« Whole Foods Boycott and the Progressosphere: Bats in the Belfry | Desidero's Blog | Brain Food: Healthy Produce, Free Speech, Good Diet »
Whole Foods: Catching More Flies with Honey?
Taken from a comment elsewhere regarding the "progressive" boycott against
Whole Fields for Mackey speaking his mind:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intimidating with a massive boycott is much the same as shouting people down.
You want to put the hurt to Mackey for stating his point of view because it didn't agree with yours. All sorts of excuses why that's okay - he tried to use his brand, he's anti-union, whatever.
The point is, he said X which is not quite the same as Republican Y, and definitely
not the same as Death Panels and Euthanasia Z.
But to left-wing nutcakes, all ist egal. "He must be punished. He's not single payer,
he's not public option. The rich bastard is worried about costs and not us little
guys in the street without health care."
See what a tough company like Wal-Mart tells you - they're not going to be
writing Op-Eds, thats for sure, especially after watching Mackey have his neck
lopped off. Not to mention companies involved in the health care mess.
You *COULD* try telling Mackey why you disagree in intelligent terms,
coordinate people to *PERSUADE* him to your side of the argument,
since if he's writing Op-Eds, he *MIGHT* be in partial listening mode,
especially if 5000 of his closest friends and customers wrote him in
*SOMEWHAT* polite language with *COHERENT* arguments for specific
details - something that Obama and others have yet to effectively do.
Now, Mackey may not buy it, but he might buy *PART* of the logic
and then promote the parts that he finds make sense - maybe even
writing a followup to WSJ.
But one of the reasons Mackey went from liberal to libertarian is because
he found he was getting shit for trying to do something positive with
health food, that it was always that he didn't do enough for his employees
or customers, that there was no winning. Reinforcing that experience
will not bring any change.
I personally think that universal health coverage is good for employers,
letting them focus on an aspect of business most are not good with,
and freeing good workers to move around to where they're best used
and best equipped, not just being stuck with where they have insurance.
Plus people who have good insurance waste less crucial energy worrying
about that part when they are sick, letting them focus on the illness
and getting better. (I.e. mental health and comfort is an important part
of health)
And if progressives were in the mood to boycott someone, how come it
hasn't been an advertiser on Fox News? How come Rahm tells progressives
to STFU and they say "please sir, may I have another?" How come people
are acting like there's an actual bill with agreed upon content? Something's
weird in the whole scene. They say you can catch more flies with honey,
but everyone knows a flies are more attracted to a bowl of shit.
Whole Fields for Mackey speaking his mind:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intimidating with a massive boycott is much the same as shouting people down.
You want to put the hurt to Mackey for stating his point of view because it didn't agree with yours. All sorts of excuses why that's okay - he tried to use his brand, he's anti-union, whatever.
The point is, he said X which is not quite the same as Republican Y, and definitely
not the same as Death Panels and Euthanasia Z.
But to left-wing nutcakes, all ist egal. "He must be punished. He's not single payer,
he's not public option. The rich bastard is worried about costs and not us little
guys in the street without health care."
See what a tough company like Wal-Mart tells you - they're not going to be
writing Op-Eds, thats for sure, especially after watching Mackey have his neck
lopped off. Not to mention companies involved in the health care mess.
You *COULD* try telling Mackey why you disagree in intelligent terms,
coordinate people to *PERSUADE* him to your side of the argument,
since if he's writing Op-Eds, he *MIGHT* be in partial listening mode,
especially if 5000 of his closest friends and customers wrote him in
*SOMEWHAT* polite language with *COHERENT* arguments for specific
details - something that Obama and others have yet to effectively do.
Now, Mackey may not buy it, but he might buy *PART* of the logic
and then promote the parts that he finds make sense - maybe even
writing a followup to WSJ.
But one of the reasons Mackey went from liberal to libertarian is because
he found he was getting shit for trying to do something positive with
health food, that it was always that he didn't do enough for his employees
or customers, that there was no winning. Reinforcing that experience
will not bring any change.
I personally think that universal health coverage is good for employers,
letting them focus on an aspect of business most are not good with,
and freeing good workers to move around to where they're best used
and best equipped, not just being stuck with where they have insurance.
Plus people who have good insurance waste less crucial energy worrying
about that part when they are sick, letting them focus on the illness
and getting better. (I.e. mental health and comfort is an important part
of health)
And if progressives were in the mood to boycott someone, how come it
hasn't been an advertiser on Fox News? How come Rahm tells progressives
to STFU and they say "please sir, may I have another?" How come people
are acting like there's an actual bill with agreed upon content? Something's
weird in the whole scene. They say you can catch more flies with honey,
but everyone knows a flies are more attracted to a bowl of shit.
Advertisement
Well, I tried watching Fox News so I'd know who to boycott, and I ended up buying 18 guns, a Palin shirt, and constructing a monster truck out of bibles.
