Capitalism

Why the Conservative War on Woke Capital Is Doomed To Fail

It will be coopted by regulation-loving progressives who oppose capitalism, not wokeness.

|

Conservatives feel besieged in the culture war. Large corporations that previously seemed at least somewhat ideologically more sympathetic to Republican views have moved openly left. Amazon, Starbucks, American Express, and countless other big businesses criticized Republican efforts in Georgia to restrict voting rights, and Major League Baseball (MLB) moved the All-Star Game out of the state.

In response, conservatives are considering retaliation: Republicans might strip the MLB of its antitrust exemption and repeal certain tax breaks. The intellectual leaders of the new political right also occasionally discuss loftier schemes: breaking up large companies like Amazon entirely, taking away the broad liability protections enjoyed by Facebook and Twitter, and various legislative remedies.

The problem for the opponents of "woke capital" is that many of these proposals would either fail outright or cause worse problems than the ones they intend to solve. For instance, vesting the federal government with enhanced power to split apart massive tech companies on antitrust and anti-monopoly grounds—an approach favored by Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.)—would do little to tackle the issue of social media sites censoring conservative users. But it would expand the state, empower traditional media, and in general harm the profits of private businesses, which is probably why it's a strategy beloved by progressives in the mold of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.).

Indeed, the Senate held a hearing today to confirm Columbia University law professor Lina Khan to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Khan, who was nominated to the post by President Biden, is a Warren progressive who thinks Amazon is anticompetitive in nature and should be split into several different entities. It is the Democratic Party that's truly coming for woke capital—not because of the wokeness, but because of the capitalism part.

Richard Hanania, an expert on partisanship and ideology, has an excellent Substack post, "Why Is Everything Liberal?" exploring the subject of how woke capital came to be. Hanania's post is essentially an extended rumination on Robert Conquest's Second Law of Politics: Any organization that is not explicitly rightwing will eventually become explicitly leftwing. Hanania points out that the U.S. is roughly split between conservatives and liberals as evidenced by our national election outcomes, but liberals dominate in terms of who donates to campaigns, shows up for rallies, and becomes extremely active in politics. He presents some evidence that the least invested and most invested people tend to be liberals; conservatives are moderately invested, and vote for Republicans, but otherwise prioritize things like making money and having families.

"Those who identify on the right are happierless mentally ill, and more likely to start families," writes Hanania. "But in the end, the world they live in will ultimately reflect the preferences and values of their enemies."

That's because their enemies are highly interested in capturing influential positions in politics, government, the media, universities, and even within corporations. In order to force Coca-Cola to take a progressive stance against Republican positions on voting, climate change, and antiracism, a person who cares about those things doesn't actually have to take over the entire company: Consumer or low-level staffer, they simply have to make a lot of noise. A small number of employees at media companies have managed to leverage human-resources-adjacent concerns about safe workplace environments against their ideological foes, replicating a process that is already well underway on university campuses.

Thus far, the conservative opposition to this phenomenon has largely taken the forms of complaining and then threatening vast government action. Hanania explains why this is impractical: "Do you want to give government more power over corporations?" he asks. "None of the regulators will be on your side." The people who staff the regulatory bureaucracies are Lina Khan types: They're there to battle capitalism, not woke-ism.

There clearly is something that can be done about woke overreach, to the extent that part of the problem is caused by bad government incentives. Republicans would probably benefit from a strategy of freeing businesses from the regulatory burden of appeasing their most easily offended employees. And lawmakers should stop forcing taxpayers to subsidize baseball stadiums—not because the government needs to punish the MLB, but because it is not the role of the government to fund private stadiums.

The conservative war on woke capital will fail because the weapons of the regulatory state are progressive by their very nature. Conservatives should consider strategies that actively shrink the state, if they ever take power again.

NEXT: Foxconn Finally Admits It Won't Create 13,000 Jobs in Wisconsin

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yeah we should do nothing and roll over.

    1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

      1. FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regularD SD office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. For statists like buckleup there are only two paths: government coercion or surrender.

      1. Since that’s the world we live in, yeah. Sucks that corporations are aligning themselves with a single political party, in conjunction with Hollywood and most of the mass media, but that’s how things are, not how we’d like them to be.

        When corporations getting massive tax breaks start simping for a single party and its political agenda instead of remaining neutral, government coercion is the only thing they’ll understand. They picked a side, so they better hope the other one doesn’t ever gain ascendancy in the near future, or they’re going to be looking in the face of a pretty severe backlash.

        Also, nice anti-trust exemption you have there, MLB–be a shame if something happened to it.

        1. We have to kill liberty to save it. Yeah, that’s what statists always say.

          1. Not liberty, just totalitarian leftists like you.

            1. The person supporting hit squads is totes arguing against totalitarians!

              Projection is a hell of a drug.

              1. Hit squads weren’t mentioned, bitch.
                But facts are facts.
                Your NPC existence is an existential threat at this point.

                1. Start shooting, sure, you little pussy.

                  1. Fuck off White Knight.

              2. Your kind always pretends you’re victims when in reality you’re slaver predators.

                Learn to leave everyone alone, or else.

          2. It’s okay when we do it.

            1. Yes, you seem to think that.

              1. Piss off feckless cunt.

              2. Just adopting your tactics.

        2. “Neutral.” You people were alllllllllllllll for it when they were donating to your beloved political party and ignoring everything because they wanted the tax breaks but WHOA- once they start opposing you NOW you decide “yeah, we have to do this.”

          If it weren’t for double standards you wouldn’t have any at all.

          1. I can’t tell. Who is “you people”? Is this directed at the Dims or the Pubes?

            1. There’s the issue…. everyone does it but he’s too awash in the glow of his party politics to realize that whoever he’s talking about, he’s looking in the mirror.

          2. Since I’m at war with you, “it’s okay when we do it” is the unironic right answer.

        3. I believe that’s called Fascism

          1. You should probably read a book that doesn’t revolve around teenage wizards and find out how fascism actually worked.

        4. Were you not listening to the part where he said none of the regulators are on your side? What on earth makes you think supporting Warren against Amazon and Facebook is going to turn out well for conservatives?

          1. Amazon and Facebook are greater enemies right now than Elizabeth Warren.

    3. Its the BushRomneyMcCain way. All former Nazis now beloved by the Left once they are safely out of power.

    4. No, it’s do something and roll over. It’s just like I said below:

      “Those who identify on the right are happier, less mentally ill, and more likely to start families,” writes Hanania. “But in the end, the world they live in will ultimately reflect the preferences and values of their enemies.”

      #ConservativesForSodomyToStopAWokeFuture #TheyTookOurJobsDurkaDurr

      Yes, this is a Culture War and in every war, well…everyone has to give up something…

    5. His point was about what is right or wrong. This is a decaying and dying civilization, like the Roman Empire. It is in the late decadence and early decline/collapse stage.
      You can’t convince people by reason because most humans aren’t much better than animals, and leftists are better at appealing to emotions. Read “Engineering Consent” by Edward Bernays.
      The only solution that might work (but would never be undertaken), would be a mass genocide of the left, something on the scale of Rwanda. Like all the leftist college professors, media, politicians, influencers of any kind and everyone that was brainwashed by them.
      Obviously, that will never be done, so the next thing that will realistically work is patience. DOING NOTHING. Just let the inevitable collapse of society take place. They won’t be a problem when they die of starvation during the collapse. The collapse will kill far more people than did the Roman collapse, because back then most people knew how to grow their own food.
      The Left is both a cause and a symptom of society in decline, but their continued existence is dependent upon surplus resources existing. (think feminists and feminized men that need actual men to build, maintain, and defend civilization—all the unglamorous, dirty, unpleasant tasks that are needed that 99% of women don’t do). If schadenfreude is your thing, then just sit back and enjoy the entertaining show they will put on while they suffer and die.

