Skip to main content

When Commerce Meets Culture Wars, We Approach The Great Divorce

In days gone by, a business was just a business – a place where you'd go to buy goods or services. The political or social leanings of the owner were not on display; the focus was solely on the transaction at hand. Times, however, have changed.

Now, large and small businesses actively participate in societal dialogues, advocating for various causes and aligning themselves with certain political ideologies. From corner stores to multinational corporations, businesses make bold political statements that extend beyond their core operations. While some interpret this as a conscientious corporate citizenry, to others, it seems like a strategy to protect their interests or a form of virtue signaling.

Consider the rise of Black Lives Matter signs in shop windows. Initially, these signs emerged in response to the tragic death of George Floyd – an incident that unified the nation in grief and outrage. However, As time passed, the Black Lives Matter message became entangled with a broader, politically-charged agenda extending beyond the fight against racial inequality.

For some business owners, displaying a BLM sign evolved from an expression of solidarity to a form of protection, a signal to potential vandals that they were on 'the right side.' Others adopted the signage hoping to promote a message of unity and equality, perhaps unaware of the broader political implications.

A similar pattern emerges with the proliferation of 'safe spaces' signs. These were designed to offer refuge for marginalized individuals but have sometimes morphed into echo chambers, promoting only a select range of viewpoints. Paradoxically, they can sometimes exclude those with differing ideologies, turning the idea of 'safety' on its head and creating an oppressive atmosphere for those with divergent beliefs.

Major corporations have not been immune to this trend. Companies like Ferrara Candy Company and Bud Light have made their own bold declarations, using their platforms to voice their stand on systemic racism or LGBTQ+ rights. While such proclamations can raise critical issues into public consciousness, they also raise questions: Are these corporations genuinely committed to these causes, or are they taking a calculated risk, seeking to avoid controversy and improve their public image?

When I walk into a store, my aim is to make a purchase, not to confront or negotiate a political or social ideology. If businesses choose to promote a political agenda that doesn’t align with my beliefs, my recourse is simple – I take my business elsewhere. This is my form of silent protest.

Social activism is vital, but should it pervade every aspect of our lives, including commerce? Isn't there a time and a place for everything? I yearned for the days when business was simply business and politics was left to politicians. Until we find our way back to that simplicity, I'll continue to vote with my wallet, standing up for my own beliefs in my own way.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price  Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...

The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The ...

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

 By Matthew Hayward  9/19/2025  The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning.  This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement.  Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...