We have been discussing the ability of shareholders and consumers to push back on political or ESG corporate policies. Companies like Disney have already experienced backlash over political campaigns or positions. However, companies are not backing down. This month, both Disney, Bud Light, and NIke are back in the midst of controversies in going head-to-head with critics. This could trigger an interesting period of litigation by shareholders opposing such campaigns as driving down the value corporate stock and brands.
Nike has long been one of the most activist companies in its social and political campaigns, including its controversial corporate support for Colin Kaepernick in his protest during the national anthem at football games.
Recently, it also faced calls for boycotts after the company selected transgender Dylan Mulvaney to feature its sports bras and other products. Mulvaney went on Instragram to declare:
“Home for a moment and leaning into cozy workout wear life with @nikewomen ‘s newest Zenvy leggings and Alate bra! They’re so comfortable and buttery soft, perfect for workouts and everyday wear! #feelyourall #teamnike #nikepartner”
That led to an immediate backlash:
Nike pushed back on critics this weekend and told consumers that they needed to be “kind” and “inclusive” while declaring “hate speech, bullying, or other behaviors that are not in the spirit of a diverse and inclusive community will be deleted” from its sites.
The Nike decision follows another backlash against Bud Light that put Mulvaney on its beer cans.
These campaigns, particularly the beer endorsements, produced an obvious disconnect with many beer consumers who did not want Mulvaney on their beers. While networks described the outcry as a “right-wing backlash,” shareholders may question whether putting a controversial transgender personality on cans of beer will advance or deter sales.
Some expect the Bud Light campaign to alienate many consumers. In the coming weeks, we will see if the campaign increases or decreases sales. However, the legal question is whether shareholders are going to oppose such campaigns as divisive and damaging for the brand.
Disney is an example of that backlash. However, the mouse has now taken the gloves off in a bold move to defy the state of Florida. Disney’s opposition to Florida’s parental rights bill on education led to boycotts and possible retaliatory legislation.
After its unique self-governance status was removed by the state, Disney used its effective control over the former Reedy Creek Improvement District to get the board at the last minute to hand over direct control of the district’s development rights and privileges to the company. It made the transfer just before the district was gutted by the legislature.
Disney’s move is breathtaking and, in my view, uniquely stupid. I wrote earlier that Disney’s aggressive position toward Florida was harmful to the company and its shareholders. Picking a fight with a state with general tax authority is pretty dumb when you have billions sunk into fixed real estate and assets in the state.
Florida will now seek to nullify this move, but the company has declared all-out war with the state. Even if the state is unsuccessful, it can use other means to even the score with the company. While it was possible that there could be a resumption of civil relations between the state and one of its largest corporate citizens, this has burned any bridge for such a reconciliation.
Once again, the company seems oblivious to economic consequences of its aggressive postures toward the state. While this may be popular for executives, it is not popular with a sizable number of consumers, particularly in Florida. The question is: why escalate the tension?
These companies could trigger shareholder revolts if the moves continue to spark boycotts or diminish sales.
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) policies have already led to limited litigation, including shareholder demands for greater transparency or ESG commitment from companies. Some shareholders have also argued that the political views of corporate officers are being pursued over the profits of the company.
Such lawsuits on both sides can be difficult. Shareholders may allege a breach of the “duty of loyalty,” but must show that the officials acted in a self-interested manner or in bad faith. Alternatively, they could argue a breach of the “duty of care,” which requires a showing that the officials acted in a grossly negligent manner.
These latest moves could force these issues. For Disney, it is a surprising decision given the departure of former CEO Bob Chapek after he triggered the controversy over the parental rights legislation. Now, Bob Iger will either move to defuse the situation or face the wrath of a motivated and infuriated legislature.
Legally, we may be entering a new phase in litigation over controversial corporate campaigns. Bud Light, for example, knew it would create buzz with Mulvaney. The question is whether it is the right type of buzz and whether shareholders can object that executives are too willing to test the “go woke, go broke” theory.
246 thoughts on “Disney, Bud Light, and Nike Go Head-to-Head With Critics With Controversial New Campaigns”
Bud Light suffers bloodbath as longtime and loyal consumers revolt against transgender campaign
“But even Fitter’s bar witnessed a catastrophic decrease in sales of the hometown suds among loyal and local consumers this week.
