Boycotting common sense? (originally written Jan. 17, 2017)

It seems like there is a virus affecting many in the Democratic Party's ranks these days, and its name is 'boycotting.' Boycotts have been a part of political and ordinary life for as long as I can remember, but the U.S. Congress is taking the phenomenon to a higher and more troublesome level.

First a little history. The name 'boycott' came from the Irish land agent, Charles Boycott, who was notorious for evicting non-paying tenants. Soon his employees stopped laboring in his fields and businessmen wouldn't take his money. In an effort to turn things around, old Charles imported workers to tend his crops, but the expense nearly ruined him. Fast-forwarding to modern times, we're probably all familiar with the national meat boycott of April 1973 when housewives were fed up with skyrocketing meat prices. President Nixon tried to put a lid on the prices, but it was too late. Women across America were just saying 'no' to meat at grocery stores all over the country. The boycott was called the greatest consumer rebellion since the Boston Tea Party! Unfortunately, after the boycott ended, meat prices had only fallen a few cents/pound, proving that while the boycott did gain national prominence, the effect was marginal at the checkout lane. The longer term effect, however, was that the American consumer wasn't going to stand for being bullied or gouged without a fight. More recent boycotts, against the fast food company, Chic-fil-a, staged by angry supporters of 'same sex' marriage in June of 2012 also ended unceremoniously with the company actually racking up substantial sales and solidifying its customer base.

Boycotts are sometimes an effective way of showing mass displeasure about a company's actions or corporate beliefs, but most of the time they end badly. The reverse can be true, politically, when large numbers of people protest a government's policies. Take the case of apartheid in South Africa, for example. There was an anti-apartheid movement (AAM) also known as the 'Boycott Movement' by a British organization in 1959. The constant drumbeat against that country's racial policies did, eventually, lead to a change of direction and the inclusion of Blacks into the greater fabric of life in South Africa.

America is once again experiencing a boycott, this time of the inauguration of our 45th President, by some in the esteemed body of elected Congressional Representatives on the Democratic Party's side. As of this writing, 35 Congressional Representatives, mostly from the Congressional Black Caucus, have declared their intention to boycott the inauguration of Donald J. Trump as our next President. Some, like Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, have called Mr. Trump an 'illegitimate' President, citing Russian government meddling in our Presidential election in November. Other colleagues of his are protesting the President-elect's character and/or his style as being un-Presidential.

A 'Million Woman March' has also been planned to coincide with the inaugural events. This march is being joined by some non-profit organizations like the American Association of University Women (AAUW), for example. In my view, this is a dangerous precedent for non-profits to set - to be part of political demonstrations - but the women are determined to express their concern that the incoming Trump administration is somehow anti-woman. According to the organizers, they will, “March from Lincoln Memorial to [the] White House to show our strength, power and courage and demonstrate our disapproval of the new president and his values in a peaceful march. ALL women, femme, trans, gender non-conforming and feminist others are invited to march on Washington DC the day following the inauguration of the President elect. This march is a show of solidarity to demand our safety and health in a time when our country is marginalizing us and making sexual assault an electable and forgivable norm. We align with all POC and LGBTQ causes, and we will show our support in a non-violent protest.”

That is quite a mouthful considering the new President hasn't even taken the oath of office AND that two of his stated objectives are to find ways to help women with early childhood day care and to improve family leave for new mothers. One wonders what is going on when Americans cannot wait for a person's actions to either catch up with him or absolve him.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired diplomat and author. He has written six books and over 600 articles on subjects ranging from politics to economics and social trends. He can be reached at: stephan@stephanhelgesen.com