Boycotts, ‘canceling’ have been around since days of Founding Fathers
Lately there have been a lot of stories in the media on “cancel culture,” and more recently on “cancelling cancel culture.” Fortunately, while the United States is a relatively young nation our history is rich with examples of the old becoming new again. For instance, in 1774 British Parliament passed the Coercive Acts — yes, that is what the British actually called them — in order to punish the colonists for a party we threw in Boston. It was in the harbor, actually. Tea was involved.
The Coercive Acts were four laws that provided for quartering British soldiers in private homes, immunity from criminal prosecution for British officials, closing the port of Boston, and taking direct control of the Massachusetts government.
These acts were as extreme as they were vindictive. The colonists referred to them as the “Intolerable Acts,” and they were part of the long train of abuses and usurpations that would later figure into the Declaration of Independence.
While the punishment was aimed at Massachusetts our still nascent shadow government, the Continental Congress, understood that the threat was to the whole colonial enterprise. They took up the matter and with some deliberation devised a response that was severe, but not quite an insurrection. An agreement between the colonies called the Continental Association was drawn up and signed by representatives from all the colonies. The Association begins with very nice prose about being loyal subjects and having the highest regard for the kingdom and all its other subjects, but then the tone shifts pretty abruptly.
The colonies would no longer buy any goods from Great Britain, or any goods that originated in Great Britain. They would buy no more tea from the East India Company. No more produce from British plantations. No more slaves from British traders (shame that one did not stick).
This was an innovative and powerful use of economic persuasion, so innovative the world would have to wait a century before a group of Irish farmers would use it against Captain Charles Boycott. The United States, as colonies, as a nation, and as a member of multinational bodies like the UN, has used this lever to nudge, persuade, and bully individuals, families, and other countries ever since.
Because of our long history of boycotts, it should be surprising to hear flag-pin wearing conservative politicians and pundits cry foul and complain about “cancel culture.” In spite of what they are saying, it is categorically wrong to suggest that bringing political considerations into business decisions is some new liberal “woke” phenomenon requiring a new name.
Our history is replete with examples of boycotts from both sides, including conservative groups like churches against rock and roll for being salacious, gun owners against Colt and Smith and Wesson for cooperating with President Clinton, Republican legislators against French Fries for being called French, pundits against celebrities that opposed the second invasion of Iraq, and the recent calls to boycott the NFL and NBA for concerns over who was standing during the anthem at a game.
The recent decisions by several major corporations to shift business away from Georgia have drawn sharp criticism from the very top of the right-wing establishment about corporations dabbling in politics in a further attempt to paint this as some new radical and unholy weapon of the left. But here conservatives have only their own agenda to blame, for if the Citizens United ruling allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns, it surely also allows them to not spend their money in Georgia.
In spite of all of this, it is not actually surprising to hear conservatives inventing a new way to talk badly about the boycotts they do not like, because what else can they really do? When faced with the inconvenient application of the free market to advance the liberal agenda, there are not a lot of other plays left for those who have spent decades vocally supporting the theory that the free market will solve all of our problems.