Sales of Anheuser-Busch bottled products dropped 30% over the past week, while draught beer plummeted 50%, the owner said.”
“Bud Light’s decision to dive into the culture wars was a “bad decision” that defied “virtually every rule in building brands and marketing,” a national beer-industry analyst told FOX Business.
He cited a nightmare scenario for Bud Light sales reps in Texas, where the brand has for years has sponsored a large weekly dart league with 100-plus players each Thursday night.
The bar typically sells though three kegs of Bud Light at the event — a total of 495 12-ounce pours.
The bar sold only four 12-ounce Bud Light bottles this week, as the dart players held a mass protest against their league sponsor.”
Prob 99% of the people who would be impressed by such gimmicks, drink those sissy ass fruity beers anyway. One commenter declared Bud, etc, “slush” beers, then asked for mead. Typical. Very trendy.
Anheuser Busch is trying to make the case that focusing on transgender people in Bud Light ads is an attempt to expand its customer base. Give me a break. If that were the goal, the company could have run Bud Light ads with demographically diverse people at oyster roasts or after playing soccer or simply loading cases of the product into their Volkswagens and Subarus.
Disney, AB and others are run by fools. Sell your product to all. Disney tag line used to be for “Children of all Ages” That would be the perfect answer inclusive of all. Bud Light targeting boys who want to dress and act like teenage girls? That’s a very small market.
I heard it comes from Larry Fink aka blackrock directly, no woke no loans and your business is kaput.
Simple solution, don’t purchase any of their products.
Leave it to Turley to claim Disney is going to war with Florida when the complete is opposite is true. Petty DeSantis couldn’t stand a criticism of his “Dont Say Gay” bill after it had already passed the legislature. DeSantis decided to remove the special tax district (Reedy Creek Development District which would cost Central Florida residents millions to pay for improvements Disney previously paid for. DeSantis then moved to replace the board of directors with his cronies and was headed off at the pass. His recent threat is to set up toll roads around Disney, charging visitors (including Florida residents) who go to Disney parks. DeSantis is the one going to war in attacking not only Disney but its guests. He’s a spoiled child but Turley is right there enabling him.
“”Leave it to Turley to claim Disney is going to war with Florida “
Enigma, you are looking in the wrong direction once again. DisneyWorld is an entity that was created outside of Florida’s Constitution, and had advantages other large competing companies didn’t have. I understand that you like favoritism, but government is not supposed to grant favors to one company that it doesn’t grant to another.
As a private company Disney decided to go to war with Florida and its people. Free speech exists, but sometimes free speech is costly as it has been to Disney. They didn’t have to pick a fight with the state of Florida. They chose to do that. They decided to battle and they lost.
Next time you are escorted by a policeman through a group of people that wish to kill you, don’t attack the policeman. It won’t end well.
There are obver 1,800 of the taxing districts in Florida including Republican stronghold, The Villages. Disney is the biggest employer in the state and attracts over 36 million people to Florida annually. They didn’t pick a fight with the Governor (not the state), They spoke against an issue that was already decided. They haven’t lost as you say though his pettiness may inflict some pain not only on the company but Florida citizens and out of state visitors. Disney was here before DeSantis and will be here afterwards. I thought you appreciated free speech? I guess not when it doesn’t match your ideology.
“They spoke against an issue that was already decided. “
They attempted to use their influence, money, and power against the State of Florida and its citizens. The State of Florida responded.
“Disney was here before DeSantis and will be here afterwards.”
I am sure it will be.
“I thought you appreciated free speech?”
I support free speech, but it is not always free. If you were working you might have the right to say all sorts of bad things about your boss, but he has a right to fire you.
“1,800 of the taxing districts in Florida”
None of them have the abusive power Disney had. It still has more power than other areas, but it is no longer a Kingdom. Today, it is a Constitutional Monarchy.
They attempted to use their influence, money, and power against the State of Florida and its citizens. The State of Florida responded.”
They didn’t attemp anything, they voiced their opinion after the fact after being pressured by their employees. Had they really attempted to use their influence they would have spoken up before it became law.
“They didn’t attemp anything, they voiced their opinion”
That is correct. “They attempted to use their influence, money, and power against the State of Florida and its citizens.” They were using their power against children K-3rd grade.
“being pressured by their employees.”
“they voiced their opinion after the fact”
Is after the fact before the bill is signed. I think you need to look at the timeline of events.