August 14, 2009 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't watch them!!! Plug your ears, poke out your eyes!!!
August 14, 2009 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I rec'd this because, desi, you are always thought-provoking and normally spot-on, imo. But I really don't get your arguments here
"Intimidating with a massive boycott is much the same as shouting people down."
What does this even mean? In what way the same? Would a boycott infringe on his rights to free speech? Is it not okay to express disapproval by refusing to contribute to someone's income by refusing his goods? To some people his 'opinions' are lies. To others they are valid though incorrect points of view. To some he is advocating an immoral 'fuck off and die' approach to health care for the poor. To others it's a mere difference of opinion regarding the economic model which governs human society. Where does one draw the line between merely advocating a policy that harms millions of Americans, and having a hand in the harm that occurs? To some he trips over that line somewhere, to others not. Why do you think the former category on each of these questions are so obviously wrong. I'd happily count myself among them.
And as for your last argument, what is wrong with punishing SOME wrongdoers when you are, for whatever reasons, unable to punish all of them? Liberals find themselves in the position of being able to make their disapproval felt in an effective manner in this one case, and so they should.
And yes,
August 14, 2009 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I go to a Town Hall to argue my position and let others argue theirs. If I'm not allowed to speak or get drowned out, I get pissed off. If I get told I can speak but if I say something people don't like, I'll have to pay $20K, I'm not going to bother showing up. Effectively, "progressives" are telling people "speak, but if we don't like it, we're going to punish you hard". Better to just keep your mouth shut under those conditions. Of course "progressives" won't manage to punish right-wingers - they never do. They'll only end up punishing people who thought they were friends.
August 14, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
he found he was getting shit for trying to do something positive with
health food
hehehe - sorry Desidero, I can't contain this ...
But what about all the good things Hitler did?!?
August 14, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is Mackey prevented from speaking? He's not, that's how.
Some people say boycotts are ineffective. Some people say they're unfair. Some people try to say both, but of course, that doesn't make a lot of sense.
Josh Marshall's dittohead army? Give me a break. Advocates of universal healthcare have been having their intelligence insulted by lies and nonsense for a good long while. John Mackey is a lightning rod, and maybe not the most significant one, I don't know. But the charge has been building for a while now. WFM lives partly by a story line about how it's nice and friendly and green, and to a degree it is, but there've been leftist critiques of it going back at least to 1991 ("Tofu Politics in Berkeley"). So now the CEO comes out with an op-ed that direcly contradicts this implicit storyline, and you think Josh Marshall is the one motivating people to speak angrily? No, this fire was lit by Mackey, and the oily rags were strewn about by Republican and insurance-industry operatives over a period of months, or years, if you want to go back to the Clinton years.
Limbaugh needs three hours to get his no-lobes to the phones and faxes? Well maybe that's because his pitch is often so counter-intuitive, counter-rational, so counter to common sense, and so rich in essential oil of bullshit that even those who really *want* to suck it down have a hard time keeping it straight until it's been hammered into them for a while.
August 14, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fox...can't touch them - Whole Food we are their base, we need to make an example of them - boycott!
August 14, 2009 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good call, Des. I actually agree with his reasoning to a large extent. If the GOP were offering this sort of package, I think it would get a lot of moderate democratic support. Good thing the republican "leadership" isn't this smart, huh?
I would add strict regulation of health insurance companies to make sure they provide what they have agreed to provide as well as a Public Option that would turn no-one away should that private insurance prove unavailable or unaffordable. A lot of people don't have insurance because they can't get coverage, not because they couldn't afford the premiums.
As usual, you raise intelligent points that seem obvious, but only after you point them out.
August 14, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason -
Answer me this where in John's proposals does he address rising cost of premiums? Explain to me how tweaking the tax code covers the uninsured. He seems to think by doing so the the American people will take care of the uninsured out of the kindness of their hearts.
Yes I do agree with one proposal. The individual citizen should have the same tax breaks as the corporate citizen. If they get to write off insurance premiums so should we, but this does address the fact that they are still on average $11K today and projected to go to $22K over the next decade. This doesn't address the fact that healthcare represents in the US 17% of our GDP. How do we compete against countries where the highest is 11% of GDP?
However, I have another idea take away the deduction. My guess if we do this there would be a real push by corporate America to actually do something meaningful.
If he truly believes the free market can do it better then what's the problem with a public option that competes with the private insurers? If the free market can do it better then the public option should fail because nobody goes to it.
And this: "A lot of people don't have insurance because they can't get coverage, not because they couldn't afford the premiums." Just curious how many people at the poverty line can afford $5, 6, 7K a year in premiums. My son who is just starting out and makes around 25K a year certainly can't.
