Mediaboss Marketing

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Mark Meadows leaves a closed-door strategy session with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

In an irony befitting the political vertigo of the Trump era, the far rights obstruction continues to stymie Republicans and, in some sense, help Democratic progressives. The latest example is the aftermath of the failed move to kill the Affordable Care Act.

President Trump, after declaring to the press last month that he was moving on to other issues as a result of his failed health-care push, apparently changed his mind.

During an Oval Office gaggle with the press pool last Tuesday, he announced an effort to gather votes for yet another iteration of ACA repeal, just days before a two-week recess. Almost immediately, sources in the Senate and House familiar with the revival talks reported that the White House and arch-conservative Republican lawmakers are still at an impasse.

Theres no deal in principle, emphasized North Carolinas Mark Meadows, one of the talks participants and Chairman of the Freedom Caucusthe faction of Republican representatives credited with tanking both initial versions of the AHCA. First, because it was not drastic enough of a repeal, then again, even after the insertion of amendments that moved repeal further to the political right, and caused a loss of even mainline conservative support.

Unsurprisingly to participants and observers alike, no progress toward policy cohesion was reported before the recess. Instead, the renewed negotiationscharacterized during a press conference by Speaker Paul Ryan as merely conceptual over half a dozen timesat this point appear to have been functioning primarily as an optical symbol of reconciliation after tense intraparty fighting following the failure of Obamacare repeal in March.

Democrats are smiling in D.C. that the Freedom Caucus, with the help of Club For Growth and Heritage, have saved Planned Parenthood & Ocare! Trump tweeted. Which prompts an equally unexpected thought: Has POTUS actually grazed some insight?

The far right sparing Democratic liberals from a more unified and thorough Republican effort to roll back government is not a novel story. A re-visitation of recent history shows Republican hardliners have, for nearly a decade, been a crucial force standing in the way of supposed moderate Republican legislative deals thatdespite their label of moderation and their approval among the ranks of high-toned conservative think tanks and the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journalwould have been draconian in their effects: cutting social spending programs, defunding Planned Parenthood, and generally creating greater economic fragility in the name of debt reduction.

McKay Coppins of The Atlantic hinted at this in a piece about the unwieldy ideological contours of the right in the contemporary era:

Many of the most high-profile intra-party battles in recent years have been fought not over ideas, but tactics and a willingness to compromise. While Republicans in Washington were essentially unanimous in their opposition to President Obamas agenda, they differedat least at firstover whether they should cut deals at the legislative bargaining table, or, say, shut the government down until they got exactly what they wanted. The absolutists largely won out during the Obama presidency.

Fading from the collective political memory is the summer of 2011, when Barack Obama and former House Speaker John Boehner came close to shaking hands on a Grand Bargain debt-reduction agreement thataccording to a New York Times/FiveThirtyEight analysis using Gallup polling datawas to the right of the preferences of even the median conservative voter. It included a near 3-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax revenue and reductions to social program benefits.

Much to the chagrin of many Democrats, the mix of spending cuts and tax increases that Mr. Obama is offering is quite close to, or perhaps even a little to the right of, what the average Republican voter wants, let alone the average American, FiveThirtyEight wrote at the time.

Still, the agreement was not drastic enough for the far right, then led by the Tea Party.

Ascendant and intransigent, Tea Partiers twisted arms and whispered threats of revolt as Boehner and his deputy, Eric Cantor (who would later be ousted for his insiderdom by David Brat, now a Freedom Caucus member), weighed Obama's deep concessions through back channels. Boehner, feeling the pressure, would eventually back off.

The White House and Boehner held dueling press conferences, each accusing the other of leaving a good-faith negotiator at the altar. However, the Obama administration, like the Bill Clinton camp before them, had effectively triangulated and whipped their progressive faction into line. It was Boehner who could not bring the Tea Party on board.

And so, the big deal failed. And citizens were spared historic cutsto Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and a whole host of other spending programsat a time when most families were still reeling from the Great Recession as the real unemployment rate (U-6) hovered at 15 percent.

The smaller deal that did prevail on the eve of default on U.S. Treasury debt, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things added the automatic sequesterand still cost Americans hundreds of billions in support, from heating assistance for low-income families during the winter months to furloughs on military basesspending cuts that economists now say also likely hobbled the strength of an already tenuous Great Recession recovery. Nevertheless, without the encumbrance of the far right a more severe deal with a longer budget horizon surely would have been enacted.