“March 22, 2022: Disney employees protest the “Don’t Say Gay” bill
“Disney employees in Florida held a walkout in protest of a controversial legislation dubbed as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which bars instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. Disney said it would support organizations working to oppose the new law and suspend political donations in the state.”
Disney has lost almost 50% of its market capitalization in 18 months.
I beleive it managed to each out of profit in 2022 – after 2 years of steep losses.
I do not doubt Disney will be there after DeSantis – but right now they are begging for a corporate raider to buy them out and end this nonsense restoring their market value.
I would imagine that existing shareholders are fed up with declining value.
I would speculate that a group of investors could secure enough stock to flip the board, toss the managment and restore the value of Disney for about $20B – which would be doubled in 9-18 months.
That has got to be very tempting.
So long as Disney increases shareholder value – the management will be allowed to do whatever it wants.
18 months and a 50% drop in shareholder value means the management is in deep trouble.
Disney will be investing$17 Billion in Florida in the next decade. They’re really suffering.
Kudos to you for being such an honest Democrat, thoroughly out of touch with workers of multibillion dollar corporations
Disney layoffs will begin this week, CEO Bob Iger says in memo
Disney is cutting costs after its valuation plummeted last year.
Enigma would be singing a different tune if he had $100,000 worth of stock only to find out a short time later that he had lost $50,000.
I’d be upset with the dictator driving down the value.
Enigma, the thought of losing $50,000 has caused you to lose your mind. DeSantis was legitimately elected and I think his opponent who you supported is now in leg irons. The legislature of Florida that passed the bill was legally elected as well. There is no dispute as to who the people wanted in Florida while there is substantial dispute over the validity of the 2020 elections.
The nearest thing to dictator is Joe Biden, but you don’t notice because you are still looking through your rearview mirror.
Your Disney stock scenario is exaggerated and Disney stock didn’t drop by 50%. Their decline has as much to do with their streaming services as any other factor and all Media companies took a hit. Florida is discovering it has a dictator, DeSantis is lagging in the polls behind a twice-impeached, 34 times indicted, adulterer whose only reason for attacking Disney is his vindictiveness. The only people continuing to dispute the 2020 elections not that all the Fox News pundits are on the record admitting Biden won, are idiots.
“Your Disney stock scenario is exaggerated and Disney stock didn’t drop by 50%.”
Enigma, that is foolish thinking. I provided you with pretend numbers. Providing actual numbers is time-consuming and difficult. One has to look at a lot more than Disney’s failures to determine what they lost, but also at the trend before the fall and what was in the works. Then one has to look at it compared to the entire marketplace and its specific sector. That would be a superficial evaluation. No one will do that for you with payment, so sometimes we are forced to produce non-calculated examples to make a point. I guess, you never dealt with the stock market, so you assumed it was more than a what-if scenario.
“DeSantis is lagging in the polls behind a twice-impeached.
One of the reasons Trump is doing as well as he is is the sympathy factor, impeachment, and then crazy indictments from the left.
“only reason for attacking Disney is his vindictiveness. “
In your world, voters don’t count. DeSantis didn’t pass the bill. The Florida legislators did, and DeSantis rightly signed it. I never liked the idea of a kingdom within the State of Florida, and neither did competing companies or many citizens. I must remember you don’t believe in our Constitutional Republic, so why would you agree with the will of the people?
Enigma, that is foolish thinking. I provided you with pretend numbers. Providing actual numbers is time-consuming and difficult.”
The story of your life. Pretend!
No, Enigma. I deal with facts and knowledge. That is why I didn’t provide an inadequate half-assed answer and used fictitious numbers. You use fictitious numbers and events for proof. I could never live with myself basing everything on ignorance and a rearview mirror.
No politician has control over the value of Disney Stock.
If DeSantis is driving the value of Disney stock down – that would be because he is echoing the views of ordinary people.
This is typical of left wing nuts.
Connect two things together that have nothing to do with each other.
And here you have done it twice.
Somehow you have conflated freely elected TWICE to dictator,
And declining stock values – which are the consequence of free choices made by consumers and shareholders to governors who have no control of either.
EB about 2 years ago Disney was a 368B company.
They about a 180B company now and declining.
During that period the DJIA has been rising.
You say Disney will be investing heavily In FL – that strongly suggests they can live with FL Politics, and Taxes, and governance.
