So I was doing some research for my podcast yesterday on fascism, and I saw in the Google search list a link to a story on Chick-fil-A and fascism. I was quite perplexed how fascism and Chick-fil-A had anything to do with one another, but it was one in the morning and I wanted to finish up the podcast, so I didn't read the article. Today I saw that same article posted by one of my good friends (and a very jolly, good, well-mannered person), so I thought I'd indulge in a little look.
The article states two things:
1. Denying a business a license to operate for a political belief is fascism.
2. Moreover, a community pressuring people not to go to a business is fascism.
Both of these points are absurd with the second one being horribly out of touch with modern political lobbying. But let me first say what I agree with him on, as common ground should be the first thing two parties try to find instead of finding what they disagree on. When he says that denying a business a licence is fascism (which he never actually shows to be true and I very much doubt), I think he means "bad" and not really "fascism" as fascism would imply something very different from what he says. I agree that would be "bad" as political entities could weigh in on certain political issues and punish those with opposing views. It would perhaps be something a fascist state would do, but so could a communist state, a democratic socialist state, or even a liberal state such as the USA if a call was made. Let me give an example: you have a deli that gives money to Al Qaeda or an Irish Pub giving money to the IRA. They are supporting a political view, but that view happens to be labeled as "terrorist" in nature and therefore the US government could close down the business and even jail you. So, in conclusion, Chick-fil-A is not Al Qaeda or anywhere close to that, so rejecting a business licence is "bad", but not fascism.
Now for point two. We, as consumers, have one way to influence the market: our money. If we don't like the actions a business takes (oil spills, corruption in Mexico, libor fixing, etc) we don't buy their product. For instance if I don't like the effect that South American ranching has on the Amazon I cut back on meat. If I don't appreciate the ways that diamonds proceeds are often used to fund African militias that use child soldiers I don't buy conflict diamonds. If I don't like what a company does I don't use it. When Chick-fil-A uses its profits to influence politics I have every right to stop using that product and to tell my friends not to use that product. A classic historical example of a group using its economic muscles was the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Now would that be "fascism" or even the act of a "fascist" party or state? When Chick-fil-A gives 2 million dollars to anti-gay lobbying and political groups I have the right to freely decide where my money goes and to say what I want about that product. Fascism......psh..........
Ideally, this could all be made better if America had a split between business and politics. Businesses can influence politics for their own profit to create solutions that might be pro-business, but anti-market. Just as the US has a split between church and state, we today need a split between business and state. The only forms of campaign finance should come from individuals. I could care less what Chick-fil-A's CEO thinks as long as he gets me some good chicken. However, when business begins to interfere with politics and starts to determine my political rights I don't get too happy about it.
Oh, and if you haven't listened to my two podcasts on Fascism you can view them on Itunes or here.