When one of Obamas proposed budgets in his second term had steeper immediate budget cuts than the GOP to both Medicare and Social Security (yes, this happened) there was another chance for a possible deal; and it was summarily batted down by a mix of absolutists, libertarians, and anti-establishment ultra-conservatives who were opposed to any tax hikes.

That dynamic of the far right indirectly saving the lefts hide echoed again this year on ACA repeal, which, while deeply unpopular (in both its versions) among the electorate, was initially cheered on by a significant number of Washington conservatives. And with tax reform, immigration, and the budget still on the docket in 2017, there are plenty of other arenas in which the Freedom Caucus can spoil Paul Ryans agenda. A so far very un-populist agenda for which Trump, in yet another irony, has become the chastened pitchman.

What remains to be seen is whether the proposed Trump budgetwhich would impose devastating cuts of the sort long craved by Freedom Caucus typesis too extreme for other Republicans in Congress. Leading mainline Republicans have already pronounced the White House budget dead on arrival. However budget-making is an iterative process, and cuts that are a middle ground between their scuffling factions could still disable many key programs.

Even so, a precedent in which the far right, by refusing to compromise, saves the Republic from more complete budgetary carnage may continue.

Centrist figures on cable news continue to bemoan the prospect of another Congress that fails to get things done. But if the result of the current administration and congressional leaders getting things done is the deconstruction of the administrative state, as Steve Bannon has fashioned the pursuit, then GOP legislative dysfunction at the hands of the House Freedom Caucus may become the unlikely rampart that partially salvages valued social outlays.

Representative Peter King, a less severe conservative, backed away from the AHCA once it was redrafted to appeal to the Freedom Caucus. In 2015, King proclaimed with annoyance that the crazies have taken over the party. Speaking withThe Hill after the initial repeal and replace failure, he expressed his hope that the mainstream GOP, in grand bargain style, can find a way to reach out to get at least some Democrats involved. I think President Trump can do it.

Still within the first 100 days, theres evidently more time for some of Trumps more heterodox campaign statements to manifest themselves in proposed legislationnot all of which may necessarily be anathema to liberals. The president and many Progressive Caucus members, for instance, agreed on scrapping the TPP trade agreement. And weirdly, theres talk that Trump may get together with progressives on a partial resurrection of the Glass-Steagall Actthough eyes will be kept on the fine print.

In the end, Trump taking Kings advice, lightening up the most ferocious aspects of GOP legislation, and corralling electorally vulnerable Democrats like Joe Manchin into a package of deals on Republican terms is the surest way to damage progressive priorities whilst receiving applause from highfalutin editorial pages for bipartisanship.

With Democrats out of power in every respect at the federal level, the triumph of The Crazies over the more moderate dealmakers may, counterintuitively, be liberals' best bet.

See the rest here:
Will the Far Right Keep Saving Democratic Progressives? - The American Prospect

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, recipient of a strongly-worded letter from progressives.

Photo by Susan Walsh-Pool/Getty Images

Late last month, a group of 25 conservatives sent an open letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions in which they implored him to bring long-needed reforms to the DOJs Civil Rights Division. Among their suggestions: put an end to the divisions obsession with protecting the rights of minorities and return to race-neutral Voting Rights Act enforcement. The letter also recommended granting political appointeesthe officials in the DOJs so-called front officemore power to decide who works in the division and minimizing the role of career attorneys who are reliably opposed to President Trumps agenda.

Leon Neyfakh is a Slate staff writer.

The letter, whose signatories included a pair of prominent officials from George W. Bushs Justice Department, inspired eye rolls and indignation in the civil rights community, and underscored the sharp division between the career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division and their new, Trump-approved bosses. The letter also came off as disingenuous. Though it ostensibly demanded an end to politicized hiring practicesthe authors cited a 2013 inspector generals report in arguing that the Obama-era policy of prioritizing job applicants with a demonstrated commitment to civil rights had made it so only employees of left-wing groups got hiredit seemed to envision the exact opposite: a systematic effort to fill the divisions ranks with right-wing lawyers who would enthusiastically enable the policy goals set forth by Trump and Sessions.