August 14, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't deny that Mackey's suggestions are incomplete, but as they stand, it is a solidly conservative position that is based less in ideology and more in common sense. He does address costs, but he does it by way of fostering real competition among insurers. Again, not entirely accurate as stated, but hardly out in right field and is certainly bound to be part of any final solution.
His comments weren't objection as obstruction. They were objection by way of broadening the discussion.
A political process that is effective would start with the republican party where Mackey is and the democratic party much further to the left advocating single payer. The actual final bill would end up somewhere in the middle. As it is, republicans are offering nothing and democrats are allowing their sensible reforms to be positioned as a government takeover of health care by way of the public option, which does nothing of the sort.
A better strategy would have been to find existing programs that are widely supported by the left and right to position the needed reforms in a way that Soundbite Soldiers can't confuse the issue. Mackey mentioned Medicare and Medicaid reform as being in need of reform. That is agreed to by liberals and conservatives alike. I think republicans would have supported Medicare as the public option as a way to reform the projected numbers and bring its costs under control.
Of the 49 million who are uninsured, only a fraction of them need help with premiums. Medicare as the "public option" could be the place where they could get the lowest premiums because it would likely be the biggest insured population and have the most bargaining power to lower costs.
In this scenario, the free market and the public option aren't even competing as they are meant to cover totally different populations. Medicare would largely stay as it is from a qualification standpoint, with the inclusion of the uninsured and uninsurable (mostly self employed and small business owners without group coverage status) thus lowering the objections from the right. The private health insurance industry would no longer be able to kill us for profit by way of new regulations and will instead be freed by some of Mackey's other changes to drive revenue through innovation and outcomes from things like disease prevention programs and healthy lifestyle discounts that lower their long-term costs.
I guess my main point (and Des' as well I suspect) is that the solution to our problem is unlikely to be found at the extremes and that Mackey's editorial represents a good faith effort by a center-right conservative to add something substantive to the discussion and his response from the left was mostly along ideological lines.
August 14, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Umm center right conservative? From what I have read about John he is far far away from a center right conservative. He comes off as a full blown Libertarian.
From his wiki page.August 14, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The libertarian mindset is a center-right philosophy.
Hell, Obama and many moderate democrats are sort of a libertarian, but with a more leftward tilt to their philosophies. Thomas Jefferson was as well, which is why his party was named the Democratic-Republican party in acknowledgment of our essentially centrist national character.
I wasn't even commenting on his political leanings, though, so I am not sure what you are objecting to. I think his proposals are a good faith, though admittedly conservative, approach to reforming the health care system in a non-ideological fashion.
August 14, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Libertarian is a full stupid right position. My favorite example is when a Libertarian group went to an inner city neighborhood to distribute water pistols in support of gun rights. Aside from inadvertently drawing attention to the fact that gun-ridden inner city neighborhoods are not noticeably more peaceful than elsewhere what do you think went wrong? The parents confiscated the water pistols because they were terrified that the police would mistake them for the real thing and shoot their children. Libertarians have a real disconnect from reality. Too many video game geeks perhaps.
Unless you missed it, Mackey's suggestion that people don't have insurance because they can't get insurance totally ignores the plight of people for whom the insurance they can get is more than they make in a year. Common Sense would suggest that this might be a problem.
August 14, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have to agree with every suggestion in order to come to terms in some areas. Every political philosophy has its fringe elements.
August 14, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think mine's simpler - why get upset at someone who discusses the issue in good faith? I don't know where the "solution" will be found, at an extreme or in the middle, or at all. But it just goes against the grain of liberal democracy to shut someone down for giving a basic opinion, even if you have the means.
JS has another proposal, taking away the corporate deduction. That's not in Obama's plan. Should we shun JS, drive him from the walls of the city? Or evaluate it and say "great", "sucks", "might work with mods", "coffee break"?
And I don't think Mackey is a classic center-right conservative, and I don't think his points were meant to be a full health reform for America, just some salient opinions from a guy who runs a mainstream business, not some smartass finance exec on Wall Street or lumbering Big 3 CEO that we usually hear from.
August 14, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed for the most part. I think Mackey's opinions actually represent more of a mainstream conservative view than that being found in the television media or in Washington. I think that makes him center-right or perhaps a better term is a non-ideological conservative libertarian.
August 14, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, I sometimes wonder where you - qua conservative - stand on the moral imperative of health care for all. I personally found Mackey's op-ed outrageous. For the simple reason he thinks people who cannot afford care should not be provided care. He seems to think health care a matter of personal virtue. It's a charitable act the rich can offer the poor, but is ultimately a supererogatory act, there simply is no moral imperative operating there. I think of it as a 'right' with the counterpart duty on the part of society to provide it, to the best of its ability. Basic health care, like basic food and shelter, are rights.
Also, Mackie basically lies about the framing of the debate - rationing vs free-markets. As if rationing on the basis of income was inexistent, as if even potentially the reforms went in the direction of limiting the ability of the wealthy to pay for the better quality care than that provided for the poor...
