Political Business News

In the last few days there have been two bits of business news that have stirred up a lot of political interest. The legislature of Florida revoked some of the special privileges it had granted the Disney corporation decades ago for its operation in that state, and Elon Musk’s offer to take Twitter private was accepted by that firm’s board.

I think the action by the Republicans in Florida was both improper and a tactical mistake. Disney’s CEO is free to take a side in a political dispute without politicians punishing his company for doing so. As a tactical matter DeSantis and the legislature had won the political dispute with over bill banning teachers from discussing sex or their sex lives with very young school kids. Voters were on their side. They could have taken their win and gone on with business, leaving Disney to try to solve its problem in public relations. Instead, by revoking the privileges when they did, they came across as vindictive bullies and gave the people running Disney a chance to present themselves as wronged innocents. (As an aside, some Republicans also tried to foul their victory up by presenting the issue as one about “groomers”, when the actual point was that discussing sex and sexual activity with a bunch of second graders is inappropriate, irrespective of the motives or interests of those wanting to do it. There is a reason people call the Repubs the stupid party.)

There are conservatives who think that what was done to Disney made sense strategically, and that opponents of the left who disapprove are trying to impose rules in a knife fight. Executives of many big corporations support and side with the Democrats and the left far more than they support and side with the Republicans and conservatives. While some of this probably is due to the executives’ ideological beliefs, there are other plausible explanations. One is that Republicans and conservatives have generally been favorable or at least non-threatening to businesses and corporations, while Democrats have tended to make noise about cracking down on them in one way or another, and leftists claim to despise them. Seeing that, an unprincipled corporate weasel might easily decide the pragmatic thing to do was to take the Republicans at least partially for granted and spend more of his time and money kowtowing to the Democrats and the various leftist pressure groups. There surely are plenty of corporate weasels out there. So these conservatives argue that what the government of Florida did to Disney is a useful warning to other corporations that Republicans can play rough too and should not be taken for granted. Of course their argument depends first on the assumption that politics in this country has reached the point of being a knife fight. One the worst things Trump and Trumpism have done for the conservatives is getting so many of them to think it has.

Musk’s takeover of Twitter is the more interesting news both for the likelihood Twitter will get better and the reactions from the Democrats and leftists to the takeover. While I think the world would be better off it Twitter did not exist, it does and does importantly, and so it will be good for the company to begin treating diverse opinions and political views equitably instead of tilting in favor of the leftists. The notion that it does tilt in favor of the left should no longer be controversial. The fervid overreaction and even panic from Dems and lefties over the possibility of an even handed Twitter amounts to an admission that the company has been their valuable ally. One would have thought they would have noticed that.

Hollywood, TV, and Business

Many people have noticed and complained that business people are usually depicted in American movies and TV shows (including news shows) as villains.  The usual explanation is that  the industry is controlled by leftists whose work displays their ideology.  While that is well supported by evidence, I think there may be another important reason for the bias. 

When one sees  a priest or preacher denounce all humanity as inherently base, wicked, and damnable, it is fair and useful to remember that the human being he knows best is himself.  When one sees a white American leftist denounce white Americans as vile, pampered, exploitive,  racial bigots who do not deserve anything they have, it is fair and useful to remember that the white American he knows best is himself.  Similarly when one sees people in the movie and TV business  depict  business people as vicious, scheming, unprincipled, hypocritical, brutal phonies and scoundrels, it is fair and useful to remember the business they know best is their own.

While the opinions of business they present are false about  the business world in general,  they  could be accurate and justified takes on business as practiced in  the  industry in which  they live and work  - one dominated by its Kevin Spaceys, Harvey Weinsteins, and Matt Lauers.  There they have direct experience and might know what they are talking about. 

A Word Against the United Way

I would like to offer a minority opinion and say a word against the United Way, at least as it has operated in my city. The fundamental problem with the United Way is that too often it operates in the workplace as a shakedown. In less desirable working environments this is often done explicitly and directly. Even in better companies where employees are not coerced, there can be a strong implicit pressure when the boss is the one passing the hat.

  I once worked in a place where employees were heavily pressured by their bosses to donate to the United Way. Each year among the most reliable givers of their “fair share” were the least educated, lowest income employees - some of whom probably could have qualified for benefits from some of the agencies - who, fearful for their jobs, dutifully ponied up. The whole thing was disgusting. It was not only a shakedown of those of us who might resent it but at least could afford it. It was also a disgraceful shakedown of the most vulnerable, and it was done blatantly and with no purpose other than to allow our repulsive little CEO to appear among the other civic leaders and announce that our goal had been met. (The very most reliable fair share givers in that dysfunctional outfit were the up and coming careerist brown nosers who tended to see the whole thing less as charity than as just one more item of cost on the road to ingratiate themselves with the bosses.)

The pressure is not restricted to employees within companies. United Way fund raisers pressure companies and business owners to have their employees participate as well. I know of at least one case of United Way teams deciding to threaten a business that did not want to participate with retaliation from the bank that held its business loans. The whole thing just smells bad. It is questionable in concept and callous and sleazy in practice. It often has less to do with charity than with the desire of a bunch of preening suits to show off, network, and congratulate each other on how “civic minded” they are.

  So I urge people to avoid it of they can. If they have the choice, they should select some of the United Way charities they find worthy and donate to them directly. It’s cleaner, and it has the additional advantage that each person can choose to give to things that most interest him.