On Tuesday morning, a brigade of high-profile progressive groups returned fire, sending their own letter to the attorney general in which they reminded him that its illegal to consider actual or perceived political affiliation while making personnel decisions. The letterwhich was signed by the ACLU, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and a new team of former Obama attorneys called United to Protect Democracymakes reference to a dark period in DOJ history, when a George W. Bush-era political appointee named Bradley Schlozman carried out a brazenly partisan campaign to hire conservatives into the Civil Rights Division and to marginalize the liberals among the career staff.

Emails, voicemails, and interviews that were published as part of a damning 2008 report by the DOJs inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibilityrevealed that Schlozman had openly discussed his antipathy toward crazy libs and his desire to free up space in the Civil Rights Division for good Americans. In one voicemail from February 2006, Schlozman told a colleague, I just want to make sure we dont start confining ourselves to, you know, politburo members because they happen to be a member of some, you know, psychopathic left-wing organization designed to overthrow the government. Three years earlier, he had emailed a different colleague to say he had just spoken with a prospective hire, verified his political leanings, and concluded he is a member of the team. In a 2004 email, he declined an invitation to lunch by saying, Unfortunately I have an interview at 1 with some lefty who well never hire but Im extending a courtesy interview as a favor.

In June 2006, after he was moved out of the DOJs main office and into the U.S. Attorneys Office in the Western District of Missouri, Schlozman told a friend he was enjoying his new job, but that bitchslapping a bunch of [Division] attorneys really did get the blood pumping and was even enjoyable once in a while.

Though Schlozman was never prosecuted, the IGs report concluded that his conduct violated the Civil Service Reform Act, a federal law which holds that employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without regard to political affiliation. In the letter sent to Sessions on Tuesday, progressives underscored the importance of adhering to this law in maintaining the credibility of the DOJ and the Civil Rights Division in particular.

The signatories also suggestedwith a conspicuous cc list that included the Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and the heads of both Congressional Judiciary Committeesthat theyll be looking out for any moves from the Schlozman playbook.

It would be nave to think a strongly worded letter could spook Sessions and his fellow political appointees into leaving the Civil Rights Divisions career attorneys alone and allowing them to pursue the kinds of cases they did under President Obama. Thats not going to happen, and its not clear that it should: As the saying goes, elections do have consequences, and if the new administration doesnt believe in, say, opening federal investigations into troubled police departments, then they cant be expected to do so.

In other words, there should be a way for the people running Trumps DOJ to pursue their enforcement priorities without improperly politicizing the agency. But its unclear whether thats possible in practice, or where it leaves the hundreds of dedicated civil rights lawyers who joined the DOJ because they wanted to do the kinds of work the new administration doesnt seem to believe in.

The message Sessions is likely to take away from the letter he received todayassuming he reads itis that the work of reshaping the DOJ to reflect his ideology will require subtlety, wiles, and a heap of plausible deniability. If the organizations that signed the letter are serious about stopping him, thats the kind of playbook they should be getting ready for.

Follow this link:
Progressives Remind Jeff Sessions That Politicizing the DOJ Can Be Illegal. Will He Care? - Slate Magazine (blog)

The advertised promise of Obamacare was, according to Obama "If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you'll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold." Everybody now knows this was a lie. Costs have skyrocketed and your plan and doctor disappeared the instant the bill was signed, replaced with Obama's plan for your health care.

People on the Western Slope of Colorado have already been beggared by rising insurance premiums and now it is being reported that Anthem, one of the few remaining providers in western Colorado, may soon be pulling the ripcord on it's golden parachute.

The abandonment of the health care insurance market is happening all over the United States as company balance sheets finally tip over into the red due to the rising costs of providing mandated coverage and by consumers abandoning the market without any parachute at all because they simply cannot afford the monthly premiums.

What you need to understand is that the disintegration of the private health care insurance market is not accidental; the socialists and their progressives in government and in Congress meticulously planned it. What these socialists want is Great Britain's government run, government paid health care, no matter that the UK's system is bankrupting the country and results in health care rationing, delays, inferior care, doctors and nurses leaving the country to find better jobs and outright denial of care to people who are too expensive to treat.

The socialists who support this system don't like the idea that some people can afford to pay for "Cadillac healthcare" while other people get only basic emergency care, so they want to make everyone equal in the name of "social justice," which is a buzzword actually meaning "making everyone equally miserable." One look at the current state of affairs in North Korea proves how badly this works out.