Are there, in your mind, no opinions that are morally reprehensible, and does nothing he says really strike you as dishonest?
August 14, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mackey never said any of that. That was only what you inferred from what he wrote by way of your ideological lens. That entire article was simply focusing on the market-driven aspects of health care, much like food and housing policy is crafted for those essential basics.
You can disagree that America is running that way, but that isn't the same thing as that assessment being wrong.
Further, he never placed a moral judgment on whether or not someone could afford health care. In fact, he admitted the need for a robust Medicare and Medicaid system for those who can't afford private insurance for whatever reason, while pointing out the fact that both need massive reform to remain viable programs.
I have written extensively on how I would reform the system, so I am not entirely sure what would be confusing. Many of Mackey's ideas would have been a good counterbalance to more government-centric solutions from the left with the actual system being somewhere in between just like our current system.
I saw nothing ideological in that op-ed piece and much that could be included in the current bills as a way of gathering republican support for the reform effort. A package of changes that is supported on both sides of the aisle, like Medicare and Social Security, will be much less susceptible to special interest pressure than one supported only by the democratic party and some independents.
Your comments seem to back-up the underlying premise of this blog. That we are unable to discuss this issue free of partisan interpretation and reaction.
August 14, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Relax, Jason. I'm far from ideological. Or do you think talking of a right to health care is ideological?
I read the following extract from his op-ed and I draw the conclusion that the 'this' in the last sentence refers to health care. Or are my ideological lenses preventing me from reading English? He is against subsidies for the uninsured and prefers to have them 'funded' by voluntary charitable donations. Or have my lenses deluded me again? I don't know what op-ed you've been reading. And I don't know why my questions have upset you to the point of insult...
"Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?
Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America"
August 14, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where did I insult you? By interpreting your comments as having an ideological prejudice to them? Sorry for any perception of insult as it was purely unintentional. I guess I would counter with the same advice: Relax.
Even the quote you supply may be a little bit harsh but it is essentially accurate. That is how medicine has largely worked in the US. His actual solutions don't leave the indigent behind and sought to reform Medicare into a sustainable program capable of achieving its mission. The man simply believes in a more market-centric solution to the single payer crowd's government-centric one. Opposite ends of the available spectrum where our final solution will incorporate fixes from both camps.
Mackey's positions reflect that of other conservatives I have spoken with and are usually interpreted by democrats as wanting to kill a medical system that is already on life support. I disagree. It is two different surgical teams arguing over the best course of action.
August 14, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see anything market-centric about it, personally. On the central issue of the uninsured, the solution is more tax-deductible charitable contributions. Or you have a very broad notion of what constitutes a market, (i.e. what is the price of the self-satisfaction of helping the undeserving middle-class?)
August 14, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
More social services are delivered by way of individual contributions to nonprofits and charities than by way of direct government intervention. The "social good" sphere is a market every bit as much as government is a market and private interests are a market.
Again, I feel like we are arguing semantics without really addressing substance. The final bill that Obama signs will have a more humane solution for those who can't afford any insurance no matter how reasonable its cost. So, focusing on one thing you don't agree with to the exclusion of those items that you can accept seems to be taking the debate in the wrong direction.
The final health care reform package, to be supported by the vast majority of the country that falls into the more moderate center composed of both parties, will be neither too liberal nor too conservative but appears as if it will be a good faith effort to fix the system in a way that doesn't out it further at risk.
I don't think it will be the last health care related bill the president signs during his term either.
August 14, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
So when you say 'government is a market' and you say he wants 'market-based solutions', you're not saying he is against government-based solutions. I really can't make sense of your understanding of Mackie. On his account, the amount of health care provided to the middle-class should be rationed according to how much the rich value the self-satisfaction of helping them. As for his other suggestions, there are no serious cost-control measures there other than, possibly, repealing state-based regulation and tort reform. Other than that, this is not mere minor disagreement, this is suggesting we move in a direction diametrically opposed to the current reform proposal. And it is based on the strange idea that if only everyone had medical and legal degrees and months to spend going through contractual details and medical research, then we'd have a super efficient health care market. Seriously, a good-faith proposal needs a conception of the functioning of markets somewhere closer to reality.
August 14, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, have you missed my repeated insistence that the actual legislation may include some of the items Mackey supports but will address the problems you have with what his solution leaves unaddressed.
I am not saying the guy has all the answers, but I do see this as a more substantive contribution to the debate than insisting that single payer is the only thing that can save us and Barack Obama is betraying his liberal base by supporting the current Congressional efforts to deliver a package that someone like Mackey may actually support.
I merely suggesting that getting the other side to actually contribute something to the discussion besides obstruction is healthy to the overall effort of getting a set of reforms that most Americans support.