Companies elsewhere in the country – from NY, from CA mostly are leaving – For FL, and TX.
Whatever you may think Disney exists SOLELY to create value for its shareholders.
It will promote LGBTQ+ if that enhances shareholder value.
It will promote Nazism if that enhances shareholder value.
It will invest in FL if that enhances shareholder value.
It will move to mars if that enhances shareholder value.
Shareholder Value is declining – It is pretty much guaranteed that one way or another Disney will change to try to correct that.
If it does not shareholders will leave, and it will make itself a giant target for corporate raiders to come in, fix the problem, massively profit and leave.
That is called market discipline.
You can not sustainably get a company to act against the interests of shareholders.
This is one of the many ways that free markets are vastly superior to “democracy”
Do really think that left wing nut governance would last a single voting cycle – if voters had to pay even 10% of the actual cost of their votes ?
US Government has become a MASSIVE Moral hazard.
It is not the rich who are not paying their fair share – it is the rest of us.
And the problem with that is we fail to understand that the choices of government have real cost.
Ultimately all of us pay, but because we do so through slower rise in standard of living. through higher inflation. through higher costs,
we lose the understanding that the bad choices of the left are very harmful to all of us.
But Businesses are unavoidably subject to market discipline.
And as you are confused that means ALL OF US.
If they make products we do not want – sales drop. If they do not deliver value to shareholders – Capital flees and their ability to grow or even sustain declines.
If management is sufficiently bad – raiders will buy enough of the company fix the managment and sell at great profit.
These are just a FEW of the ways WE – self regulate corporations.
The while debate over Disney or any business and LGBTQ+ will be resolved in the marketplace.
While many on the right chant “go woke, go broke”,
it is self evident in the market over the past 2 decades that substantial changes in corporate diversity have NOT harmed businesses.
A few decades ago it was rare to see anything but the generically perfect white family in advertising.
That has changed dramatically – and mostly without apparent negative impact.
Not too long ago I would have said the right had lost the culture wars – and rightfully so.
What is being tested right now – is whether the left has gone TOO FAR.
And the evidence appears to be that it has.
As recently as 2018 both democrats and republicans supported free speech equally. Today support for free speech among democrats is Half that of republicans.
Just since the start of the Biden administration we have seen an explosion in school choice initiatives – with atleast 7 additional states now funding students, not schools. That has been driven by three factors – First Covid school closures brought school curiculum into parents homes, and they did not like what they saw.
When they moved to fix the problem – the left demonized parents – often minority parents. And because left wing nuts have been idioitically and blatantly open about sexualizing children.
17B/decade is 1.7B/year. About 1% of their current Market Capitalization.
Regardless. it is likely true that Florida is more important to Disney than Disney is to Florida.
Tesla can move production from CA to TX.
Do you think Disney is going to move Disney World to NY ?
There are only a few places in the country where Disney Wold will be maximaly successful – and almost all of them are states Redder than Florida.
The only Suitable Blue State would be California, and I doubt even Disney can successfully build something on the scale of Disney World in CA.
Almost everything you said is BS.
Everything you said is non-specific. What do you disagree with.
I am concerned that the Federal Election Commission could file charges against Trump for failing to report in-kind campaign donations from Anheuser-Busch, Jack Daniels, Disney, and Nike. Those companies and others like them are going to drive more voters to Trump than any GOP campaign consultant could dream of.
The Definitive Guide to:
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex
It’s important to separate the question of whether it’s good or bad for profits for a corporation to take sides on social and political moral questions and those moral questions themselves. Adults who obtain psychic happiness by transitioning in dress or physically should be given the same tolerance in work, law and life as differences in race, ethnicity, sex (biological) and sexual orientation. This doesn’t require accepting that gender identity is anything more than a psychological proclivity (a form of OCD?) or that a real woman or man is in the wrong body. Tolerance of adult transgenderism makes the latter question hypothetical except under circumstances in which women are traditionally granted separation and privacy, as in sports and bathrooms and prisons. Common sense respect for those separations should prevail. (Bud might sell more beer by putting Caitlyn Jenner on the bottle.)