    6. Definitely need to accept that the right lost the culture war at the national level. If you want to preserve your way of life, focus on local nullification. E.g. the development of several states refusing to help enforce federal gun control is a good step.

  2. Coke is so 2020.
    I will be setup in front of the MLB All Star Game this year in Denver with a table load of “Thanks, Stacy Abrams, you are bigger than all of us” T-shirts. We will have a array of shirts available. “I needed an ID to pick up my tickets” will probably also be a hot item.

    1. “I needed an ID to pick up my tickets“
      Irony of the year, nobody cares.

      1. That and Colorado has strict or voter I’d laws than the one proposed by georgia

        1. Sure, but it’s run by a Democrat and they are up by a comfortable margin there so it doesn’t count. Plus, it’s like only 4% black so there is a remarkably small crowd to preach racial victimhood.

  3. Yeah much better to just lie back and think of England.

  4. countless other big businesses criticized Republican efforts in Georgia to restrict voting rights

    Pro tip for all of you aspiring journalists: if you want to make a coherent and persuasive argument don’t start with such an obviously falsifiable premise. Robbie, look up “begging the question” for fuck’s sake.

    1. That’s not begging the question. You can argue that it didn’t do it by much or that critics are being over the top and/or hypocritical in their outrage about it, but it clearly didn’t make voting easier to do.

      1. The question is whether it should be easier to do. Voting is a privilege of citizenship, not really a right.

        1. I disagree. Voting is a right both via the Constitution (see the 15th Amendment) and basic democratic philosophy/principles (see the Declaration of Independence). The basic idea is that you cannot compel someone to give up their liberty and their tax dollars without giving them some say, anything else dishonors the basic and equal autonomy of individual persons.

          1. basic democratic philosophy/principles (see the Declaration of Independence)

            The word ‘vote’ doesn’t appear anywhere in the DoI and ‘taxation with representation’ was a/the low bar wrt rights. It’s still taking your money and telling you what to do with the rest.

            1. “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” DOI

              Also, you don’t see a basic connection between voting and representation? The Crown appointed people to ‘represent’ the colonists, they kind of found that…lacking.

              1. Hi Queen Amalthea,

                At an almost-random spot in these conversations, let me drop this in on you… REAL libertarians in these comment pages, the few of them… You seem to be one of them… Get dumped on, on a regular basis! Just FYI for you; “no good deed goes unpunished”. Greedy, self-righteous power pigs can not STAND the fact that there are better, more benevolent, more live-and-let-live humanoids on this planet; better than they are! So the power pigs must denigrate the more-benevolent, more-informed people!

                Whatever you do, GUARD your real identity, as you speak the truth to the troglodytes! SOME of them will gladly KILL the truth-speakers!

                See http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ for full details…

              2. That was not meant for You Queen. It was directed at mad.casual.
                Don’t bother with that piece of garbage. Any and all truth is disregarded by that person. There is no need to try to educate it, facts will only harm its ego. No matter the proof, it will just deny it. When it is called out with real world facts, it just claims that it never received the facts or that the facts do not exist at the location specified.

            2. You never contacted the guys at Guardians you lying little cunt. Is it impossible for little bitches like you to ever admit that you were wrong? Is your lack of self-esteem so low that you cannot ever admit that someone has provided proof and has a network to prove it? There are two men working at Guardian. I spoke with them last night and they are fully aware that they may receive an email today.
              They know who I am you little bitch. You are about as big a low-life as I can think of.

          2. The right to bear arms is in the 2nd and a lot more direct [and therefore arguably more important], yet requires an ID and buying a weapon certainly isn’t uncomplicated given that it is a direct and enumerated right. A helluva lot more complicated than getting an ID. Still wanna make that argument?

            The 15th is irrelevant to the actual argument of should an ID be required. No person is being denied. Anyone making the argument that black people don’t have the knowledge, capacity or resources to obtain a free ID probably sounds pretty patronizing and more than pretty racist. Where is this imaginary black person who can’t get an ID anyway? None has ever been produced.

      2. Yes, actually, it did. Made it easier to vote early, made it easier to vote on the weekend, made it easier to vote absentee – for everyone who is who they say they are.

        1. “Made it easier to vote early”

          By cutting the number of days one could do this? Come on.

          1. Actually, it increased the days. But nice try.

            1. I don’t think so, cite?

              1. Oh look the piece of shit thinks she’s gonna play that here.

          2. You stupid fvckin liar.
            How can you remain so uninformed?

            1. “How can you remain so uninformed?”

              Sustained Effort – it’s the only tool they have (“they” being lying, cheating, thieving, murdering Marxists).

  5. The obvious non-statist solution to this is: stop buying from companies that insult what you stand for and if you like tell others to do the same. When companies take a hit relative to their competitors they will change their positions/tunes.

    1. Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong. – Mencken

      Your obvious solution applies to a world where, conceptually at least, deficits matter.

      1. “deficits matter”
        ?

      2. It also applies to a world where almost all of the brands and products an individual uses on a daily basis are owned by a relatively small handful of mega-corporations, there is a dearth of non-woke alternatives, and, due to the first point, the opportunities to create viable alternatives is limited.

    2. You literally have major corporations and banks working with the progressives to enact progressive policy. If you value liberty there is nowhere for you to go or shop or bank (unless you close to a BB&T). And if you disagree with the progressives you will be shuttered from those businesses.

      1. “If you value liberty there is nowhere for you to go or shop or bank”

        Wahh, I want to channel my inner Chomsky!!!

        Lol.

    3. I think that Hollywood is going to wake up to that sooner or later too. I have no idea why they get involved at all. Why not just smile and politely and say “I like to keep my political views private”. You won’t lose fans if you just stay out of it. You won’t gain fans by being vocal.

      1. Because most actors are high school drop outs with the relevant intellect included?

        They seem to confuse “smart people writing the words I say” for “I am smart”

    4. Pull all tax breaks from them as well. Want tax breaks? Be for all people, not just a few.

  6. Republicans would probably benefit from a strategy of freeing businesses from the regulatory burden of appeasing their most easily offended employees.

    Squeaky wheels within a/the organization addresses about 1/10th to 1/4 of the problem, but what about (e.g) Brandon Eich who was dismissed because a squeaky wheel in the media started going through political donation records? Internal employees had nothing to do with it. And what about situations like Google holding Sr. staff meetings to address the outcome of the election or pretty much anything Jack Dorsey does, where the issue isn’t a vocal minority but top-down corporate ethos? Moreover, what about situations like the NBA where everyone from the players to unaffiliated BLM/antifa rioters in the streets are effectively working together (and ENB is repeatedly effacing how Antifa doesn’t really exist)?

    1. Are you asking what should be done when the owner(s) of a company want things a certain way with their company and its employees?

      1. Im sure if shoe was on other foot, progressives would be just like – ‘well is their company, who are we to criticize’. Tolerance is a liberal virtue after all.

  7. Boycotting whole states has to be the dumbest and shittiest kind of boycott ever. The legislature is not the state. Why punish all of the people in the state? Even if the law in question really was bad, most of the people who are losing pay because of the All Star game moving, I’m guessing, are not hardcore Republicans.

    1. Indeed, given that Democrat candidates won several of the most recent statewide elections there it’s a particularly poor tactic imo.

      Of course, the question then becomes, if a state government does something you, as an out of stater find egregious, what can/should you do?

    2. It’s hilarious because the MLB moved to Colorado which has a nearly-identical voting law. I won’t say if it’s a good law or a bad law, it’s just a piece of legislation that is very similar to laws in many other states, but it’s being singled out as especially harmful for whatever reason.

      1. “It’s hilarious because the MLB moved to Colorado which has a nearly-identical voting law.”

        You thought wrong here, thinking mind. Look it up.

