Protesting through Consumption
Uber’s CEO Travis Kalanick resigned from Trump’s economic advisory council on February 2nd, amidst the recent #DeleteUber campaign, where Uber was heavily criticized for benefiting financially off the Muslim Ban protests at JFK International Airport and the recent media attention tying the CEO with Trump’s Administration. Later that week, media outlets announced Nordstrom’s withdrawal of Ivanka Trump’s brand from its stores, surmising the withdrawal to be in response to pressure for the company to pull Trump brands from its retailer. Recently, the #DefundDAPL movement has taken off amidst the $3 billion divestment of Wells Fargo in Seattle, Washington. Activists afterwards have hailed these decisions as a triumph to the power of the people’s collective voice, effectively boycotting certain businesses in the resistance against the new Administration.
In juxtaposition, the same month, Democrats voted for the confirmation of all of Trump’s nominees, including some twenty-one Democrats affirming four of the five nominees during confirmation hearings. Recently, Steve Daines, a Republican representative of Montana, has been under fire for his support of Secretary of Education nominee Betsy DeVos despite thousands of Montanans voicing their concern over her lack of qualifications, her misunderstanding of Montana’s educational issues, and her potential lack of accounting for Montana’s rural schools. It’s also come to light that Daines’, along with other Senators, top financial contributor to his campaign has been the DeVos family. Despite the thousands of calls, emails, and letters from his constituency, Senator Daines voted “yes” to confirm DeVos, even though he holds himself out as a moral Senator, dedicating himself to the people and the state of Montana. Daines isn’t the only money-driven politician in America failing to listen to his constituency and acting on his own economic interests — in fact, he is in company with many other United States politicans. While some Senators are actually listening to their constituents’ opposition to the new Administration, the majority are motivated by either money or fear of retaliation, re-election, or other consequences to vote for what both they and their constituents oppose. Thousands of Americans (both Democrat and Republican) showed up in their opposition of Betsy DeVos in February whether it was by phone, e-mail, or in-person — but she was still nominated. What this tells me is that the current system of government is ineffective.
But this is nothing new. The United States’ political system is sold to the people as a democracy, a system of governance where the voice of the people decide the issues through their elected representatives; however, in 2017, we’re seeing something different (or arguably, something that is exactly the same as it’s been since the founding of the United States) — consumption controls American politics, not Untied States politicians and certainly not the American people. I question whether the ineffectiveness of the representational system is really something new because this Administration has been wildly transparent about the importance of capitalism to the American government by the President’s nomination of wealthy, elitist corporate business-owners to his Cabinet and his campaign initiatives. Consequently, consumption, or lack thereof, is one (not the only) of the single greatest tool that I believe Americans can protest with under not only Trump’s regime, but to protest the entire American political system. It’s relatively simple — America, and the current Administration, function and thrive off capitalism. In fact, if not they, the majority of their family members, financially benefit off of their positions in American government. Thus, if they as individual politicians function as an individual business would per se, the first step is boycotting they or their family members’ products because the consumer is key to the business.
I first want to reiterate my view that I do not think capitalism is an effective, but oppressive way of running a society, despite how controversial this statement may be. The reason I think it is oppressive is because (1) there is always a winner and a loser — someone is always trying to get ahead — and usually the group of people getting ahead fit the demographic of white, privileged males and (2) this demographic controls the government. When in control of the government (as this demographic has been for the entire history of United States government), it oppresses people that do not fit that demographic, widening the gap between rich and poor and minorities. Capitalism is the regime under which this Administration, the government, and the United States runs, so it’s the system they understand. Despite not agreeing with the current economic system in place, it is the system in place currently so we might as well use it as a tool of protest. I believe that perhaps operating under the same economic system as the government does (and society does), we as consumers may be able to push back in more effective ways in boycotting products and/or companies that support the Administration than only calling or writing our Senators that operate under the same chains of capitalism that the Administration does.
Likewise, I believe that this is the age where big corporations located in the U.S. have the potential to actually make a difference in politics in the United States and be an ally in the resistance (note: this is something I never thought I would EVER argue). Why? Because consumers control their voice. It’s come to this: I think all certain members of Congress and businesses care about is profit. When the Press Secretary is using up live television space to express his disdain for Nordstrom in dropping the President’s daughter’s product, there is a clear tie between consumer behavior and its effects on the current Administration. I haven’t quite figured out Trump and his cabinets ulterior motive — but I’m sure profit definitely has something to do with it, which would come as an effect of their white supremacist policies in keeping white men in power (and concentrate all of the wealth in their hands). However, the difference between politics and business in the United States is that the businesses care more deeply about consumption of their product and most of the time, these corporations profit off of globalization, not nationalist policy. Uber is a great example of this. Thousands of people, including myself, deleted Uber following its response to the Muslim ban, with no response until an automated one a few days later expressing the companies’ apology and dedication to immigrants in the country. Subsequently, we receive news that their CEO is stepping down from Trump’s inner circle. This is a purely economic move. I really don’t think Uber gave a shit about immigrants (their primary drivers) in the country, but they do care about their capital, so their politics have changed from not giving a shit or providing legal protections to their immigrant drivers to providing attorneys for any of their drivers affected by the Muslim ban. The consumer can use this example to their advantage in the resistance against the current Administration.
Microsoft, Amazon, and Expedia in Seattle are also taking similar steps in the opposition to Trump — but really drawn only from consumer response. Microsoft and Amazon recently issued statements opposing Trump’s executive orders and allowing the Attorney General’s Office to give depositions in support of their lawsuit against Donald Trump’s Administration. Google and Lyft donated millions of dollars to the ACLU to support litigation against the Administration’s executive orders as well. McDonalds, most recently, closed its restaurant chain in solidarity with the #DayWithoutImmigrants on February 16. Though these companies’ support is mainly because of the impact the ban has on their own employees, the support gives a glimmer of hope of what could happen if more companies follow suit upon urge by the consumer.
I realize that Trump supporters are following the same logic in boycotting companies like Starbucks, who vowed to employ 10,000 refugees. However, activism is by and large more prevalent against Trump’s Administration and I think, if urging consumers to boycott products and businesses as much as calling our Senators is urged, we can make a dent in corporate activity and force the Administration to respond to its consumer — the American people.
