Posted on 01/12/2005 4:53:49 PM PST by Jacob Kell
DETROIT (AP) -
David Livingstone says the idea behind the economic boycott he's organizing is simple: If people don't show up at work or buy things, companies lose money. As he sees it, that's money the Bush administration can't tax, and can't use to run the war in Iraq, protect polluters or chip away at the Constitution.
So the Detroit Democrat and a handful of other anti-Bush groups across the country are urging others of like mind to withhold their cash and labor on Inauguration Day - from all businesses. They don't think they'll inflict a huge economic pain, but they do want to make a point.
"I view the inauguration of Bush as a black Thursday for this country," Livingstone says. "We've tried marching in the streets to stop the war, we tried writing letters, we tried initiatives on the Web, but Bush doesn't listen. It seems to us the only thing Bush and the Republicans will listen to is money."
Livingstone, a 41-year-old writer, hopes to be in Washington for the Jan. 20 festivities, which for him means protests, black armbands and backs turned to the parade route.
And he's vowing not to buy gas, food or use his credit card that day: He wants the GOP, big oil, big banking, big box stores and any other "bigs" to know they can't push him around or ignore him - at least not on Jan. 20.
The White House is taking all the boycott talk in stride. Bush "is proud that we live in a society where people are free to peacefully express their opinions," spokesman Jim Morrell says.
Other groups nationwide, many loosely connected through the Internet, have put out calls similar to Livingstone's. Jesse Gordon, 44, of Cambridge, Mass., spreads the word through his Web site, Not One Damn Dime!
Gordon doesn't expect to shake the economy, but does want to see the president recognize dissent.
"I think Bush should acknowledge the boycott. If we're effective, he'll know about it, and he should acknowledge it," Gordon says.
In New Orleans, Buddy Spell says his January 20th Committee eagerly endorses the idea of an economic boycott. He remains primarily concerned with organizing a jazz funeral procession through the downtown to mourn a second Bush term and what he calls the death of democracy. But he says a boycott is worth pursuing, in part because it can help unite disparate anti-Bush forces.
The groups hope to see several million people eating brown-bag lunches and dinners on Inauguration Day. If people don't want to boycott all business, the groups suggest buying from just those that support Democrats. The protesters say they'll measure success not in economic terms, but by whether people know about the boycott and if it sparks future activism.
And if there's by chance a blip in the GDP, that would be a bonus.
A bonus indeed, say economists and historians.
"I can't imagine it would have any impact whatsoever," says David J. Vogel, professor of business ethics at the University of California at Berkeley. "Even if everyone didn't buy on that day, they'd make up for it the next day."
Historian Lawrence Glickman says boycotts rarely accomplish any substantial economic goal, and if they do, it's usually because they are tailored to a specific product. Boycotts tend to have more success applying political pressure, but even that is limited.
Still, he said, their record of failure never seems to stop Americans from launching them.
"There's this appeal about boycotts, anyone can take part in them and you can use your pocketbook to express your dissatisfaction," says Glickman, who studies labor and consumer activism at the University of South Carolina in Columbia.
"It's a way of feeling like we're participating in something bigger than ourselves."
---
On the Net:
Black Thursday: http://www.black-thursday.com
Not One Damn Dime!: http://www.notonedamncime.com/boycott/
Jazz Funeral for Democracy: http://www.jazzfuneralfordemocracy.com
Pray for W and Our Troops
They were sooooo successful in their - anyone but Bush campaign - that they want to extend it to yet another fiasco.
I don't live in America right now, but thanks for posting this! There are lots of things not available here in Japan that I order off the Internet from companies back home in the US. I haven't made a big order in a while, and the to-buy list is getting long. Guess who's gonna be dusting off the old Visa card on innaugeration day and ordering a bunch of stuff online from good ol' red white and blue companies? I hope they can buy at least one Daisycutter with the tax revenue I generate!
As noted in earlier post, this is one of Karl Rove's subtlest and most brilliant schemes. These buffoons are going to hurt businesses that cater to liberals or hire them. Voluntarily. Where can one sign up to encourage them to extend the boycott thru the weekend?
Yeah, right. I'm sure W beleieves the same as all of us here. These guys are idiots. If he acknowledges them at all it will be laughing and pointing at them as the parade goes by. He'll know who they are as they will be the ones with their backs turned. Attention fellow FReepers in DC, this will be a good time to stick the sign on their backs that states "KICK ME!"
[If people don't show up at work or buy things, companies lose money. As he sees it, that's money the Bush administration can't tax, and can't use to run the war in Iraq, protect polluters or chip away at the Constitution.]
...or pay entitlement benefits.
Still think this is a good idea, David?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/not1dime.asp
Snopes.com did a great hit piece summary on this stupid idea yesterday. The very last line is excellent:
"As a functional protest, this one is equally off the mark. Although a boycott can be an active form of protest (even though boycott participants are in effect doing nothing, they're following a course of action that directly affects the object of their protest), boycotts succeed by causing economic harm to their targets, thereby putting them out of business or at least requiring them to change their policies in order to remain in business. But the target of this boycott isn't an entity that has the power to bring about the desired resolution (i.e., the government) — those who will be economically harmed by it are innocent business operators and their employees. These people have no power to set U.S. foreign policy or recall troops from Iraq, but they're the ones who would have to pay the price for this form of protest, incurring all their usual overhead costs (e.g., lighting, heat, refrigeration) to keep their businesses open and paying employees' salaries, all the while taking in little or no income. (And no, it doesn't all even out in the end — restaurants, for example, aren't going to recoup their lost business through boycott participants' eating twice as much the next day.)
Whether the desired goal is laudable or not, a protest that has little chance of succeeding at its purpose but a high likelihood of harming innocent parties does no one any good. As we always say about these kinds of things, results are generally proportional to effort: If the most effort one is willing to put into a cause is to do nothing, then one should expect to accomplish nothing in return."
What a wimp, if he really meant it he should"
Stop paying mortgage or rent.
Stop showing up for work and enabling 'the man'.
Stop buying groceries.
Stop paying the gas, electric, waste bills and encourage his loopy followers to do the same.
That'll show us!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.