          1. That article is kind of weird in that it’s headline is not well supported by it’s content. Some quick thoughts:

            The main contention the author has is with these two comparisons:
            The All-Star Game will be in Denver, and some on the right quickly noted that Colorado has a voter ID law. Voter ID was part of Georgia’s proposal, too, they noted. Colorado also has two weeks of early voting, while Georgia will still have 17 days.

            They then go into those two points. For the first one about voter id, they go into strict vs. non-strict voter id requirements, and then emphasizes that the Georgia law requires signing with some ID to mail-in ballots rather than just a signature. I’m not certain this is fundamentally a difference, since everyone does have a social security number. If you’re argument is no signing should be required, let’s have that argument but that’s not that absurd. The linked article that 99% of the primary voters voted with mail-in ballots is during the Covid epidemic. I’d have to look further if this is normally true but it’s not a good comparison at the moment. It also seems to assume higher turnout is better, while I would consider it neutral.

            His second point is that the fact that Georgia has more early voting days doesn’t matter. The author brings it up, admits it’s true, but says it doesn’t matter because Colorado is easier in other ways. Which is confusing.

            I don’t think this article supports what it said very strongly. Maybe if they made the point that comparing the relative strength of two voting systems is difficult, that would be fine. He explicitly says the comparisons are apple-to-oranges though and then says Colorado is obviously better. So, whatever.

            1. You seem like a relatively smart and decent fellow, so let me ask you this, which system do you think is designed to have a higher turnout?

              1. First, I’m saying it’s a value judgement that a higher turnout is better. I often don’t vote, and I don’t believe the world would be changed or significantly better if I did so. I’m not sure it really says much either way honestly. The problems I fear tend to not be too tied to this aspect of government.

                Second, both systems seem to vary in different ways. The author even gives the point that Georgia does allow more early voting days. The Georgia law includes other such provisions that can be viewed as more open, such as explicit provisions to file complaints if lines for voting become too long, things of that nature.

                This is despite, as you mention elsewhere, that Georgia is a very competitive state and that analysis of similar legal changes have not led to lesser voter turnout anyway. The last election had pretty good turnout. The author attempts to point out that Colorado has very high voter turnout while Georgia had middle of the road levels of turnout, they’re right next to California in the last election. I think the differences are better explained by other factors than the local voting laws.

                Georgia is in a bad place now. Stacey Abrams and Trump both are leading charges of fraud and suppression against the state. Voters on both sides express concerns about the credulity of the state’s elections. Georgia needs to navigate this strait to hopefully return some confidence to voters of both sides. I don’t know if what they did actually helped, seems like no. I don’t know what else they can do though and I simply don’t view this law as particularly egregious.

                One last comment on the article, the author states that Colorado is better for various reasons, would it be reasonable to assert that all events in states deemed worse than Colorado should move to Colorado?

                1. Also, apologize for being so verbose. I don’t do it to try to appear smart or anything. I’m simply too dumb to be concise.

                  1. You’re certainly not dumb for trying to make your case precisely. I appreciate it.

                2. “First, I’m saying it’s a value judgement that a higher turnout is better.”

                  I guess so, I tend to side with the DOI view I mentioned on this.

                  “Second, both systems seem to vary in different ways.”

                  Did the law in question expand or restrict the ways in GA’s favor?

                  “I think the differences are better explained by other factors than the local voting laws.”

                  Something other than mailing all voters ballots?

                  “would it be reasonable to assert that all events in states deemed worse than Colorado should move to Colorado?”

                  I;m pretty sure it has to do with such changes *now*.

      2. It’s expecially egregious in Georgia because that state has more black people. I am told by the progressives that black people don’t know how to use a computer, fill out a form, do basic arithmetic, or show up to a place on time.

        1. This is a very telling thing about modern conservatives: if you recognize disadvantages in dealing with government bureaucracy in general, you’re a libertarian, if you recognize it disproportionately may impact certain disadvantaged populations like black persons, you are racist against those populations…

          1. If you just assert that it is harder for certain populations to accomplish simplistic tasks, despite all evidence to the contrary, yes, you are racist

            1. “Blacks cant get ID” – racist
              “Blacks dont know how to go online” – racist
              “Asians cant work a thermostat” – racist
              “Asians cant follow the directions on a cake mix box” – racist
              “White people dont know where to buy Sprite” – racist

          2. Because right-wingers, in general, will only believe something is a problem if it directly affects them personally.

            I guarantee, if by magic all of the DMV offices in a city were closed except for one in the downtown inner city, and conservatives living comfortably in the suburbs had to spend all day waiting in line to get a voter ID, they would suddenly become outraged at voter ID requirements.

            But, because difficulties in obtaining IDs only happen to OTHER PEOPLE, then it’s not a problem and those people complaining should just shut up and quit whining.

            1. Because right-wingers, in general, will only believe something is a problem if it directly affects them personally.

              This. There’s a conservative outfit called One Million Moms that has been involved in organizing boycotts in the hopes of getting shows cancelled due to offensive content. Nary a right-winger complained about this early form of “cancel culture.”

              1. Newsflash – the only thing on the right about those people was that they had traditional values. They were as progressive as abolitionists, feminists, and now the woke left.

                Today, those same people are on the left, still pushing morality on everyone. Just because the morality changed doesn’t make it any less forceful and authoritarian.

            2. Bull shit. Been there, done that. Multiple times. The fact it takes so long speaks volumes on how many people can manage to do it.

            3. Isn’t every party/group like that though? People only vote for the party that they think benefits them personally. Union people certainly aren’t going to vote for a Republican.

              1. Trump did unusually well with union people. Just not their leftist leaders.

            4. Jeffy, I’m addition to being a child rape enthusiast, is also a voter fraud enthusiast.

              Good to see you broadening your horizons tubby.

      3. They actually have, in many ways, more restrictive voting laws.

  8. “but liberals dominate in terms of who donates to campaigns, shows up for rallies, and becomes extremely active in politics. ”

    so looting, rioting, etc. is now what they call ‘showing up for rallies?’ I thought it was called ‘mostly peaceful protesting.” And I wouldn’t call bitching like adolescent karen’s and kevin’s ‘extremely active in politics….

    1. The whole premise is predicated on the dumb notion that the only reason ‘liberals’ have any power in politics is because the Republicans gave it to them. Like Baltimore, Detroit, etc. are somehow Republicans’ fault.

      1. A big part of the problem is the media. Propaganda organizations like CNN. NBC news and it’s subordinates, WaPo, etc. all have to be destroyed. We just can’t tolerate their existence anymore.

  9. How much did Procter and Gamble lose on Gillette?

    It has now been revealed that Procter & Gamble took an $8 billion writedown on its Gillette shaving business, contributing to “a net loss of about $5.24 billion, or $2.12 per share, for the quarter ended June 30.”

    1. Why shareholders didn’t file lawsuits aplenty is lost on me.

  10. Robbie read the substack post (https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/why-is-everything-liberal), which is indeed excellent, and came away with the notion that he should rant against the Right.

    SMH…

    1. Haha, I just finished reading that.

    2. I mean, Hanania concludes more or less the same way. There is no way the Right can win by trying to regulate Woke Capital. The regulators belong to the Left and the only plausible result of increasing regulation of big companies is to drive them further left and further marginalize conservatives. E.g. if you remove Section 230 protections from Facebook, they will only censor conservative voices more, not less.

      Only plausible way Right can win is to be more motivating than the Left. Get conservatives to be as active as woke activists. I’m not holding my breath.

  11. This is going to be a tough war to win. I was THIS close to posting the latest woke email from HR … but frankly, I can’t lose my job over this. And that’s where we’re at. An environment of total fear driven by racists.

    1. You have to worry what your employer thinks of your actions/speech?

      Welcome to everywhere/anytime.

      1. I have to worry about simply posting what they said. Because even that will be taken as a sign of dissent form the orthodoxy.

        1. In the 1950’s if you said something that made people think you were a communist, you were fired.

          In the 1960’s, if you said something against the Vietnam War you were often fired.

