MOVING BASEBALL’S ALL-STAR GAME: THE DILEMMA OVER BOYCOTTS

When Major League Baseball pulled this year’s

All-Star game from Atlanta in protest of Georgia’s restrictive new voting law and moved it to Denver, the decision provoked a debate that divides both

defenders and opponents of the law. That debate pits those who see MLB’s decision, and potential boycotts by other corporate entities in Georgia, as a powerful tool in the fight for voting rights against those who lament the loss of income by black and

brown businesses and employees from events like the All-Star game.  MLB’s summer classic annually produces $84 million in economic activity. Cobb County, Georgia had expected $100 million in tourism revenue from the game.

 

The Rationale

Certainly, some saw MLB’s decision as an easy call. Those in that camp argue boycotts bring pressure on legislators who pass laws like the one in Georgia to undo the damage by repealing or modifying the measure. They point out the goal is getting decision makers to enact policies in the best

interest of the boycotters (or, in this case, black and brown citizens potentially disenfranchised by the election law). Sometimes, boycotts mostly serve the purpose of discouraging others from the behavior being protested. MLB’s move of the game, and potential action by other corporations, could dissuade other states from going down the same road (over 40 states have similar bills pending in their legislatures).

Advocates of actions like MLB’s argue boycotts represent a form of political warfare. Wars produce

casualties. Boycotters, as other warriors, do a cost benefit analysis about the value of what they might win in the war when compared with the likely losses. As Woodson reminds us, destroying public transportation wasn’t the goal of

the 1955 Montgomery bus boycotters; they just wanted better transportation services for African Americans in that city. Labor unions that utilize boycotts of a business in their organizing activities aren’t out to destroy the business, they just want better wages and/or working conditions for their members.   

 

The Other Side

Despite the force of these arguments, this debate has two sides. In the Georgia situation, opponents of moving the All-Star game note that small businesses and employees like stadium vendors and parking lot attendants will lose financial opportunities as a result of the game leaving Atlanta. Many, no doubt, are the very people who need the Georgia voting law repealed or modified, as it will impact their communities most.

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a strong advocate

of the law, pushed this argument. Kemp said black and brown vendors who lose money this summer can blame Democrats, like President Joe Biden and his likely opponent in his race for re-election next year, former state Representative

Stacy Abrams. Kemp has hardly been a friend of black voters in Georgia, so his “support” of black businesses probably requires a sizeable grain of salt.

Abrams, however, is another matter. Despite expressing her “respect” for boycotts, Newsweek reported she tried to stop MLB from pulling the All-Star game from Atlanta. The magazine said she talked with a high MLB official and urged that the game remain there. She later issued a statement that said she didn’t want to see “Georgia families hurt by lost events and jobs.” Whatever political motivation Abrams might have had for coming down on the issue as she did, her action represented the thinking of some progressives as well as of conservatives.   

Corporate Dilemmas

The pressure on corporations to take a stand on issues like the Georgia voting rights law puts them

in several binds. First, they must consider the possibility of boycotts by progressives who oppose legislation like the Georgia bill. Coca-Cola, for example, certainly wouldn’t

enjoy a boycott of its products by blacks and browns who want the law repealed or changed. On the other hand, siding with opponents of the law risks alienating conservative supporters of such measures. Already Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has worn out the airwaves complaining about “woke corporations” that express support for progressive legislative actions.  

To some extent, corporations and their supporters in legislative and judicial halls, created this dilemma. They’ve argued, as the Supreme Court in effect said in the Citizens United case, that corporations are people too. If that’s the case, they’re subject to the same pressures as every other actor on the political stage, meaning they’re accountable for the disproportionate power they have in our society due to their wealth and political influence.  Boycotts may just become part of the cost of doing business.

 

A National Solution

Congress has under consideration the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, a comprehensive bill  that

would fix many of the problems the Georgia law created and head off at the pass many measures now under consideration elsewhere.  Corporations could support a national voting rights standard, arguing that’s better for the country than the hodgepodge of laws we have now.

Abrams isn’t alone in opposing bills like the one in Georgia, while seeing the potential detriment to black and brown citizens who suffer economic harm as a result of well-meaning civic actions. The Georgia debate simply kicked off the fight over this issue. It’s thorny and implicates differing interests. It’s the kind of thing some see as easy. Others believe reasonable minds could reach different conclusions.  What’s your thought? 

