defines money as speech. It doesn't. It defines money spent on speech as speech.
I understand that distinction, I simply disagree. I don't think that reasonable regulations on how money can be spent on speech constitutes an infringement on free speech.
The first amendment has never been interpreted to protect all forms of expression without from any form of regulation. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that federal, state and local government can reasonably restrict the time, manner and place of free expression without violating the first amendment.
Restrictions on the time, manner and place designed to accomodate public convenience (such as traffic), conserve the environment and protect the administration of justice have all been found constitutional by the courts. Restricting spending on advertising during a window of time preceding an election is a restriction on the time and manner of speech, not its content. If it is allowable to restrict free expression to protect traffic flow, why isn't allowable to protect elections? Isn't the integrity of the democratic process more important than traffic?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Reaction to Lowe's seems a bit over blown. Here's how I see it happening.
At the end of a 3 hour long meeting. Person 1: "...Alright we'll send out these notes to all of you and follow up in the next meeting. Is there anything else?"
Person 2: "Well we got this letter from some group, Florida Family or something and they seem to have an issue with our sponsorship of a TV show."
Person 1: "Oh really, what show?"
Person 2: "All-American Muslim"
Person 1: "What's that, I've never heard of it?"
Person 2: "It's one of those TLC shows, it doesn't get all that many viewers. We're not spending a ton and it probably doesn't generate all the much advertising revenue"
Person 1: "Hm, ok drop the show and have the PR dept send out some statement."
Enter PR Dept fail.
I don't think the show was big enough for anyone to care really and I doubt anyone gave a second thought to politics or that there would be a huge backlash for a small unknown TV show on TLC.
I do think their PR dept should have done better. Isn't predicting public reaction their job or something? It seems that saying nothing would have been a better idea.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)