It's past time to understand that Obamacare was never, ever intended to provide health care for anyone. It was specifically designed to lard-up health care insurance with so many government mandates that insurance companies would necessarily abandon the market because they can't make a profit. And that's exactly what is happening.

Nor is the timing coincidental. The failure of Obamacare was carefully calculated far ahead of time so that one of two results, both desirable for the socialists who implemented it, would occur. In both cases, when the OPM (Other People's Money) runs out the system is doomed to collapse.

Plan A was that shortly after Hillary Clinton took office she would be able to declare a national health care emergency and impose government-run health care by executive fiat. Plan B is that it would fail during a Republican presidency and could be spun to lay the blame on the incumbent, paving the way for a Democrat takeover four years later, with the result again being socialized medicine imposed by fiat.

And it may well be that this will occur despite President Donald Trump's and the Republican's attempts to prevent it, as Paul Ryan discovered to his dismay. The most cynical and Machiavellian aspect of Obamacare was its sub rosa intent to create a new entitlement that the public would claim as a right, thereby achieving the socialist goal more than a century in the making of creating the public perception, and therefore the reality, that the government is responsible for providing for the economic needs of the people and must therefore be empowered to do so without constraint.

The objective of making everyone dependent upon the largess of the government is fundamental to controlling the lumpen proletariat, as Karl Marx said. When the government provides and controls your housing, your food and your medical care, the government controls your life and most importantly in the sham-democracy endgame of state socialism, it controls your vote. By controlling whom you are allowed to vote for, the term "social democracy" becomes nothing but propaganda.

Once state socialism takes control of a nation by controlling the votes of supposedly democratic institutions, dictatorship, despotism and tyranny are never far behind, as the people of Venezuela have recently discovered.

More:
Failure of health care market isn't an accident, it's progressives' plan - Colorado Springs Gazette

Its been nearly ten years since audiences were treated to a Dave Chappelle stand-up comedy special. But now, thanks in part to Netflix, Dave is back. Chappelles special, The Age of Spin, filmed at the Hollywood Palladium, is an uproariously funny look at a range of subjects, from his meetings with O. J. Simpson, to his experiences in Hollywood as well as what some would say are taboo topics, such as rape, transgenderism, and homosexuality.

It is these last three subjects that have raised the ire of social-justice warriors to thermonuclear levels. Early in the show, Chappelle recounts his first meeting with O. J. Simpson. Chappelle notes that Simpsons soon to be slain wife was with him. When he hears some of the audience react somewhat negatively to that comment, Chappelle remarks, Ladies and gentlemen, man the f*** up or youre not going to make it through the end of this show.

Naturally, the rest of his material is just as edgy, and many an audience member or viewer (myself included) will find himself asking, Did I just laugh at that? But the realization that youre laughing at what Chappelle says is a testament to his skill as a comedian not a reflection of your worldview or opinion about the subjects in question. Those who refer to Chappelles comedy as homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic rants and ignorantly claim that he shouldnt be allowed to joke about those subjects suffer from two conditions:

1. They have no understanding of what a comedians goal for his audience is.

2. They feel that theyre the arbiters of what subjects are worthy of laughter and what is off limits.

People tend to make comedy complicated. In an article critical of Chappelles show, Shannon Lee of The Establishment writes:

Comedians have long argued that their art form is meant to be provocative; that its a medium in which political correctness is anathema to the cause. But as others have argued, its absurd to act as if there is no moral responsibility in comedy. Comedy that targets societal oppression can be funny and incisive, even (or especially) as it stokes discomfort. Comedy that ridicules marginalized groups is just hateful and damaging, evoking more explicit hate speech. Dont comedians have a responsibility to create content that does not cause harm?

Moral responsibility? Comedians are not philosophers or sociologists. Their job is to tell jokes. A comics goal isnt to concern himself with societal norms but instead to connect with an audience and make people laugh. Not all comedians are provocative. Comedians such as Jim Gaffigan, Brian Regan, and Jerry Seinfeld get their audiences laughing and discussing what otherwise might be considered mundane topics such as family life, travel, and marriage. Having watched stand-up comedy for 30 years (when I was growing up in New Jersey, a local cable station broadcast taped shows from Rascals Comedy Club in West Orange) and knowing several comics myself, I can say that theyll all tell you theres no greater fear they have than an audience that doesnt laugh at their material.