August 14, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what to do with that straw-man you're pulling out, but if you saw this op-ed as an expression of support for the rough outlines of the current Baucus plan, then wonderful! I'm sure Mackey will correct the widespread misapprehension that he is advocating something diametrically opposed, and perhaps announce he will help fund the advertising campaign.
I feel much better already.
August 14, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure why you need to pull out such ad hominem crap as characterizing my comments as a straw man argument. You do that a lot with things you don't agree with.
What I said and what I continue to believe is that Mackey's op-ed is much closer in tone and intent to the current proposal before Congress than what has come out of the right to date. I think that is a positive development.
I am not sure what you are objecting to exactly.
August 14, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, no offence intended. Response down at the bottom
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/desidero/2009/08/whole-foods-catching-flies-wit.php#comment-3561736
August 14, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
TThought I'd add one just to see how narrow the comment thread could get. (wink and grin)
August 14, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happens when it's down to one letter a line? Must find out...
And annoy desi...
August 14, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Annoy Desidero? I don't think it's possible.
August 14, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desi
laps
slow
down
the
tap
try
not
to
do
as
I
.
O
K
?
August 14, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Must do this for science. What lies beyond the single-letter thread horizon?
August 14, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
one
small
step
...
August 14, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ack!
August 14, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aaack!
August 14, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
s
i
d
e
August 14, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
:)
August 14, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
.
.
.
R
U
O
K
?
T
T
Y
L
August 14, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
.
.
.
....R
....U
....O
....K
....?
....?
....?
....
....T
....T
....Y
....L
....
....D
....E
....S
August 14, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
.
.
.
..R
..U
..O
..K
..?
..?
..?
..
..T
..T
..Y
..L
..
..B
..B
..
....D
....E
....S
August 14, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll help.
August 14, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am in no way shutting him down or trying to shut him up. Strongly disagreeing with some of his ideas, most certainly. And of course he he proposed his ideas in good faith. I don't doubt that for a moment. I just don't agree with his faith nor do a lot of other people. And to take the analogy a bit further. I tend not to go to churches where their belief system goes counter to mine. Does this mean that the church is a bad one? Does this mean the church does not do good things? No. It just means their values and mine are not in sync.
August 14, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
And of course he he proposed his ideas in good faith.
Gotta disagree.
He opened the piece with Margaret Thatcher's quote. "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
That there is ad hominem.
Its underlying assertion is that socialism is bad because you are a thief, and so are your fellow socialist travelers.
Umm - it's MY fucking money in the pool, too. And collectively it's OUR money.
Not simply false, but also doesn't actually make any argument.
He of course makes some reasonable points.
He also trots out the tort reform strawman.
He elides "cost" of care with "price" of care. I'm sure he tells his food customers how much it actually costs to put the products on the shelves.
He tells us Medicare is in desperate need of reform.
But neglects to tell us that the bulk of the problem stems from fraud perpetrated by businesses and entrepreneurial individuals.
Who are of course the ones who will provide the best possible care outcomes in a competitive system.
Maybe a couple of his points were made in good faith, and the plan he has come up with for his company may be the best way he can provide insurance for his employees without violating his philosophical raison d'etre.
Wall Street Journal put him up at the podium, and he lied through his teeth more than once.
August 14, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The customer is always right.
August 14, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who says that people are not talking? I made -- and have made -- my views known to them. But, strangely, they seemed to not listen.
Talk softly but carry a big stick not bought from Whole Foods and all that.
August 14, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do we have to choose? I can boycott Whole Foods and advertisers on Fox News!
August 14, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Boycotting Whole Foods only punishes progressive food manufacturers and local farmers in most markets.
Mackey may have a more conservative mindset but his company is trying to change the way Americans eat and that should be supported by way of our food purchasing power in order to force other national chains to change for the better in order to compete.
Local cooperatives were never going to have enough leverage to force our dysfunctional food production and supply system to change.
August 14, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh no, Bill Clinton is disagreeing with Howard Dean who's disagreeing with Obama. Which one is the wingnut(s)? Which ones do we boycott?
August 14, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think republicans should follow Bill Clinton's lead if they have ideological purity. Ironically, he was the most authentically "conservative" president since Nixon and appears to have the record to prove it.
Both were a disaster for We The People though, as every president since Nixon has been, so perhaps both parties should look for better champions or train the ones they already have.
August 14, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
After the results of the last administration, should we consider 'house training' as part of the regimen.
August 14, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Boycotting Whole Foods only punishes progressive food manufacturers and local farmers in most markets. "
In some markets, this may be true *now*, because Whole Foods has killed the other players in the market. But either way, if the market is as smart as some say, then other retailers, who aren't trying to sink universal healthcare, will appear to provide outlets for those progressive food manufacturers and local farmers.
August 14, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, because national food chains just pop overnight because of an opening in the market.
