Boycotts are a meat ax, not a surgical scalpel

“Boycott.” Most folks never heard of it and certainly not in the same sentence with baseball.

A boycott is a circumstance in which a party, often a party not most directly involved in a dispute, uses economic pressure to cause another to change behavior. Here Major League Baseball, siding with the people who oppose new, restrictive voting laws, want the Georgia government to leave in place the laws which that very government adopted and used satisfactorily in the past. It was only when the results of an election were not to the liking of those who control the Georgia government that new, restrictive laws were developed.

Put aside the facts that (a) the governor of Georgia said the election fully complied with the law and (b) that no one could convince any Georgia courts that there was fraud affecting the 2020 election. Instead, let’s talk about boycotts and whether they are a good tool for effecting change.

Major League Baseball says that it does not want to reward those who adopt antidemocratic laws and so it taking its business elsewhere. The citizens whose rights are being constricted almost to the point of being abolished say they have no choice but to support the boycott. The Georgia government says the boycott is causing Georgia citizens to lose jobs and businesses to lose profits and should not be used. After all, some of the people whose voting rights are being harmed may be some of the same people who lose jobs. So, who is right?

The answer is: every one of these positions. A boycott is a meat ax weapon, not a surgical scalpel. In spite of that, what other choice is available? Georgia disingenuously created a problem so they could impose restrictions, so the argument goes. Talk about a meat ax! Some things need to be corrected regardless. Think about war as a way to understand the use of a boycott. Much collateral damage occurs---loss of life, the destruction of parks, companies, hospitals and homes; an economy can be left in shambles. In spite of that, we still use war as a political tool. Perhaps if there was another way to preserve voting rights then a boycott would not be necessary, just as is the case with war where diplomacy is an alternative.

In addition, the former US president joined the governor of Georgia in criticizing the very use of a boycott at all . Then, about a day later he called for a boycott of all of baseball. It was not the fact of a boycott, it appears, that angered those who support the Georgia government, it was the reason for the boycott. Moreover, the governor of Texas invoked his own boycott of baseball by refusing to throw out the first ball for the Texas Rangers. So much for attacking boycotts. More meat axes.

We need to reason through things recognizing all aspects of a problem, then speak. WALLY BRAUER Yuma