Thursday, August 2, 2012
10 Commandments and 11 Herbs and Spices
I feel a little guilty about it.
Not about liking the product--I mean, they didn't get to be a nationwide phenomenon by making a product nobody wanted. So it's no surprise that it tastes really good, and that the service is world class, and that I keep wanting to buy it. But, honestly, they wear their politics on their sleeve a bit. Specifically, it's their opinion on gay marriage.
I'm talking about Starbucks of course. Great coffee. But they've been very vocal in their support of gay marriage legislation. As I've mentioned elsewhere in my blog, I have no interest in preventing gay marriage whatsoever, or for that matter, in encouraging it. But the same is true of straight marriage. I couldn't care less whether people are married or not, at least as a matter of public policy. I believe, quite strongly, that marriage is among the many things about which there should be no laws whatsoever. Everyone who insists on recognition for gay marriage is in fact arguing for a more intrusive state. I'd like to move us the other way, where consenting adults construct their own arrangements and give them the weight of a contract, managed by civil courts where necessary. Private citizens will always be superior managers of their interactions than any federal government.
Starbucks isn't alone though. Chick-fil-a has been pretty vocal about their support for organizations that oppose gay marriage and some that even run camps or programs aimed at "curing" homosexuals. That strikes me as pretty out there. But man, is there chicken good! I go once a week or so. And I have no plans to stop--but that could change.
For instance, I didn't go yesterday. Why? Because there were huge lines of people frothing at the mouth, not simply for the chicken, but for the chance to show their support for Chick-fil-a's politics. I just wanted a sandwich. Tomorrow, a similarly foam-lipped crowd plans a public display of affection outside their doors(or inside them, I guess, because I've seen no evidence that Chick-fil-a has ever turned anyone away on that basis). I won't want to go then either, because I have no interest in aligning myself with a political opinion. I just wanted a really good chicken sandwich.
So, yes, I think Chick-fil-a has made a mistake. Actually, that's overstating it, because it's not clear their political stance has or will hurt them at all. In fact, let's be honest; all I'm really saying is that Chick-fil-a has engaged in behavior that annoys me. Not by funding a homosexual cure--it's misguided, but pepole do lots of very similar, very misguided things--but by taking a stance as a corporation and politicizing something as delightful as a chicken sandwich.
It's one of the most exhausting things about life in 21st century America--the degree to which every decision, no matter how small, can be politicized in some way. It is both true to and completely contradictory to the American ideal, and very little can be done about it.
Let's be clear; everyone is entirely within their rights. Chick-fil-a is welcome to use faith as an element of their successful formula. As recent events have shown, it's a draw for many, and arguably a reasonable marketing strategy. The left, on the other hand, is certainly within their rights to oppose a company that has made itself political.
But people--these are really terrible ways to exercise your rights!
We were founded as a Christian nation, sure, but the people who say that most often now are forgetting that it was a very different kind of Christianity, a brand that wasn't particularly consistent. Boring Congrgational churches one minute, punctuated ocassionally by "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." What's indisputable though, is that we were founded as a capitalist nation. And to me that is sacred and profound in a way that I'm not sure either side of this debate recognizes.
Capitalism is about, first and foremost, setting aside our differences. Why? Because it elevates the work product above our associations, histories, ethnicities, and philosophies. And because the decision on which producers rise and fall is based solely on the product. Whether the product is sandwiches or coffee or clothing or coolness--capitalism insures that a product succeeds because people want it.
To that end, I support removing barriers that prevent people from competing fairly. I don't think gays should be discriminated against. But I also don't think government should be encouraged to compound problems it created by meddling in the first place. Competing fairly means removing governmental barriers to entry in the marketplace. Many more people who happen to be gay are harmed by excessive federal regulation than will be impacted by the foolish political goals espoused by the controlling interests at Chick-fil-a.
Of course, both Starbucks and Chick-fil-a have seen real benefit in espousing a general political outlook and taking some very specific stands; I don't blame them. If they did not give to programs or support legislation of ANY kind, you can bet they would hear about their failure to support communities or some such. Again, I firmly believe those are actions individuals should take, not companies. But, that's not how the game is played these days. I could protest of course, by not buying products from any company that makes politics a part of its promotion strategy. But then I would be hungry. And thirsty. And naked. And the tv would be really lousy.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Of Popes and prophylactics...
We live in a land of dichotomies: Coke or Pepsi; White or Wheat; Red or Blue; Right or Left. And it didn't require a conspiracy or Machiavellian plan to get here. The same tools are available to everyone commercially. So whatever it is you are "selling", Cola, bread, dogma, or the fact of bifurcation itself, you are bound to use the same media, with the same desirable demographics, and thus the same packaging via the same delivery mechanisms. What surprise then that all these things seem in fact, over time, to become the same thing?
Such operations are costly, and that cost sometimes even brings people together. "We have differences, sure," two parties say, "but what we share is most important." So they unite for what they believe is a common good. Those who will deliver their message most effectively then, may well be those who unite those formerly the most different. To "win", then, may be to eliminate the greatest range of distinctiveness.
There is an equal and opposite reaction, of course. Once A has become successful, B inevitably rises. But how can be compete with A? Well, largely by defining itself not as B, but as "Not A". Those who oppose A have that in common at least. And so a new group is defined, not by something they share with each other but by something they do not share with A. Soon, some new element arises in B, a badge that demonstrates the depth of their objection to A. It spreads among B, and a culture is born.
Here's the tricky part: Two subcultures have now coalesced, made up of people differentiated only by their opinions on whatever the core A issue is. With so much attention paid to issue A, it can now be assumed that there is general agreement on virtually everything else. In fact, to prove how "reasonable" they are, both A and B will work hard to demonstrate that agreement. And in doing so, will prop each other up.
