By David French
Wednesday, September 04, 2019
My first job was selling guns at Walmart. I was a clerk
in the sporting-goods department at our local store in Georgetown, Ky.
Georgetown was a much smaller place then. This was years before Toyota came to
town, put an immense car plant in a field not far from my house, and started
producing Camrys by the tens of thousands. The population was less than 10,000,
tobacco farms dotted the countryside, and Future Farmers of America was one of
the largest clubs in my high school.
This was also the era when students would roll into class
in the morning still wearing hunting camouflage, with their rifles in the
trunks of their cars or mounted in their pickups. So when I started my work
life selling guns, the only thing that was notable about my job was the wage —
$3.70 per hour, a full 35 cents more than minimum wage.
I can’t tell you how many rifles, pistols, and handguns I
sold during my brief Walmart career. It was the same procedure every time. The
customer would fill out a form, I’d take their money, and either hand them the
firearm at the counter, or — if they bought ammunition at the same time — walk
them to the front of the store before I gave them their new gun. It was a fun
job for a teenager, and I learned a great deal about guns.
So I was more interested than most to read about
Walmart’s latest retreat from the firearms business. Responding to the recent
string of mass shootings — including one in a Walmart store in El Paso — the
company announced that it was ending sales of handgun ammunition and ammunition
for AR-style rifles. The company’s CEO also called for a debate on renewing an
assault weapons ban and for strengthened background checks. Walmart had already
largely stopped selling handguns and so-called “assault weapons,” and now a
company born and bred in deep-red America was decisively breaking with the
culture that was indispensable in making Walmart the mightiest retailer in the
land.
Woke capital is here to stay, and Walmart proves it. At
first glance, Walmart’s decision is mystifying. What’s next? NASCAR going
all-Prius to save the planet? Even if you grant the reality that Walmart has
grown far beyond its original red-state base, why would the company want to
alienate half their customer base?
But that’s old America-style thinking. This is new
America, and new America is in the grips of profound negative polarization.
“Negative polarization” means, simply, that Americans who participate in
politics are motivated more by distaste (more like disgust) for the other side
than they are by any particular affection for their own. Indeed, affection for
politicians on your own side is often dependent on the level of disgust they
can display for your opposition.
In this new America, the calculus has changed. It used to
be that if you spoke as a corporation you risked alienating customers. Now, you
also risk alienating customers if you don’t speak. Silence has costs. In
an article last year about Walmart’s corporate turn to the left, Walmart
officials cited marketing data indicating that the overwhelming majority of
Walmart customers wanted it to “take a stand on important social issues.”
Now, in a closely divided nation, whose values will the
corporation champion? All other things being equal, the answer is obvious — the
company will stand for the values of the people making the decision. This is
the most human thing in the world. Once the decision is forced on a
corporation, how many people of conviction will choose to advance ideas they
loathe? At best, they’ll stay silent and ride out the backlash from failing to
take a stand. A corporate ethos that used to say to leaders, “Keep your head
down and do your work,” is being replaced by an ethos that declares, “You have
power and a platform. Use them.”
And the values at issue become self-reinforcing.
Corporate executives compete for top talent, and the biographies of these
people tend to look a lot like the executives’ own — often from elite
institutions, frequently from America’s economically dynamic urban centers,
and, failing that, still highly educated.
That’s the American demographic that’s blue — and getting
bluer every year.
Moreover, aside from a few exceptional moments, companies
don’t truly face meaningful market penalties for taking controversial stands.
Sure, some consumers may boycott, but others will seek them out. The vast bulk
of the dissenters may grumble, but they’ll still shop. After all, if they truly
like a Nike shoe, or if they have piles of frequent-flyer points at American
Airlines, or if Walmart is far closer and more convenient than any other
comparable store, the vast majority of consumers won’t sacrifice convenience,
price, or perks for their politics.
In the final analysis, the incentives are clear.
Corporate executives are motivated by their own values (and the peer pressure
of like-minded colleagues) to take progressive political stands, and the market
doesn’t materially punish their choice. As for consumers? They still shop, but
their polarization proceeds apace — they’re embittered (or thrilled) by
decisions that have nothing at all to do with the products they seek.
No comments:
Post a Comment