          In the 1970’s, if you said something indicating you were gay, you were often fired.

          In the 1980’s, if you said something pro-drug use you were often fired….

          I could keep going. This is the way it’s always been.

          1. So is the disagreement with those older issues purely that they were enforcing the wrong views?

            1. I’m saying this is nothing new, and those claiming it is are just partisans who are suddenly, and hypocritically, upset that it now is starting to impact people who think and speak like they like.

              1. Do you believe that the underlying principle is correct? That folks should be held accountable for what they say, and the only thing that differs is what views are considered beyond the pale?

                1. I think It’s extremely hypocritical for most on the Right to suddenly start to say it’s wrong to be fired under at will principles, the only thing that is new informing their views is ‘what views are considered beyond the pale’ sounds like something they might be saying.

                  1. I’m trying to get at your thoughts though. What do you think? I’ve not seen your name around before, and you’re posting a lot and engaging here (welcome by the way!), and I’m trying to build a model of your beliefs. It’s hard to have this type of short form message board style of conversation about political topics because it becomes very easy to just start assuming the beliefs of the person you’re discussing with.

                    To your point, I would agree. If someone was a hardline fire-at-will person and was saying it should be illegal to do so once they come under fire, I think that’s hypocritical.

                    If they’re arguing that companies should have discretion to hire and fire as they please, and then are saying “I agree with reason X, but disagree with reason Y” then I don’t believe that’s hypocritical.

                    I would tend to say that we should likely diffuse politics more so that these conversations can happen, all of them, without firing people. I think that leads to better conversation and better outcomes overall because it allows for more thorough discussion of the ideas at hand. How far do I go on that though? I don’t know. Which is another reason I’m hesitant to enshrine anything into law on that. Giving more localized authority to make those decisions helps mitigate things.

                    1. “If they’re arguing that companies should have discretion to hire and fire as they please, and then are saying “I agree with reason X, but disagree with reason Y” then I don’t believe that’s hypocritical. ”

                      ???

                      Please read that again and respond…If you say they should fire and hire as they please, then arguing for state action if they fire or hire on X is hypocritical.

          2. Feel free to provide any evidence of this.

          3. No, it’s never been like this. The doxximg, threats of violence, etc.. this is new.

            It means we have to rid ourselves of the left if we want America to survive. Cut it out like a malignant tumor.

        2. Because even that will be taken as a sign of dissent form the orthodoxy.

          Welcome to being a member of the minority. Members with beliefs that are not in the mainstream have faced this type of problem for time immemorial.

          What you’re really complaining about is that your beliefs aren’t the majoritarian beliefs anymore.

          1. No, we have recognized that you leftists are an existential threat to everyone’s freedom. So a threat the majority. There is zero equivalence to anything except Marxist takeovers in other countries.

            So why don’t you stay the fuck out of the US and crawl back under whatever rock you slithered out from under back in Canada, m’kay?

      2. “I don’t agree with the current left-liberal consensus” shouldn’t be grounds for dismissal. But here we are, and it’s been trending this way since Google fired James Damore and held struggle sessions for the rest of its employees.

        1. OK, now do the firing of Adam Smith.

          1. You mean that asshole that filmed himself berating a minimum-wage drive-in worker at Chik-Fil-A? How is that the same as James Damore?

            1. Uh, he was fired for his speech?

              1. I do like the sudden Marxist streak in your principles (‘a *minimum wage drive-in worker*’!).

                I just want to get your ‘principle’ clear here. If someone gets fired for speech the boss doesn’t like it’s ok when a. the speech is filmed and towards a minimum wage drive in worker and …..what else?

                1. You don’t think someone filming himself being an asshole on social media might make an employer reluctant to keep such a drama queen around the office?

                  1. So, you think firing a guy for speech *off the job* is great, but firing a guy for speech *on the job* is terrible?

                    What’s the principle there? Other than ‘first guy spoke against conservative things, second guy spoke against liberal things!’

                    1. Wow. Jonathan Haidt’s thesis on moral principle bases was right. The left literally only operates on 1 or 2 out of a total of 6 (or more).
                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind

                    2. I think he was an asshole that deserved to get fired.

                2. There’s not anything inherently Marxist about minimum wage laws. In very pure Marxist analysis it doesn’t make much sense anyway since the idea of a wage tends to go away.

                  1. Marxists certainly believe that pro-labor legislation along the way to the ‘revolution’ is what every good Marxist should support.

                    1. They do, but I would not say it’s explicitly Marxist. There are several roads that lead there. It tends to be a standard of more centralized and regulatory states, but that’s not explicitly Marxist. You can see attempts to control markets in such a way dating back to the times of Kings and Queens, predating Marx and his analysis. I think conflating it confuses the issue. It also doesn’t help much other than it being used to shut down opposition without having the argument over the actual subject at hand.

              2. Uh, he was fired for being an asshole?

                1. First, I don’t accept it’s clear he was an asshole. In the tape he’s clear it’s not directed towards the worker.

                  Second, the Google guy was fired for being disloyal, disruptive to the company and maybe a racist?

                  1. He went to a restaraunt for the express purpose of hassling the staff, and filmIng himself harassing the staff, who were friendly and courteous to him in return.

                    I would think an asshole like yourself could recognize his strong asshole game

                    1. Assholes tend to not recognize assholes.

                    2. Queenside is slimy and disingenuous, so good luck having an honest discussion there.

              3. He was fired for his actions, not his opinions

              4. He was fired for proudly being an ass to somebody who did not make policy, was nothing but nice to him, and did not one time say a cross word to him.

                This is quite different than firing somebody for a small donation to a defense team or to a state proposal.

        2. Ok, now do Ruthie Robertson.

          1. Well, look at that–Robertson and Damore’s cases happened right about the same time. Looks like my post applies after all.

              1. More than you, it seems.

              2. Speaking of college professors, you didn’t answer this:

                How does Deb Frisch fit into your scenario?

        3. Ok, now do Donald Zarda.

          I could keep doing this. There’s lots of examples. If you only read the right wing press you would, of course, miss these.

          1. You mean the guy whose case was found to be discriminatory by the Supreme Court?

            1. You mean, long *after* he was fired was found to have been discriminated against? He was still fired for his speech.

              1. Doesn’t change the fact that the Court ruled against the company. Try again.

                1. What we are arguing against is that this is nothing new and happens on both sides of the aisle. The fact that the highest court in the land eventually stepped in to take the side of one example hardly counters that.

                  1. So you admit I’m right. Thanks.

                  2. No equivalence, but disingenuous sea lioning idiots like you always do this when backed into a corner. Like Pedo Jeffy.

          2. How does Deb Frisch fit into your scenario?

    2. My problem is that by the time it becomes fashionable to boycott some leftist company, I haven’t bought or used their product in years. Either I am ahead of the curve, or I just take time to look into a company and it’s products before I shell out the hard earned bucks.

      (can I still say ‘bucks’?)

      1. Genderist…

  12. The answer to “woke capital” is the same as the answer to “green capital” and other “socially responsible” investing. Let them form funds and then short the stocks. Over time, watch for the formation of the un-woke equivalent of vice stock funds (sometimes called “sin stocks”).

    People who divest from companies because of their social policies are making a completely legitimate First Amendment statement. However, in doing so they are artificially reducing demand for the stock of those companies, making them (at least incrementally) more financially attractive investments for the rest of us than they would otherwise have been.

    While the data is hard to parse because there are so many confounding variables, the evidence I’ve seen suggests that vice stock funds tend to outperform socially responsible funds. I wouldn’t bet my whole retirement on vice stocks but I do have some money diversified there.

    1. If you look at the portfolios of the “socially conscious” investment firms you will see its the same stocks, they just charge a much higher handling primeum so the investor (ie the chump) can pretend they are a good person

  13. The problem is Republicans and Libertarians suck at fighting the culture war. And it is understandable. The parent that demands proper behavior, responsibility, and gives limited care to victimhood claims is not the cool parent. The parent that pays for everything, let’s you stay up late, forgives every transgression, and doesn’t demand anything of you is the cool parent.