This tolerance is severely constrained when it comes to children and adolescents. A recent social contagion, perhaps abetted by Dylan Mulvaney, and the appreciation that prepubescence is the perfect moment in development to turn boys and girls into the other because it minimizes the need for surgery (like the poor castrati), has caused an explosive demand and supply for puberty blocking, cross-sex hormones and surgical assistance. These treatments have the side effects of loss of libido, sterility, osteoporosis, etc. The UK and Sweden among other countries have looked back in horror at what they have done and reined it in.
Maybe these distinctions will rein in and focus mere intolerance of transgenderism.
I should have added that the benefit of these aggressive and risky medical and surgical interventions is much outweighed by the fact that a huge proportion of the gender dysphoric are no longer so after puberty without these interventions. A large proportion of these also turn out to be, not surprisingly, homosexuals. These powerful facts are repeatedly denied by advocates, but, they persist. See this just published rigorous and fair analysis of the UK NIH experience. https://www.amazon.com/Time-Think-Collapse-Tavistocks-Children-ebook/dp/B0BCL1T2XN
George, If you can’t enjoy yourself, enjoy somebody else!
It appears these Corporations and their Management believe the Federal Government will force the public, state governments and shareholders to accept what is absurd! That science and biology are all just in your mind!! It is part of the Control game they learned they could exploit with COVID!!!!!
You are wrong about the beer. Like kavanaugh I like my beer. But now I hunt for a beer that isn’t share busch ….anhouser and there aren’t much! Am ibv owns it all! @ total monopoly on beer! From Coors to Miller high life ‘but light’s basically own anything you but at the package store. Ppl will soon realize that so it’s a great time to get in and market to beer drinkers. This isn’t going like always Peter out. Drinkers are going to do their osn….so as not to do am ibiv! Like they are going to do a hot glue gun….around a store bottle juice with yeast….cops need to get ready and steady. Ppl have no option now but to brew their own. It’s going to get ugly! Real ugly! As ppl brew their own….which they will do as patriots than pay a monopoly! Just saying! No matter it’s not like banks care they never look for Ryan daffer….is he missing? They don’t care they just add to the bill!
Another aspect to consider is how individual retailers might react.
One consideration of importance is Carrying Cost and the possibiliy of Dead Stock. Carrying Cost is basically the cost of maintaining an inventory of an item between when it is purchased from a wholesaler or supplier until it is sold to a customer. It includes not only the immediate costs such as warehousing and utilities such as refrigeration, but opportunity costs where by buying Widget A you have less money to buy Widget B which sells faster and for a higher margin.
So a retailer must take into consideration how to supply their inventory in the most efficient manner. If he expects a potential drop in demand for Widget A, he might only order a minimal amount of Widget A (or none potentially) and perhaps keep only existing inventory or if he fears that demand will fall quickly he might discount the current inventory of Widget A to get it off the shelves before it becomes unsellable dead stock and shrinks due to spoilage. He is not going to be left holding the bag of a dead product.
If there is to be a controversy in these widgets, a safe retailer position would be to not order any further inventory and see what happens over the short term. Then only slowly increment the orders, avoiding large purchases, to match exactly only the actual and immediate demand. The wholesaler might try tempting the retailers by offering substantial discounts to entice retailers to view the widget as less risky due to discount but in the end the producer is the one who gets the short end of the stick from worried retailers, due in large part to a less valuable widget that has lower demand.
I propose to find out how damaging this marketing plan is by AB or Nike, you might find a better gauge by looking at what the retailers are ordering over the next few weeks to months.
Darren: That’s a good point, with the added caveat that beer goes bad. Granted AB products have a lot of preservatives, but you still can’t keep it on the shelves forever even if you want to. I suppose you could say the same for Nike since both products lose value along with freshness. I’ve already seen retailers say they are dropping the AB brands but there isn’t really a valid alternative on the market that is a) cheap b) you can drink a lot of it without really getting intoxicated. Here in flyover country, beer is kind of like a dog. It is a companion in the drudgery of yardwork and other mundane tasks. I personally would rather drink rainwater from a pothole than drink a Bud Light because I can’t stand the taste but that’s just me.
I would like to add, for the people who suggest shareholders should just sell their stock and try their luck elsewhere, that’s all very well and good if you have 100 shares. If you have tens or hundreds of thousands of shares and you invested a million years ago, that’s not such a great option. First of all, the capital gains taxes will be immense. Second, it’s like killing the goose that laid the golden egg just because the goose has decided to identify as a gander. You hope and trust the goose will come to its senses and start spitting out golden eggs again, especially after a negative market reaction. Third, where do you invest that money in this market that seems to have one foot on and one foot off the cliff? I think people are counting on the market to straighten things out on its own but I’m not sure there is not some hidden hand sweetening the pot for companies who decide to go woke and, therefore, broke.