As for the subjects of comedy, it does not fall on the shoulders of the perpetually outraged to dictate what topics are worthy of humor. Comedy, like all other forms of art, is subjective. Some people dont find Jerry Seinfeld discussing walking around an airport or flying on a plane funny. And while I suppose Amy Schumer talking about the smell of her vagina is meant to be provocative, I dont find it funny at all. Comedy is subjective, so to each his own. That said, theres nothing edgy about Schumers jokes.

Much of the anger directed at Chappelle revolves around a bit where hes pretending to pitch two Hollywood types on a mediocre superhero who can unleash his powers only after lightly touching a womans vulva. The superhero in question is very unattractive and women refuse to give their consent. Thus, he needs to resort to raping women to save others. A critic, Lux Alptraum, wrote in response:

Chappelle seems to think hes being very deep as he asks us to consider the possibility that maybe just maybe! a rapist might be capable of a great deal of good, too. Thats the dilemma for the audience, [Chappelle] says, Because he rapes, but he saves a lot of lives. And he saves way more than he rapes, and he only rapes to save. But he does rape.

Alptraum completely misses the point. Chappelle is not asking his audience to consider anything. Hes relaying a non-existent anecdote about an absurd pitch he made up on the spot. That the two bozos hes pitching to think what theyre hearing is a good idea for a movie is the punchline to the joke.

Comedy, ultimately, is a form of art. It will always be subjective, with opinions varying significantly. As with other forms of art, it is up to the consumer to decide what he likes (or doesnt). The self-appointed guardians of what comedians are allowed to joke about may hold themselves up as virtuous, but all theyre really doing is telling people, such as Dave Chappelle, to shut up.

Jay Caruso, a lifelong Yankees fan, is the assistant managing editor at RedState and a co-host of the politics and culture podcast, The Fifth Estate.

READ MORE:

View post:
Dave Chappelle's Age of Spin Comedy Special -- Progressives ... - National Review

When Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation since 2013, called for a reimagining of philanthropy's first principles and its relationship to our market system," few people thought this meant that he would join the board of directors of PepsiCo. But that's exactly what he did last fall. Walker, who stands to make somewhere between a quarter and a half a million dollars a year in his new role, insisted he would introduce a distinctive view into Pepsi's corporate deliberations: "I will bring my perspective as the leader of a social justice organization. ... I will bring my perspective as someone who is deeply concerned about the welfare of people in poor and vulnerable communities."

Some of Walker's allies in the progressive community seem skeptical about his self-assigned role as corporate reformer. Pablo Eisenberg, a senior fellow at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy and longtime critic of foundations and corporations, wrote an open letter to Walker in the Chronicle of Philanthropy last month taking him to task for accepting the appointment. "You failed to understand the negative impact your action could have on philanthropy, and on those working to change corporate behavior."

In other words, Eisenberg is accusing him of selling out.

Eisenberg notes that in the eyes of activists like himself, Pepsi has been a bad actor in the corporate world for a long time. Not only have Pepsi executives opposed legislation to combat obesity (only small sodas, please) but the company's business model is designed to sell "junk food" and sugary drinkseven to poor people.

Walker, for his part, insists that he will not serve on Pepsi's board as "window dressing" but will actually work to change the company's policies. Pepsi's CEO Indra Nooyi told the New York Times that she invited him to join her board because "we want people who give us trouble and ask tough questions. I saw in Darren someone who would hold us accountable."

That may be true, but Pepsi no doubt prefers to hear its critics asking tough questions in the privacy of the boardroom rather than leading protests outside corporate headquarters or at public shareholder meetings. Adding Walker to its board is an easy and relatively cheap way for the company to signal to its critics that it is on the "right" side of controversial issues like climate change, public health, diversity, and inequality. (Walker apparently couldn't do much to protect the company from the backlash it received over an ad in which Kendall Jenner seems to be cheapening the Black Lives Matter protests by offering a Pepsi to a police officer.)

In Pepsi's defense, it is true that the company is selling more healthy products these daysa fair amount of bottled water and items with less sugar and saltbut this is more because of changing tastes in the marketplace than in response to heavy-handed campaigns led by the likes of Michael Bloomberg and his own multi-billion-dollar foundation. Pepsi says it is planning to reduce its environmental impact in the next few years as a concession to critics concerned about climate change. No doubt the company will rely upon Walker to put the official stamp of progressive approval on whatever plans it eventually releases.