And why not? A and B have a pretty good thing going by now. Lots of space on store shelves, plenty of time on the chat shows. What's A going to talk about if B's out of the picture? B agrees, seeing that being a close second is a pretty good gig, all told, and really, those top two spots do a lot of back and forth anyway. Better to be magnanimous. So, while A and B have their differences, at least they're not C. And to consider D would be unconscionable.
I've been thinking about the recent debate over government mandated birth control and Catholic institutions.I am astounded by the extent to which all these opposing bad ideas actually support one another. The controversy moves all discussion to the wrong place. And in doing so props up a system of bilateral wrongness.
Someone recently asked me whether I thought Catholic institutions had the right not to pay for birth control for their employees. That's exactly the question the administration would like you to ask, framed in just about precisely their preferred way: in terms of a powerful entity, the church, denying basic freedoms to individuals.
Someone on the other side might have an ideal formation of their own, probably along the lines of: Does the government have the right to force the church to violate its moral principles? Again, a powerful entity, the government, denying basic freedoms to individuals.
So as not to keep you in suspense, I will go ahead and answer both questions: Yes. Both of these groups have every right to impose these restrictions. Because in both cases, they are made upon people who are willing participants. Those who object to the government, can of course oppose its actions in all the usual ways--from contacting their congressman, to voting them out, on through to the right of revolution ensconced in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Those who oppose the church can simply leave it, work elsewhere, and stop supporting the institution with their dollars and the association others reasonably might make between their beliefs and their choice of employment.
I should be clear here: I think singling birth control out as unsupported by health insurance for your employees is a bad idea, but it is one that flows naturally from a whole set of bad ideas. My hope would be that eventually it would die out, thanks to people's individual choices and the obvious unpopularity of the concept, even among most Catholics. But it won't die out, not at this rate. No, the government will once again "protect" people from making their own choices, by insuring that they have no real sting. They'll get birth control anyway, and not have to consider the silly policy put in place by their employer, or what impact it has had on the rest of the world. So B will grumble that they've been overridden. And, thanks to A, they can continue on their way, perpetuating more bad ideas.
And they have every right to do so; after all, while I called them A and B for convenience sake, the hapless decision makers at the center of it are you and I. Or perhaps I should phrase that in the only genuine dichotomy I know: there is really only Me and "Not Me."
Such operations are costly, and that cost sometimes even brings people together. "We have differences, sure," two parties say, "but what we share is most important." So they unite for what they believe is a common good. Those who will deliver their message most effectively then, may well be those who unite those formerly the most different. To "win", then, may be to eliminate the greatest range of distinctiveness.
There is an equal and opposite reaction, of course. Once A has become successful, B inevitably rises. But how can be compete with A? Well, largely by defining itself not as B, but as "Not A". Those who oppose A have that in common at least. And so a new group is defined, not by something they share with each other but by something they do not share with A. Soon, some new element arises in B, a badge that demonstrates the depth of their objection to A. It spreads among B, and a culture is born.
Here's the tricky part: Two subcultures have now coalesced, made up of people differentiated only by their opinions on whatever the core A issue is. With so much attention paid to issue A, it can now be assumed that there is general agreement on virtually everything else. In fact, to prove how "reasonable" they are, both A and B will work hard to demonstrate that agreement. And in doing so, will prop each other up.
And why not? A and B have a pretty good thing going by now. Lots of space on store shelves, plenty of time on the chat shows. What's A going to talk about if B's out of the picture? B agrees, seeing that being a close second is a pretty good gig, all told, and really, those top two spots do a lot of back and forth anyway. Better to be magnanimous. So, while A and B have their differences, at least they're not C. And to consider D would be unconscionable.
I've been thinking about the recent debate over government mandated birth control and Catholic institutions.I am astounded by the extent to which all these opposing bad ideas actually support one another. The controversy moves all discussion to the wrong place. And in doing so props up a system of bilateral wrongness.
Someone recently asked me whether I thought Catholic institutions had the right not to pay for birth control for their employees. That's exactly the question the administration would like you to ask, framed in just about precisely their preferred way: in terms of a powerful entity, the church, denying basic freedoms to individuals.
Someone on the other side might have an ideal formation of their own, probably along the lines of: Does the government have the right to force the church to violate its moral principles? Again, a powerful entity, the government, denying basic freedoms to individuals.
So as not to keep you in suspense, I will go ahead and answer both questions: Yes. Both of these groups have every right to impose these restrictions. Because in both cases, they are made upon people who are willing participants. Those who object to the government, can of course oppose its actions in all the usual ways--from contacting their congressman, to voting them out, on through to the right of revolution ensconced in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Those who oppose the church can simply leave it, work elsewhere, and stop supporting the institution with their dollars and the association others reasonably might make between their beliefs and their choice of employment.
I should be clear here: I think singling birth control out as unsupported by health insurance for your employees is a bad idea, but it is one that flows naturally from a whole set of bad ideas. My hope would be that eventually it would die out, thanks to people's individual choices and the obvious unpopularity of the concept, even among most Catholics. But it won't die out, not at this rate. No, the government will once again "protect" people from making their own choices, by insuring that they have no real sting. They'll get birth control anyway, and not have to consider the silly policy put in place by their employer, or what impact it has had on the rest of the world. So B will grumble that they've been overridden. And, thanks to A, they can continue on their way, perpetuating more bad ideas.
And they have every right to do so; after all, while I called them A and B for convenience sake, the hapless decision makers at the center of it are you and I. Or perhaps I should phrase that in the only genuine dichotomy I know: there is really only Me and "Not Me."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)