I want to go behind the problem Steve calls out.
Activism loses the oxygen of victimization with every success, and eventually becomes indolent and tedious. The proposed boycott of Russian vodka (or, as Scott Shackford argues, “Russian” vodka) is the knee-jerk, conventional response of a gay rights movement that is settling into its golden years. It has little chance of doing anything, except possibly harming a fairly stable gay-rights supporter.
Vodka is a symbolic product, and the only value of a boycott is the calling of the boycott — which draws some attention to the problem.
There’s some value in that, but by focusing on this tired tactic, we are missing the bigger opportunity. Rather than attacking a company that is (supposedly) doing a harmful thing by providing financial support to Russia, or something, we should leverage some of the corporate successes we’ve had in the U.S. and around the world.
NBC will be the face of the American media in Sochi, and they have blandly, corporately told Chris Geidner that they’re all in favor of equality, of no specific sort.
So how about if NBC had an openly gay or lesbian co-anchor in Sochi? Neil Patrick Harris has conquered most of the other forms of entertainment spectacle, and this is exactly the kind of challenge he might be up for. Or Ellen, for color commentary. There’s no shortage of high profile, openly homosexual celebrities who I’m sure would make a fine addition to NBC’s coverage, including some (I’m sure) who are actual athletes. Or straight supporters who would have no problem mentioning a gay athlete’s husband, a lesbian producer’s wife, or some other innocuous fact that punctures the law’s fiction.
The Russian No Promo Homo law at issue is the kind of thing that only a country without a vibrant first amendment could even attempt, but that’s exactly the thing that a healthy corporate body like NBC could give the lie to. Russia’s law is the last gasp of the closet, and the number of ways NBC, or any other nation’s supportive media could ruffle Russian feathers is limited only by the creative ideas of those who are ready to mock it.
It is creativity that our activists seem to have lost. That is why the only idea that occurred to them was the boycott. We can do better than that.
4 Comments for “Calling Putin’s Bluff”
posted by Jorge on
…we should leverage some of the corporate successes we’ve had in the U.S. and around the world.
Reading interesting ideas can be so jarring sometimes.
Fine. Let us hope this starts a “conversation”.
What did President Bush and the others do when the Olympics were in China?
posted by Mike in Houston on
The “dump stolis” movement is, yes, a visceral reaction – but those are usually the first of many.
HRC – and I know just using that will rankle Stephen and others – did well by putting NBC/Comcast on notice this week. I expect there is more to come that’s less symbolic and more substantive.
This is a different world than has been faced by previous generations – I think the real test is whether or not in the twitter-driven landscape, the push for change can be a sustained effort… And let’s not forget that our domestic enemies would like nothing more than to import this Russian law under the rubric of ‘religious liberty’.
Scott Lively said so this week… And NOM has been trotting out this tripe internationally across Europe for more than a year.
posted by Don on
While I agree with David generally about the dubious wisdom of boycotts, I see another reason why they are particularly effective in this day and age. Corporations don’t run everything. But corporate leaders do have top politicians on speed dial. Politicians know that the general public often forgets by the next election cycle why he or she might be voted out of office. But corporations can pull the levers of power between elections much more easily than public outcry.
Corporations produce products or services. If sales drop dramatically today due to a boycott, they know it immediately. And generally they will not tolerate a successful boycott for any length of time. (Coors would be an outlier)
Guess who calls up and says “hey, can’t we do something to cool this thing down. you’re costing me millions right now.” Nothing gets a politician’s attention quicker, anywhere in the world, than a business owner or owners saying “cut it out, you’re killing me!”
Although there are many reasons not to deploy this tool. It worked with the Dump Colorado campaign, although it took some time. And the law they passed is surprisingly similar to the Colorado law. It’s against the law to change this law. How do you favor repeal without going to jail?
In the Russian case, I don’t see how Ellen and NPH will change anything. The moral panic gripping Russia is based on NOT being the decadent West and stemming the perceived tide of immorality associated with being gay. How shiny, happy English-speaking hosts addressing an English-speaking audience will affect Russian politics is beyond me. I seems to be illegal for Russian media to translate what they say about the subject into Russian.
Maybe I’m missing something. But The Ellen Plan seems about as effective as climbing a mountain and yelling “cut it out” to the people in the valley below. Who’s gonna hear it? And who’s gonna care what the crazy person on the mountaintop is saying?
Hitting the right wallet in the right way does work. Very well. They’ve got one of the right wallets. But can they hit a number that will genuinely get their attention? We’ll see.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
So how about if NBC had an openly gay or lesbian co-anchor in Sochi?
How about Rachel Maddow as a correspondent covering the exemption Russia is going to grant to the Olympics? The fact that Russia finds it necessary to grant an exemption to the Olympics is a story in and of itself, and Maddow would provide solid, in-depth commentary on the Russian laws and the reason why Russia finds it necessary to suspend the law for the Olympics.