All of this mutual backscratching between leaders of liberal institutions and corporate America is nothing new. As Eisenberg noted in his letter, "Judith Rodin, who just retired as head of the Rockefeller Foundation, has been a member of at least three corporate boards, and some of [Walker's] predecessors at Ford have also enjoyed the sizable perks that come with corporate directorships." Hugh Price, who used to lead the Urban Institute, sits on the board of Verizon and MetLife. Anne-Marie Slaughter, the New America CEO, served on the boards of McDonald's and Citigroup. Large corporations have long made it a practice to invite critics to join their boards on the assumption that it is always better (in Lyndon Johnson's immortal words) "to have [them] inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in."

What is new in Eisenberg's criticisms is that some progressives are starting to see that their erstwhile allies who join corporate boards are in effect providing cover for corporate practices they once criticized. Perhaps, they are suggesting, it is better for corporate critics to remain "outside the tent" where they can at least criticize corporate practices with a clear conscience.

In a recent interview on the Ford Foundation's website, Martin Whittaker, CEO of JUST Capital, expressed worries about the dangers of "unchecked capitalism" and suggested that today's market culture "strips capitalism of any humanity and incentivizes and rewards short-term financial gain at the expense of the broader social good"not exactly a novel criticism. He went further to question whether Adam Smith would still support the free market if he could see how it operates today. His is actually one of the rosier views of capitalism that the Ford Foundation has promoted in recent years. It is a good question whether Walker's decision to join the Pepsi board is compatible with the anti-corporate and anti-capitalist views his foundation has staked out.

As Michael Siegel, a professor at Boston University's School of Public Health, told the New York Times, "Pepsi is not in the business of public health; they're in the business of selling soda." This is true, though beside the point. If Pepsi did not sell soda and other products not officially approved by progressive elites, the company would not be in business today to allow the likes of Walker to join its board.

For years, left-wing intellectuals have been pushing the idea of corporate social responsibility as a way to get companies to do the things they want, even if it costs the companies money. Whether it's reducing carbon emissions or making their workforces more diverse or changing the products they make, the goals these progressive gadflies are pursuing are no closer to being realized today than they were three or four decades ago when activists first learned they could shake down corporations for donations and occasional board positions in exchange for toning down their public criticisms. Much of the journalistic profession has by now signed on to the enterprise, calling on corporations to change their practices and to join one or another progressive crusade. This has at length evolved into a ritualized performance with all sides embracing "change" while recognizing that nothing fundamental has changed or is likely ever to change.

The cover story in the Atlantic this month about the small number of women employed by Silicon Valley concludes that the only way to achieve workforce diversity is to pay managers bonuses to hire more women. That's an expensive proposition and a fairly complicated one to carry out. It would be easier, some executives are bound to conclude, to deflect this kind of criticism by appointing a few feminist leaders here and there to their corporate boards.

Progressives like Eisenberg and Walker are badly confused about the role large corporations can or should play in American society. On the one hand, by focusing so persistently on corporate reform, they express a tacit acceptance of the important role that large corporations play in the American economic system. They do not wish to eliminate corporations or to cut them down to size, as an earlier generation of progressives wished, but to bend them in their political direction by inducing them to embrace diversity, feminism, environmentalism, gay marriage, and other causessomething that corporate leaders are more than willing to do, up to a point. At the same time, progressives want corporations to give up their market-oriented missions by curtailing production of sodas, fossil fuels, guns, large automobiles, beer, cosmetics, furs, and any number of other items that run counter to the progressive vision of a pure and uncorrupted society. But this is something corporate leaders will not and cannot do without selling out their stockholders, employees, and customers. In short, they can afford to pay lip service to progressive complaints but cannot do anything fundamental to satisfy them. And for this reason the ritual dance between the two sides will continue.

But the corporate leaders are playing a perilous game and risk forgetting Kipling's adage that "once you have paid him the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane." They have made their alliance with progressives who are surely no friends of the American corporation, while antagonizing conservatives who should be their natural allies, but whose support they have long taken for granted. Those conservatives are aware that they win support today mainly from small business, blue-collar workers, and small town and rural votersand have little direct interest in defending large corporations, whether in the areas of taxes, regulation, or trade. Corporate leaders at Pepsi and elsewhere may soon find themselves in a situation where they have no genuine allies to support them.

James Piereson is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Naomi Schaefer Riley is a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum.

See more here:
Progressives, Inc. - The Weekly Standard