                

                                                             

BLACK GOVERNORS: MAYBE NOT SO RARE AFTER 2018

In 2018, the United States has its most intriguing, and important, mid-term elections in years. The big storyline resides in Democratic efforts to take control of the House of Representatives, potentially setting

Photo Credit: CNN.com

the stage for impeaching President Donald Trump.  But, in the states, an historic circumstance has developed that could equal the House races in long term political significance. Three black candidates – two men and one woman – stand as Democratic nominees for governorships. In a nation that has elected only two African American governors, that circumstance makes this a remarkable moment in the country’s 242-year history – even if none of them win.  What does this mean in the era of Donald Trump and the rise of white nationalism?  Is this a backlash against Trump? Can black candidates win statewide office in this environment?   

The Candidates

Stacey Abrams of Georgia – We devoted an earlier post to her candidacy, so we’ll limit our comments now to the fact her race against Republican Brian Kemp remains a tossup. The latest polling shows a dead heat.

Andrew Gillum of Florida – Gillum, the mayor of Tallahassee, shocked his state and the nation by winning the August 28 primary over better-known, better-financed candidates. He defeated onetime Congresswoman Gwen Graham, the daughter of former Florida Governor and Senator Bob Graham, and billionaire real estate developer Jeff Greene. Like Abrams, Gillum ran a decidedly progressive campaign, winning backing from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, despite attending the 2016 Democratic National Convention as a Hillary Clinton delegate. Gillum advocates a single payer health care system, LGBTQ rights, and stronger gun safety regulations. The early polling shows him essentially even with Republican Ron DeSantis, a Trump-backed Congressman who threw the race into early turmoil by admonishing voters not to “monkey up” Florida by electing Gillum.

Ben Jealous of Maryland – Because Abrams and Gillum are running in southern states, Jealous, former president of the NAACP, hasn’t gotten as much attention.  Maryland, decidedly blue at the presidential and senatorial levels, has an incumbent Republican governor, Larry Hogan, who’s far ahead of Jealous in early polling and fundraising. Jealous has some catching up to do but, because Maryland usually leans Democratic, he may still have a chance.

The History

History doesn’t favor any of these three candidates. Four blacks have served as governors of American states, only two of them elected in their own right. Doug Wilder became the country’s first elected black governor when he won in Virginia in 1989. State law limited him to one term. Deval Patrick won the Massachusetts governor’s office in 2006 and reelection in 2010. He retired after two terms. Patrick gets mentioned as a possibility for national office but, so far, he hasn’t pursued the idea.

Two other African Americans have served as governors upon being elevated from lieutenant governorships.  Pinckney Pinchback filled the Louisiana governor’s chair for about a month -- December 9, 1872, to January 13, 1873. David Paterson occupied the New York governor’s office between March 17, 2008, and December 31, 2010. He’d been New York’s Lt. Governor before Elliot Spitzer’s scandal-induced resignation.

This dearth of black governors, and the fact only six African Americans have ever been popularly elected to United States Senate seats, demonstrates the difficulty African Americans have had in winning statewide office. Blacks regularly get elected to House seats, and not just in black majority districts.  But, statewide races remain a tough nut to crack. The 2018 races in Georgia, Florida, and Maryland offer hope, but not guarantees, of electoral success this year.

The Problem and the Opportunity

White racism might seem an easy explanation for the difficulty African American candidates have had in winning statewide races. Many white voters just won’t vote for a black candidate, this theory goes, a notion perhaps undermined by Barack Obama’s election to the Presidency. Gerrymandering a state by packing black voters into compact districts, thereby making black victories easier, isn’t possible. No doubt the white racism problem partly explains what’s happened, but like most things in American politics, a more complex story tells the entire tale. Fund raising difficulties, especially lack of access to big-money donors, limited ideological and cultural appeal across a broad electorate, and low voter turnout in minority areas, especially in non-presidential years, probably all contribute.

This year, none of those factors need impede Abrams, Gillum, or Jealous.  Abrams, in particular, has already shown considerable prowess in raising money through small donations, especially online. Gillum’s primary win got him an immediate fund raising boost, with about two million dollars pouring in over just a few days. Presumably, Gillum now has a much better fund raising list. Jealous hasn’t done as well at fund raising. He had $9 million less than his GOP opponent two months from the election. Still, he’s patterned his campaign after Sanders and presumably knows the small donor fundraising techniques.

The gubernatorial opportunities presented in the 2018 elections give black Americans a chance at becoming more fully invested in American democracy.  Those opportunities, however, illustrate two things African Americans and progressives must do to take full advantage: (1) contribute to candidates of their choice and (2) vote. It’s really not much more complicated.