As to the rest of your nonsense, how exactly did Whole Foods kill the other players? In most medium sized cities there is only a single Whole Foods at all, so I am not even sure how this makes a lick of sense. In DC, which is hardly a bastion of green thinking, there are numerous other "natural food" markets owned by a competitor call Yes! Organic. They typically cost 20% to 30% more and have nowhere new the same selection.
This comment (as well as cries to boycott Whole Foods or that they are any more ruthless than any other national retailer) is more hyperbole and lies masquerading as political commentary.
August 15, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't shop there but a boycott is being call for by some. It might work.
C
August 14, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, I don't actually pull out the straw-man ploy often, and never before with you (?). Maybe confusing me with someone else...
The straw-man I was refering to was the 'single-payer purity troll' thing. I don't actually like single-payer, and have never advocated it. If you remember, I'm a fan of the Swiss system and got roundly whacked by Q for it. What I do believe is that the current US system has its incentives all out of joint with a very inefficient result in terms of allocation of health care resources. Really none of Mackey's suggestions moves those incentives in the right direction, imo, nor do I think anyone reasonably believes they would. It's basic ethos is more tax-breaks for the rich, less regulation regarding (borderline) insurance fraud with the usual 'transparency will save the world' mantra. And as a result, I don't find it to be an honest contribution to the debate.
If on the other hand we're placing the bar for 'constructive' contribution at anything better than 'death panel democrats!', I'll happily agree with you that this qualifies.
August 14, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry if I implied you were for single payer as that wasn't my intent.
I was simply commenting on the current spectrum of health care reform debate, with Medicare-for-All at one end and Status Quo at the other with the actual legislation (as well as Mackey's op-ed) being somewhere in between.
We never actually discussed what you were for, so I could not have inferred a preference for the Swiss system only a distaste of Mackey's choice of words. Ironically enough, the reforms currently on the table are basically the same in form and function to both of those opposing systems.
It actually splits the difference, which is as good a first step as I expected.
August 14, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure how this 'splits the difference' (and between what and what?). But I really do like the idea of the public plan. Otherwise I don't see how the insurance exchanges really get any serious cost-cutting competitive oomph into the system. And I don't see it as a slippery slope towards single-payer. Rather the only players able to compete will be those who cut out all profits from offering basic bare-bones insurance, and reap profits from the higher-end complementary insurance packages. I.e. it ends up as it is in Switzerland...
August 14, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would have to a whole other blog just to answer the questions in this post.
I think the actual proposals on the table split the difference between status quo and single payer. I don't believe a public option, whether as Medicare or collectives or coops or whatever, will be as toothless as you assume when combined with the other reforms on the table.
I don't believe the slippery slope argument. I actually think we will more properly create a working form of what we currently have, which is a private-public hybrid. I think we will actually regulate our way to a nonprofit health care insurance industry providing mandated coverage as a contracted service to a national single payer plan that negotiates rates with drug companies and medical providers.
Something closer to Germany than Switzerland.
August 14, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm having a difficult time understanding why it would be too extreme to boycott a corporation whose owner holds a policy view that I find immoral. Sure, his company provides a product that I find (moderately) attractive, but so what? There are other purveyors of similar products whose moral stance is either neutral or conforms to mine. Why should I reward Mr. Mackey who used his wealth (that I may have enhanced in the past) as a bully pulpit to advance a position that I find socially detrimental?
I've made similar economic decisions concerning Domino's, Walmart, and the Boston Red Sox (just to be a pain). Not boycotting Whole Foods would be morally inconsistent for me.
August 14, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the Fox crowd can go there and get some fancy organic veggies?? They also have lattes! Bonus for wingnuts!
August 14, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey folks, there are other organic grocers around. Trader Joes is one. Your local ones are even better. I don't care about Mackey's personal views, but I object to him trying to lobby it publicly. That's my point -- keep your wingnut ideology to yourself or else.
August 14, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trader Joes individually wraps its fruits and vegetables and offers no local selections here in DC. It is a pseudo-green grocer with no real policies around sustainable sourcing for their products. It certainly has no LEED requirements for the buildings it inhabits.
There are local coops in some locations, but they are even more rare than Whole Foods are outside of major Metro areas. Some national chains carry some ethical products but the vast majority of their stock is poison. When a real alternative comes along, I may consider it, but the bar has been raised pretty high and nothing in this op-ed has lowered it.
Whatever ideological differences you may have with the CEO over health care reform, his company has done more than just about anyone I can think of to make healthy eating mainstream again and should supported for that reason alone.
August 14, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. He's following a trend led by consumers. It's good business to cater to consumer's desires, like organic.
Like I said, there are plenty of organic grocers, farmer's markets, and so forth. I'll stay away from that jackass wingut's store and shop elsewhere.
August 14, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
There actually aren't "plenty of other choices" in most markets. Not sure where you are getting this information. There is a reason why two thirds of the country is overweight.