First there’s PBR which isn’t AB.
Second, Capital Gains on long term holdings is less than short term gains which is taxed as ordinary income.
All are good observations.
At least as consequential, is square footage allotted per brand.
The money side of the equation has to be figured, it is somewhat elastic. But the square footage of available retail space is finite. A dead, or slow turn product is stealing from a product that turns more times per month. An example, If Budweiser gets 100 foot of shelf and turns that volume once a month, that’s bad. It needs to turn1.5 weeks to turn that space.
Down in town there is a shop that sells only beer. No wine or hard liquor.
Next time I am on that side of town, I will check in and see if they are boycotting AB products.
Be interesting to see if small operators are participating in the boycott.
Will be good to see if AB sales suffer.
Yes. Interesting to see what happens. I think probably the safest position for the retailer who might not want to be involved in controversies is to just keep the price the same, take down any promotional material but leave the products on the shelf and see what their customers do. If customers no longer buy the beer, then blow it out in a Closeout. That way those supporting the boycott will look at it as getting rid of the product and those who are against the boycott will most likely just attribute it to low demand and take advantage of the savings.
Stopped in that shop and asked the guy behind the counter if he has seen any change in sales.
Yes, he has!
And he has heard more than a few customers also commenting on the AB decision. They are all refusing to buy AB products. He said he is going to pause on buying more Bud Light and if sales of all AB products decline, he may have to stop buying AB for a undetermined period of time.
Thanks for letting me know. I was curious.
That’s when AB is going to have it really sink in–when their retailers stop ordering. They might have to remarket themselves, perhaps as a craft brewery that resurrects old brands.
I am curious to know how this plays in South American Countries [?]
Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela
Anyone care to comment
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
…”We have been discussing the ability of shareholders and consumers to push back on political or ESG corporate policies.”…
I wasn’t aware of a push back in Kansas. Thanks Old Man
Brazil is the biggest market in South America. Because if its diversity, the Marketing approach is different.
AB InBev is a Belgian conglomerate which merged with a South American brewing company and later acquired Anheuser Busch.
Business marketing 101 teaches that if a company has a larger customer base, they will sell more products. Secondly, they have invested in the branding of this product for decades and decades. If it is their intent to damage their brand equity and alienate a segment of their customer base and thus sell less product, this seems like a solid plan for their new Mission Goals and Objectives.
There is plenty of competition, especially with local brewers. They stand to gain the most from this new direction. Good. It is good that corporations are heading this way, maybe they will self implode and business will return again to small owners.
Shop local. Shop small. Support local businesses.
It seems kind of strange that a working man’s brand of beer is now being promoted in this way. There is more to the story than this, perhaps government pressure? It will be interesting to see how this goes. Hollywood has done a bang-up job on ruining the movie industry.
Compare the trash, divisive marketing of today with this now ancient example where Americans of all kinds are working and playing together and enjoying one another, regardless of their differences.
Back when working people were celebrated.
Let’s see, ~1980. Free American people and enterprises are forced to live under the principles of communism and unconstitutional communist regulation, including but not limited to, laws forcing labor union dictatorship, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Ain’t constitutional “freedom” great in America?
“Americans of all kinds are working and playing together and enjoying one another, regardless of their differences.”
– The Happy Communist
JFeldman’s concept of constitutional American freedom is having every last aspect and facet of life and endeavor comprehensively regulated, controlled and dictated by multiple and various levels of government, from the top down.
JFeldman never met a component of totalitarian government he didn’t like.
Ya know, Karl Marx himself sent a letter of commendation and congratulation to Abraham Lincoln, ya know, the tyrant who shredded the Constitution, killed a million Americans, brutalized the nation and wrote the history books to lie and display himself in the complimentary light of false propaganda.
So, according to you, people working and playing together and enjoying one another, regardless of their differences, is communism. Wrong. Just the opposite. Those things exist primarily in productive capitalism. Genuine differences are typically prohibited in authoritarian governments. You’d be better served by following the old proverb, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”