    Progressivism is the promise of a no responsibility utopia. That’s easy to sell whether or not it has any chance of success in reality.

    Telling people they have to take responsibility for themselves and work at being a decent member of society is not a fun or motivating sales pitch.

    If Republicans and Libertarians can’t do a better job at messaging and winning the culture war, there really is no way to beat back rabid progressivism. Rather, we just have to watch it eventually destroy itself and hopefully the country will still be here afterward.

    1. “Telling people they have to take responsibility for themselves and work at being a decent member of society ”

      And the party with Donald Trump as it’s head is that???

      Lord knows he’s known for telling himself and his kids how they need to take responsibility and work at being decent members of society…

      1. Do you have anything other than strawman arguments?

        1. Someone doesn’t know what a strawman argument is.

          When you take only the community college intro to logic class but think you’re educated on a subject you talk like this…

          1. Oooh are you gonna tell him to read a book too?

            Fuck off feckless cunt.

            1. Ohh, he’s so UPSET! It’s cute.

      2. It’s amazing how you completely missed the point. It’d be more amazing if it wasn’t so obviously intentional.

        But it does show that you had no actual rebuttal to my statement. So I thank you for that admission.

        1. Lol, when someone on the internet says ‘you completely missed my point, which I will not comment on’ it means ‘I don’t know how to answer this, but it makes me angry.’

          1. No, it means you completely missed my point by making an overly reductive, out-of-context generalization.

            Trump is the result of culture change brought on by the left. Trump is not the epitome of conservative or libertarian ideology. Trump is a response to a situation, not the bringer of belief.

            The reason I couldn’t respond is because your retort was so devoid of intellectualism it was clear you are not a serious person.

            1. Lol, sure, GOP voters are mindless automatons with no agency or blame, only the Democrat Party has agency and blame, so Trump is literally the fault of the Democrat Party, not those poor possessed GOP souls who ran to the polls to cast votes for him!

              Devoid of intellectualism indeed!

              1. Nice strawman. I never claimed such a thing. Again, another out-of-context, overly-simplistic reductionist comment with elitist condescension.

                I will give you credit though, you have this progressive deflective tactic down pat. Well done.

                1. No, no, I’m going to hold you to it big guy.

                  You said “Telling people they have to take responsibility for themselves and work at being a decent member of society is not a fun or motivating sales pitch. ”

                  You said this clearly defending GOP over the Democrat Party.

                  I said, do you really think the party with Trump at its head is about this?

                  And then you went into this deflective routine.

                  Look, Trump is the very popular head of the party you tout.

                  So, if you want to argue that party is about what you say, defend it with him as the very popular head.

                  Man up and stop deflecting.

                  I know you are afraid trying to defend the actual Trump will be….very difficult. That’s the nature of that guy. But, don’t sis out, face it now, there would be more dignity in it….

                  1. Actually, I’m going to hold you to you intellectual dishonesty and myopic positioning. Do you believe Trump is the originator of conservative or libertarians ideals? Do you believe that any party always elects a person completely representative of all ideals? Is it possible for a party to stray from certain ideals in order to accomplish greater parts of ideals? Do you understand that decency doesn’t mean 100% purity?

                    You see, you are operating in such a binary landscape that nuance isn’t your thing. Trump does not really represent the decency side of conservative or libertarian ideology. But that was a sacrifice Republicans made to accomplish greater ideological goals, and honestly to fight back using Democrat tactics.

                    However, that doesn’t take away from the underlying ideology of political parties or political ideologies themselves.

                    This really isn’t hard. But, for you it appears to be because tribal hackery and overly-simplistic, out-of-context rationale seems to be your only thing.

              2. Are you for real? Nobody who voted for Trump was even thinking of the Democratic Party. They were socking it to The GOPe that gave them such stalwarts as the Bushes, McCain and Romney. They were ready to unload another Bush and their voters revolted. Trump probably wouldn’t have won in 2016 if the dems had run anyone but Hillary.

                1. Nobody who voted for Trump was even thinking of the Democratic Party.

                  Right. They weren’t thinking about Hillary at all. LOL

                  1. No. Initially, it was a giant fuck you to the GOP. Trump supporters STILL loathe most of the GOP. A bunch of pathetic cowards who refuse to stand up for a fucking principle they claim to hold.

                2. Of course people were thinking about the Democrat Party. Where do people like you come up with such myopic positioning?

      3. Hmmmm, yeah that Hunter Trump is a real disgrace to the Trump family, banging hookers and his sister inlaw, shakingbdownnforeignngovernments, breaking gun laws, forgetting where he left his laptop….

    2. I would say that by and large libertarians just want to live and let live. Regressive Illiberals by and large want to actively take people’s stuff and tell them what to do. They are the aggressors and work damn hard at it.

      1. Yes. That’s basically my point.

    3. @Inquisitive Squirrel

      1990 called. They want their talking points back. Woke leftists are not all about no responsibility, and haven’t been for decades. They are all about extreme mind-crushing responsibility 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They think that everyone is full of unconscious biases and need to constantly police everything they say and do to stop those biases from coming out and oppressing everyone. They need to monitor their friends and media consumption for double-plus ungood wrongthink that will make all their unconscious biases even worse. It’s an exhausting way to live your life.

      It’s the libertarians who call BS on that and point out that it is no way to live your life. They are the ones calling for less responsibility.

      The conservatives seemed like they were going in that direction too. But then they started becoming more like the “woke.” They freaked out about “WAP,” a rap video where a married woman raps about how she enjoys having sex with her husband. They got upset because someone read. They panicked because a man wore a dress while reading a story to kids at a library. They tried to start yet another war on porn. So it seems like they’ve become more “woke” too in the sense that they delusionally think that seemingly insignificant things are somehow going to corrupt everyone.

      1. Nah, you are arguing the underlying desire of the left. I’m talking about the political sales pitch. Yes, you have to completely adhere to the Left’s control in order to get the utopia. But their sales pitch is still the same: “You want to be safe, have everything given to you for free, not have to be responsible, not have anyone say anything bad or mean or offensive? Then join us!”

        Libertarians and Republicans tend to follow the approach of I don’t care if you aren’t safe, I don’t care if you are offended, I’m not giving you anything.

        Republicans also bring a level of moralism to the table that Libertarians don’t. And things like WAP get targeted. Even though it is a disgusting and pathetic song, and pretty indicative of where we are as a society from a standards point of view.

        And are you talking about the man who was arrested for child porn who wore a dress to school to read to children? Cause I don’t think you are making the point that you want with that.

        And this bizarre calling Republicans woke is just intellectually dishonest and a sad attempt at “both sides.” Republicans have always been more puritan than Dems. However, Republican puritanism at the moment is so minimal and probably culturally needed, it’s not that big of deal.

        If we ever get back to ascendant Republican control, their puritanism will once again be an authoritarian issue. But right now Republican authoritarianism is no the problem.

        1. @Inquistive Squirrel

          I don’t think the left is pulling some bait and switch where they lure you in with a promise of no responsibility and then spring the trap. All the leftist memes I see seem to emphasize the need for extreme vigilance to root out all the secret racists hiding everywhere, and to stop them from contaminating you with the “problematic” crimethink they smuggle into the media. I think the extreme puritanism is a feature. It appeals to people who want to be part of something bigger than themselves and engage in righteous anger, not people who want to slack off. It’s selfish in the sense that people gain status from performative wokeness, but it’s not a slacker’s selfishness, it’s a puritan’s selfishness.

          The whole “I don’t care if you aren’t safe, I don’t care if you’re offended” isn’t an intrinsic property of any political agency, it’s a generic rhetorical stance anyone can use. During the 90s and 00s leftists adopted it for the purpose of dunking on puritanical religious conservatives, remember “New Atheism?”