August 14, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually heard a radio ad from Wal-Mart today. They claim that 96% of their employees are covered by insurance, including part-time employees, which I'm not sure I believe.
They went on to say that they would not be satisfied until every American had affordable healthcare, and that they "back" the governments health care reform.
I'm not quite sure what they were endorsing, aside from themselves, of course.
I plan on looking into it a bit more this weekend.
August 14, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure they are lobbying to get all government insurance offices put in Wal-Mart stores :P
August 14, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
As some Meta, I seem to recall Jason and me butting heads ferociously on numerous topics, and now he's spelling me while I'm worn out from too much blogging over the last 24. Meanwhile, there are other people that I frequently agree with, and then we hit a topic and we're 180 degrees out.
There's often no good reason to hate someone over a particular view much less try to destroy them over it. Being in control of our vicious nature is probably more important. Even Hunter Thompson and Richard Nixon managed to talk football.
August 14, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I managed to sort out one of my major problems with Mackey's article, which prompted a semi-rant that I didn't post as a comment.
Earlier I pointed out a number of problems with the things he proposed or stated.
I've since figured out what set off my bullshit-detector.
Does anyone else see what I see in there?
His proposals can be distilled as follows:
1. tax cut
2. deregulate
3. deregulate
4. straw man / lie (depending on reader generosity)
5. sleight-of-hand ("cost" vs. "price")
6. Medicare is doomed
7. tax cut
Unstated. mandatory private coverage
I know who I think the beneficiaries of all the actual proposals will be.
What do you think?
August 14, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
And here's the other:
That statement can't be squared with the copied text below - or at least not without a discussion similar to asking what the meaning of "is" is.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentx
August 14, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
So people, how many of us made it to the Other Side? Has everyone come back safely? Did you all notice the bright white light of nothingness beckoning...? Is that what the death panel looks like...?
August 14, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
(quivering mass of orange feathers)
August 14, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!! Did we lose jonnie?! Will his comments now just be ghostly white spaces on threads forever and ever, echoed faintly on dashboards across TPM...? Someone should tell Josh that there's a hole in his ether...
August 14, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm back, stopped to roll a spliff. Thanks for the concern.
August 14, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, that reminds me. I need to go to the grocery store.
August 14, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Whole Foods boycott is just garbage. To punish the CEO / founder for his personal views on health care reform, progressives want to boycott the company? Really mature. Let's punish an entrepreneur who provides outstanding health coverage / best in class for retail employees because he differs in opinion on how to achieve health care reform? (He doesn't deny that it's needed, just how to get there).
What is the goal here? To have a dialogue with the CEO about why we disagree with his political views or to financially punish the company for them? In the context of this economy where people are already losing jobs left and right, who do you think will lbe most impacted by an effective boycott? Who do you think will lose as local / organic farms and suppliers? Here's a hint. Mackey is already rich. Take a look at fundrace with donations by employer - including the president who maxed out to Obama. $18k + to Democrats, $0 to Republicans. Yeah, these folks are the enemy of health care reform and PhRMA are the good guys. Egads. Save your fire for the people who are ACTUALLY obstructing health care reform rather than just expressing an opinion.
August 14, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
To me, the whole thing was actually a fascinating and hilarious "hysterical web mob" reaction--i.e., don't read and think, just emote as a mob. It's like bloggers like Josh Marshall et. al. can just put a one-sentence spin on something and it works like doctor's rubber hammer on a knee, few read the original source carefully and evaluate it for themselves, they just give a bunch of angry nonsensical knee jerk rants in return, in this case quickly cumulating in a nonsensical calls for political action, like a boycott. It certainly works quicker than Rush Limbaugh's shtick, he's got to lecture the dittoheads for 3 hours a day to get them riled to chant "down with" whoever is the target.
And that's coming from someone is no big fan of the "Whole Paycheck" yuppie food store concept. What I see is a bunch of people falling for the marketing, and then falling for counter-marketing, neither a picture of reality.
August 14, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The interesting part will be to see if it actually has any real financial impact - if there is any follow through (or if those claiming a boycott are even actually customers).
Glen Beck really is shedding mainstream advertisers based on customer pressure on the companies - but he's going for a whole different level of dangerous/offensive.
August 14, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why focus on the President and his behind the scenes dealings with PhRMA or the potential for Blue Dogs and the administration to get rid of the public option, when we can rant about someone totally out of power merely expressing his own opinion? It's just an outlet for irrational, displaced rage. A shiny distraction.
As to "Whole Paycheck," they have a in-house brand of organic products which is awesome (and comparable in costs to regular brand items). I get my produce from a more affordable farmers market closer to home. So it is possible to shop without totally breaking the bank. But you have to be really careful not to throw something in the basket on a whim. I picked up a can of tuna without looking at the price. Dolphin safe. Mercury free. yada yada yada. Got home and looked at the receipt. $8.00 for canned tuna. I was soooo livid. I got home, got out the crystal goblet and ate the $8.00 tuna Fancy Feast style.