          As for your reference to one participant in “Drag Queen story hour” being a sex offender, I don’t see how that harms my point, except with guilt by association. If a normal, non-drag-related story hour failed to background check someone would you argue that that discredited story hours in general? Does Roy Moore nearly winning an election discredit the entire Republican party? The reason the program is controversial is not, and never has been because they failed to background check one participant. It’s pretty clear it was controversial long before that happened. It’s because conservatives inexplicably decided to freak out about someone daring to be weird in front of children.

          As for your complaint that I am drawing a false equivalence between conservatism and wokeness, I am basically arguing that they are equivalent. Do you know what a videogame “reskin” is? It is where you take a game and don’t change anything about how it plays, you just change what everything looks like. For instance, you change a game where you shoot aliens with a laser to a game where you shoot Nazis with a machine gun. Woke leftism and puritanical conservatism are reskinned thought processes. The set dressing is different, but the same toxic thought process underlies them both.

          It’s true that leftist woke puritanism is a bigger threat now. But that makes it all the more baffling that some conservatives would try to start some puritanical moral panics over rap videos and similar harmless things. They should be adopting the “I don’t care about safety and offense” moral stance right now since leftist puritans are ascendant.

    4. Idk I think in recent history the Left has definitely had to backtrack on economic issues as their utopian programs get hit by reality. Collapse of USSR is one big example, but the 1990s also saw lots of welfare and tax reform in many countries, including the US, New Zealand and Sweden. Eventually our current big spending policies will bring down the economy and it won’t be possible to pretend that just taxing the rich more will fix things.

  14. I’m old enough to remember when Reason Magazine held to the Friedman doctrine that it was tyrannical to put public policy questions in the hands of private corporations, or worse: with their external “stakeholders”.

    1. I also remember Friedman saying that government should leave private businesses alone.

      1. If private business will not do so, options are limited.

        Smash big businesses into tiny ones.

  15. The conservative war on woke capital will fail because the weapons of the regulatory state are progressive by their very nature. Conservatives should consider strategies that actively shrink the state, if they ever take power again.

    And here we have the Great Libertarian Swindle.

    States don’t shrink. You might be able to point to an election cycle or two where a state grew less vigorously, but never has the state of any country withered away. Ask the communists.

    So you have the alternative of either recognizing that fact, and working within that reality to implement your preferred policies, or you can again pretend you’re going to shrink the state and get steamrolled once again.

    Libertarianism is a great example of what used to be known as Unilateral Disarmerment.

    1. “Since we can’t have Libertopia, let’s go for Fascistopia!”

      1. It’s not conservatives using private companies to enforce government desires. Just sayin’

        1. Jeff wouldn’t know a fascist if he was loaded on to the cattle car.

          (Because he’s a fat cow, get it?)

    2. I can’t speak for all libertarians, bu this here libertarian is happy to sit on the sidelines, vie for pay-per-view rights on the Woke Left/Cultural Right mud-wrestling, take bets, and roll dice for garments. Ir’s a can’t lose proposition that way.

  16. “Republicans might strip the MLB of its antitrust exemption and repeal certain tax breaks.”

    Why should MLB have an antitrust exemption and tax breaks in the first place?

    1. Lol, it’s because of tradition.

      Which conservatives, of course, *totes* hate!

      1. Fuck White Knight, I never figured you for a traditionalist and a antitrust exemption fanboy.

        1. What are you talking about?

          You’ve got some sad, pathetic, ‘community’ on this part of the blog, and you’ve had pissy disagreements with some handle named White Knight.

          And so you think anyone who is not part of your weirdo club on this part must be this person?

          Go over to Volokh, I’ve been posting there for years. You’re a weirdo that has to spin some sick pathetic fantasy world about this internet chat board. Jesus, you’re like that Patton Oswald character in that film.

          1. I’m sure you have. You’ve got socks all over the place here.

            How much do you get paid to post here, BTW? Genuinely curious.

          2. And so you think anyone who is not part of your weirdo club on this part must be this person?

            That is precisely what it thinks. It’s the dumbest game on the internet and ML and his buddies show up every day to play it. Stick to Volokh. This place is now a sewer.

      2. Bad traditions should be ended, no?

      3. “Lol, it’s because of tradition.”

        ahh yes, as memorialized in the classic Fiddler on the Roof song when Tevye sings about the importance of upholding antitrust exemptions for giant conglomerates and their vital role in keeping the society of their tiny village running.

    2. Some parts of antitrust exemption make sense. For example, the ability for teams to “collude.” This was done because the teams don’t produce products and thus don’t compete against each other. The product is the competition between teams. A team by itself is meaningless.

  17. The problem for the Republicans is that business people are smart and can see the future. The country’s population is getting more diversified. The people interests are changing. Climate change is a real threat and needs to be addressed. We live in a world wide economy.
    Companies need to be ready for the future not the past. The Republicans only want to address there immediate needs and are not addressing the future needs.

    1. Future of what? Electoral fraud?

      1. There is no ‘electoral fraud.’

        Georgia was a relatively strict election state in 2020. In previous elections Democrat candidates came very close to beating Republican candidates. In 2020 they very narrowly beat them. There is no reason to suppose ridiculous conspiracy theories of fraud.

        1. Needz moar adverbs and adjectives.

    2. The future is work with the sing part progressive state or go to the gulag

    3. No, the problem is corporations run with the culture. They don’t fight against it. Corporations look for the simplest path to making money and avoiding problems. Being counter-culture is not the way to do that.

      They don’t care about interests, other than to exploit for profit. They don’t care about climate change, other than to virtue signal in order to gain profit. They don’t care about anything except profit. And I don’t mean that as a prerogative, just the reality.

      There is absolutely no addressing future needs happening by anyone in corporate America, just as there is no one doing so in political America. That’s why actual problems like recycling failures, water provision, immigration issues, education problems, and so forth are left aside for juicier, false narrative, righteous signaling things like climate change and systemic racism.

      1. So corporations spend billions in advertising trying to appeal to the consumer in tightly contested markets and then turn around and piss off half the population? That is the simplest path to making money? Nonsense.

        1. They’re chasing the Chinese market and don’t care about US boycotts. Note how they went to bat for the Chinese regarding the Uighurs concentration camps.

          1. https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1385008898462072837?s=19

            JUST IN – China is behind a newly discovered series of hacks against key targets in the U.S. government, private companies, and the country’s critical infrastructure (NBC)

        2. You mean that half that keeps buying their products, who don’t boycott, who don’t protest, who don’t dox, who don’t get overly emotional about everything and set up giant groups to destroy those that don’t adhere to their beliefs?

          Yes, if you have to piss off one side to keep making money and keep you head down, which side do you choose.

          Get a clue.

      2. You need to look up the definition of “prerogative”. It’s not the same as “pejorative.”

        1. Sorry for the typo, glad you were here to righteously call it out. Take a look below, I think someone misused a comma you might want to call out.

    4. BS…they are scared of the media and the leaders especially in big tech are cosmo elites…Climate Change ..what do you mean by that? Seriously..throw a term around that allows liberal art elites to “manage” the economy? Does the Climate Change? Sure..to what extent is it changing? No one knows. To what extent is it due to anthropological actions? No one knows..
      Do you realize how complex the Earth’s climate system is? It is by nature nonlinear and we don’t really know all the processes and their actions. Hell quantum theory is better understood than “climate.” Modeling something so complex that can’t be tested in a controlled situation doesn’t provide very accurate forecasting..the old Earth has been around for 4 billion years and it will be here another 4 billion with life..a lot of life..man might not be but that is another story. I don’t mean to go off but honestly stop being so certain ..as Hayek said…a pretense of knowledge..be humble man..humble.

      1. I understand that understanding climate is well above my pay grade. I also know that we have since the industrial revolution people have been moving carbon sequestered in the earth, as coal and oil, into the atmosphere. That carbon will capture solar energy and heat the atmosphere. This means the atmosphere has far more energy and that energy must be accounted for in the atmospheric system.
        Countries and corporation realized the changes that this will create. From changing weather patterns, more powerful storms, more dislocated people to name a few problems. Corporation know the problem and know it must be addressed for them to have a future. Many have been preparing for years. Now they also show their changes to get the benefit of good public relations.

    5. LOL. Are you here all week?

  18. “countless other big businesses criticized Republican efforts in Georgia to restrict voting rights

    You threw your entire article in the trash Robby, by claiming that efforts to bring the same security measures that every-single-other-Western-democracy-on-the-planet uses to the American electoral process, is somehow restricting voting rights.

    America has serious problems with voter fraud. Tammany Hall, the Republican machine in Atlantic City in the 20’s, JFK’s election, the Chicago Machine, etc. The US’s electoral history is chalk full of fraud.

    There’s not one thing in the new proposals that Denmark, or Canada, or Norway, or Germany, or Sweden isn’t already doing. These are some of the most socially progressive countries in the world, and nobody is accusing them of something as stupid as what they are pulling with Georgia.

    The ONLY possible reason for the Democrats and their corporatist allies to be opposing these measures, is that the accusations of fraud in November’s election were true, and they want to continue to fix elections.

    1. “You threw your entire article in the trash Robby, by claiming that efforts to bring the same security measures that every-single-other-Western-democracy-on-the-planet uses to the American electoral process, is somehow restricting voting rights.”

      Is Colorado not part of every-single-other-Western-democracy-on-the-planet?

      1. Colorado requires an ID.

        1. Yeah, that’s the only thing that matters in how they are different!

          Come on, are you this mis-informed by your media sources? You should be really mad at them.

          Colorado sends *every* voter a mail in ballot, for one thing.

          1. Yes, and you have to use your ID to register to vote. They clean the voter rolls if you don’t vote within two election cycles. They require ID for in-person voting.

            I’m not saying Colorado is as stringent as Georgia, but Colorado also requires measures to keep voting secure.

            1. “I’m not saying Colorado is as stringent as Georgia”

              And that is why some people are mad, that they changed the laws to back that statement up.

              I, too, think there’s been a lot of hyperbole about how bad the GA law is, but no reasonable can admit that the changes were not in the direction of making Ga laws more stringent than they were in 2020.

              1. Then I suggest you go read about them. They increased voting days, they increased ballot drop boxes, they increased times of available voting. The only thing they did was tightened the ID requirement. Why is this a problem for you?

          2. Me – “that Denmark, or Canada, or Norway, or Germany, or Sweden isn’t already doing”
            Queen Anathema – “Buuut Colorado!”

            I was talking about nations, you dishonest shit.
            It was obvious that I was talking about nations because I listed five of them.
            You knew I was talking about nations.
            But you still tried to play little rhetorical games because you didn’t have an argument.

            You’re such a piece of shit, WK. Nothing you do is honest.

  19. https://twitter.com/GadSaad/status/1384975308542074882?s=19

    Hey @kingjames, you seem to have inadvertently deleted this tweet in question. Don’t worry I have a screenshot of it. My pleasure buddy. [Pic]

  20. https://twitter.com/ThomasSowell/status/1384989880162258944?s=19

    One of the scariest things about our times is how easy it is to scare people and start a political stampede. There are people who could be upset if they were told that half of all Americans earn less than the median income—though of course that is the way median income is defined

    1. “One of the scariest things about our times is how easy it is to scare people and start a political stampede. ”

      This from the guy who says ‘start shooting’ upthread.

      Self awareness is really difficult for some…

      1. I’m well aware of what Queen Amalthea is and what needs to happen to units of the hivemind.

      2. Difficult for you feckless cunt. Guess you spanked over on Volokh and came here to whine about.

        1. Lil’ puss puss gonna cry that I’m here? Go on ahead and cry…

          1. Yeah, that really showed him.
            Lol

  21. Richard Hanania, an expert on partisanship and ideology, has an excellent Substack post

    I recommend everyone read this. It was a very good article. One thing I’m left wondering after reading it is is how much of this is explained by a tendency to function in different levels of institutions. I don’t have data, just anecdote, that seems to show conservative types being relatively active in more local politics. Hanania’s analysis was very focused on the largest institutions. So, I wonder if there’s something to be said for a tendency to think locally which would at least go along with a certain stereotype of American conservative thinking.

    No idea though. Good article Robby.

    1. Though, one further question is what to do to hopefully devolve power from less centralized sources? There seems to be so little taste for it these days. Also, I fear the Woke Capital types have no particular issue with further regulation since regulation has historically enshrined certain larger companies into a ossified state and prevented upstarts from competing with them by putting regulatory burden that tends to have weigh down smaller operators more than large.

      That’s a bit more academic though as I don’t THINK they’re explicitly lying to get on people’s good sides or whatever, I do believe they genuinely believe what they are saying and that taking them on their word is a more useful means of analysis if you disagree.

  22. The problem here is that you seem to be using the terms “Republican” and “conservative” interchangeably and neither one of them applies to the Trumpian populist GOP we currently have. It’s like referring to “moderate” Democrats – who the fuck are you talking about? Who’s a conservative any more? It’s just one flavor of Government Almighty or another and sure, one’s vanilla and the other’s bloody diarrhea flavored, but they’re both still dedicated to the proposition that it’s government’s job to fix all the problems in the world – and if only they had enough power and enough money they could do it, too.

    1. Agreed that “conservative” is a big fat joke applied to these RWNJs. But Republicans shouldn’t be getting credit for stuff they never did. They never shrunk the government. They never spent less than Democrats. They never refrained from using government to go after people, and usually in a more dystopian and invasive way than any progressive ever dreamed of.

      1. They never refrained from using government to go after people, and usually in a more dystopian and invasive way than any progressive ever dreamed of.

        All of Bush’s surveillance programs were expanded under Obama, and he prosecuted more whistleblowers than all the other Presidents combined.

        1. Do you not think we need surveillance programs? The key is not to be dystopian and terrible about it. Go after the real terrorists. Don’t invade the wrong country, etc.

          1. Thanks for admitting that you support the overweening surveillance state, and that your side was worse on it than the ones you like to bitch about.

        2. Tony is that person who screams at Republicans for expanding government while cheering Democrats expanding government. His intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds.

  23. A better strategy is to simply note that hostile takeovers only make sense when they are profitable and woke capital’s go to strategy is to insult a large portion of their consumer base. Encouraging hostile takeovers, firing the wokesters, and committing to serving everyone with respect is a winning business strategy.

  24. Hilarious that sock account QA is here to whine and moan her little leftie heart out. Fuck off.

    1. Note bucklep never has anything approaching an argument. He’s mad and upset to see someone say what he doesn’t like. Poor lil’ snowflake…

      1. Have you made a post here in the comment thread that wasn’t either shitposting or trolling?
        I haven’t seen it.

        You just cried that buckleup was pulling the same shit you’ve been doing this whole time.

  25. It’s woke fascism that will fail.

  26. “The conservative war on woke capital will fail because the weapons of the regulatory state are progressive by their very nature.”

    Yes, but those recently self-branding as “Conservative” are, also, progressive by their very nature.

    1. Which of these Republican politicians is a recent convert to conservatism?

      1. None, but there’s a lot of neocons like Max Boot, Bill Kristol and the pedophiles at the Lincoln Project that are marching around in cleaned and gutted conservative skinsuits and claiming that they’re the genuine article.

  27. Conservatives want to become successful, libs want to control which is why they seem to infest the media, HR departments, big tech, the Govt…all which are part of the Cathedral. The only way to stop them is to radically downsize govt, repeal any law that forces individuals to do business with anyone (sellers and buyers can both discriminate), defend the educational “complex” and end tribalism on any level….but the GOP never does this…never…they never close down every govt agency created after 1960…never.

    1. So why couldn’t conservatives leverage their economic success to fighting and opposing the Woke Left and their institutions?

  28. https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1385045227279368196?s=19

    Happening now: #BLM protesters take to the street in Columbus, Ohio again to protest the police shooting of a knife-wielding black teen who was trying to stab a girl. #makhiabryant [video]

    1. And sites like Reason, who bemoaned Trump’s “attack on the media” are silent on the media intentionally gaslighting people.

      1. The media is not a thing. FOX News is one of the biggest players in the media.

        And they don’t control angry black people in the streets.

        1. Sure, the media is just an idea. Like Antifa

        2. No, that’s Soros and the DNC… and it costs them a pretty penny too.

  29. “The problem for the opponents of “woke capital” is that many of these proposals would either fail outright or cause worse problems than the ones they intend to solve.”

    That’s a given, considering the tenuous connection between the motives and actions.

    But the real problem is that it’s a raping of the First Amendment. I would think.

  30. “That’s because [progressives] are highly interested in capturing influential positions in politics, government, the media, universities, and even within corporations.”

    That’s an interesting way to put: “That’s because [progressives] are more educated.”

    Let’s be honest, it doesn’t take a PhD to raise Christian babies, but Christian babies do take a lot fo time. Time you’re not spent reading books and having sparkling conversation.

    Conservatives should be the engines of white Christian reproduction, if that’s what they want. They should just leave the governing, educating, journalism, and entertainment to the people who are remotely interested in becoming educated about these things. Stick to your domain and we’ll all be happier.

    You don’t see us coming to your hick towns trying to run things, do you?

    1. Tony has as good a grip on basic theology and religious dogma as he does energy markets and chemistry, I see.

      It’s funny to see a guy who bills himself as leftist hold such a burning contempt for the proletariat, coupled with a virtually sexual attraction to the concept of top men and an aristocracy. Tony would have made a great catamite to a foppish Roman princeps.
      Poor bastard was born 1600 years too late.

      1. Tony’s just another hicklib trying to pose as a sophisticate, but the fact of the matter is that he’s a bog-standard white leftist that doesn’t want to live near majority-minority neighborhoods like the rest of his poser kin.

        1. Nobody wants to live as a minority. Imagine being a minority!

          You’re right about the other stuff too mostly. Bog-standard is harsh. Do you see a lot of white leftists going around explaining the virtues of supporting the Democratic party? Just the Pod Save America guys really, and they worked in the White House.

          1. You don’t give a shit about minorities Tony, and you never have.
            At best you and your political cohorts try to use them as ventriloquist dummies to mouth your own interests.

            1. No, I guarantee Tony does appreciate black people giving their life for the cause, just like Pelosi.

          2. Nobody wants to live as a minority. Imagine being a minority!

            Not even other minorities–the ones with means high-tail it to majority white suburbs the first chance they get. Because they know majority white = all right, majority brown = stay out of town.

      2. Aren’t you the one just above ranting about The Joos or some hysterical bullshit?

        I have burning contempt for most humans. What is this you’re demonstrating here with your proto-Nazi droppings, generosity of spirit?

        I just think that if people want to run things, they should know what the fuck they’re doing. The only alternative you have to offer is to put incompetent boobs in position of great power.

        1. Aren’t you the one just above ranting about The Joos or some hysterical bullshit?

          What the fuck are you talking about? I never mentioned the Jews, but your psychotic little rant about Christian breeders certainly is reminiscent of Nazi race rhetoric.

          I have burning contempt for most humans. What is this you’re demonstrating here with your proto-Nazi droppings, generosity of spirit?

          Wow, bipolar much? You hate most of humanity, but everyone else is a Nazi? This is the insane serial-killer shit that Tony is famous for folks.

          I just think that if people want to run things, they should know what the fuck they’re doing

          And who determines that you psychotic piece of shit? You?

          1. Tony does a wonderful job proving my theory that progressives are the least capable people of living in a progressive world. I mean, a communal based ideology where everything has to be fair and equal operated by people who hate each other, hate people in general, feel superior to everyone, and revile differing opinions as idiotic and morally bankrupt. The irony of progressives is astounding.

          2. George Soros isn’t behind anything. That’s an antisemitic conspiracy theory. If you’re blaming Hollywood, bankers, or secret societies of any kind for your troubles, you might be in the path to shoving people in ovens. Nazis aren’t made overnight. Read more books before you find yourself someplace you don’t recognize.

    2. Is this sarcasm or is this guy for real?

      1. He’s real.

        He’s an emotionally stunted, vicious psychopath who thinks he’s somehow a decent person, because he calls himself one.

      2. He’s just your commonplace progressive. If you don’t believe exactly the way he does, you are an evil, uneducated, swamp rat that deserves to be slaughtered.

        You know, the party of compassion, inclusion, tolerance, equality, and so forth.

  31. “Those who identify on the right are happier, less mentally ill, and more likely to start families,” writes Hanania. “But in the end, the world they live in will ultimately reflect the preferences and values of their enemies.”

    #ConservativesForSodomyToStopAWokeFuture #TheyTookOurJobsDurkaDurr

  32. It’s good thing that libertarians ignored any notion that “fighting the war on drugs is doomed to fail” and kept on fighting, huh?

    Let’s say a single blue state tried to resurrect soda taxes and put it on a ballot measure. This time around, half of the republicans there decide they’ll vote yes or just sit at home to stick it up to coke. They’re willing to buy cheaper brand.

    That’s it. That’s the extent of “fighting” woke capital in some cases. You don’t go out of your way to save woke companies from the leftwing fury. It cost you nothing, didn’t involve getting out of the house, going to rallies, etc. Coke can try to sue or release ad blitzes about jobs and consumer choice, which will be met by derision by the right.

    Wars are fought by winning battles. We can pick and choose our targets and situations. Coke ran training programs that urged employees to “be less white”. They slapped racial quotas on their legal representation teams. They’re morally bankrupt company that sells black sugar water. Make of that info what you will.

    Oh, but what if the left tries to expand this kind of attack on capitalism at large – emboldened by conservative assist? For one thing, they won’t, because the Pelosi level will keep AOC squad from going totally socialist. The hands that feed them are just too big. And if they relent, that’s an opportunity too. Either the woke companies just accept making less money, or they’re forced to question their alliances.

  33. “That’s because their enemies are highly interested in capturing influential positions in politics, government, the media, universities, and even within corporations. ”

    As happy as I am to e identified as an enemy of the right, I deny that anyone on the left is “highly interested in capturing influential positions,” in any sort of strategic sense. What we are interested in, is getting rewarding, high-paying, influential jobs, in meritocratic institutions, for our own personal satisfaction and to build our personal wealth — you know, capitalism. When you troglodytes have the merit to compete for these jobs yourselves, the balance may shift. But a home-school primary education and a Liberty University BA will only take you so far; maybe Jerry Falwell Junior pool boy.

  34. Another instance loosertarians (like Robby Soave) choose to keep their heads in the clouds. The left is at war and the actions the right is taking against Woke, inc is the appropriate retaliation. This also includes antitrust actions against tech companies.

    1. And what if the same Antitrust laws are later used against independent free market business?

      Under the present miasma of business regulation, if a business charges more than their competitors, the business can be prosecuted for “price-gauging.”

      If a business charges less than their competition, the business can be prosectuted for “unfair competition.”

      And if a business and its competition both charge the same thing, they both can be charged with “collusion,” “price-fixing,” and “restraint of trade.”

      In other words, it is legally impossible to be in business without falling afoul of government regulation.

      Why not fight to repeal and end all of that mess instead of leaving it in place?

  35. Squeaky wheels get the grease, so conservatives need to squeak more.

Please to post comments