August 14, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
For sure, boycotting of Whole Paycheck might accomplish fewer $8.00 cans of tuna sold. And, as others have pointed out, it also might make CEO's doubtful about entering into public discourse on political topics, something that is not of much concern to me one way or another, and probably many others, especially since CEO's hiring of lobbyists should probably get a bit more attention than anything they might write.
For the life of me, though, I can't see how such a boycott of Whole Paycheck would help get health care reform.
August 14, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because it's easier to focus on Mackey than to hold Obama accountable. Easy wins.
August 14, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
When push comes to shove, HE brought his company into it - used the brand name and everything. Every person who is forced to wear his logo as an employee now in some respect quietly advertises his view.
Do you think for a moment that guy would have been put in the WSJ if he weren't the CEO of Whole Foods? That was the tagline used to give the guy credibility as to why you should read his view of the healthcare debate - for which he has exactly ZERO relevant expertise to actually have an informed opinion over. Why does that clown know any more than your or I? At this point shouldn't actual experts be given the column-inches to discuss the bill really being debated?
Now his article is being used by radio hosts as talking points for the damn teabaggers to throw when they show up at town hall meetings to literally shout people down; specifically given "gravitas" because the guy runs health food stores ... supposedly supported by the socialist health freaks who he "put in their place". Whole Foods the brand is very much a part of the secondary use this OpEd is being put to.
He used the soapbox of Whole Foods to amplify his voice louder than any single American individual. It is completely appropriate for individuals to pool themselves and yell right back. If he had blogged anonymously on TPM, a boycott would be fucked up - using Whole Foods as a megaphone, a boycot is just a case of turnabout being fair play.
August 14, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe you're asking this. He's a business owner, which is why his opinion matters to a financial newspaper's audience. So in that context, he does in fact have relevant expertise, he does have an informed opinion, and he does know more than you do.
August 14, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And frankly, in the Wall Street Journal, telling them you let your employees vote on their health benefits sounds a bit shocking as well. Saying you pay 100% of their insurance premiums PLUS put $1800 towards the $2500 deductible? Off-the-rocker.
This was likely one of the craziest op-eds WSJ has had in years - I'm sure most corporate CEOs & Finance heads were shaking their heads wondering what kind of lunatic Mackey is for giving employees health insurance instead of going for shareholder value.
August 15, 2009 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
August 15, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mackey is a dick and he's always been a dick. He manipulated his company's stock and that of his only competitor in the sector, Fresh Fields, he damn near drove them out of business and then gobbled them up.
August 14, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then he's a perfect match for the WSJ, where his dicky opinions were published.
August 14, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just about to do a post on how much the "Boycott Whole Foods" business bothers me, when I found this blog...
You and I don't agree, often, Des...but we do on this one.
As far as I'm concerned, the effort to boycott Whole Foods is tantamount to shouting down speakers at the townhalls.
Yes, I shop at Whole Foods...not exclusively, and not even primarily, but I DO shop there, and I will continue to do so.
Do I agree with the CEO's oped? No. Do I boycott every person who does an oped that I disagree with? No.
Shutting down discourse is harmful to our country, regardless of which side does it. It wasn't good that liberals shouted down conservative speakers at college campuses. It is not good that conservatives shout down speakers at townhalls. It is not good to, in essence, shout down business owners attempting to add to the discourse regarding important issues, which is exactly what an organized boycott does. Civil discourse is essential for the long term health and well-being of our country.
You may not agree with what he said. And it is certainly your right to stop shopping there. But really, doesn't that make you a one or two issue voter, just like the conservatives who will not vote for a good person solely on the basis of their views on abortion and homosexuality?
What if Mackey had just one good idea tucked in there that advanced the discussion in a positive way?
What many of you are suggesting is that a business, who many work for because they BELIEVE in the underlying goals of the company, should be run out of town on a rail, because it's founder had the audacity to speak his mind. What you are doing affects people's lives. If you are successful, a bunch of good people will be out of work at their stores, a bunch of organic farmers will either struggle or go back to using pesticides, and a bunch of people like me, will have to consume even more gasoline to get to another store that carries similar things (and just do w/o the 365 brand of organics that is substantially cheaper than many other brands.)
I am not defending what he said. I am defending his right to say it. As a former business owner, I can tell you economic retaliation is powerful. It kept me silent for many years.
I prefer education to boycott. Wouldn't a gazzilion letters showing him where his views are flawed, and ultimately having him change his mind, be even more effective? Wouldn't a highly publicized letter-writing campaign give us the moral high ground?
This whole boycott thing makes me feel dirty...Please let's not turn into them.
August 15, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW...rec'd, Des
August 15, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink