The Whole Foods boycott: self-absorbed political fetishism

Radley Balko expresses his frustration with the healthcare reform proponents who want to boycott Whole Foods due to a WSJ Op-Ed written by John Mackey. This dispute brings up all types of issues (some reviewed at NYT), from the exaggerated influence of corporate CEOs to how the WSJ opinion pages are typically a partisan vomit pile, but one interesting factor is the revelation of fetishized thinking among the boycott organizers.

Balko's main argument against the boycott is that Whole Foods is a great corporate citizen (we've previously discussed Mackey's views on this topic). To anyone who actually cares about real people living real lives, this should immensely outweigh the fact that Mackey is writing in opposition to a particular health care reform proposal. In his followup, Balko also chastizes those who view unionization as being more important than worker inclusion in decision-making and benefits. He summarizes the union fetish thusly:

If Mackey’s opposition to unions is your reason for hating Whole Foods, sorry, but you don’t really care about workers. You care about unions.

Finally, there is a bit of a partisan fetish behind this boycott proposal. I think half of what set off the boycotters is that Mackey promoted traditionally Republican talking points in a mainstream newspaper full of Republican hacks. I'm sure that was really offensive, especially after the WSJ editors worked their Republican hack magic on Mackey's writing. Fortunately (as my pro-ObamaCare wife points out), most people are not partisan hacks and will not boycott Whole Foods over this.

Balko's final thesis seems to be that the boycott is really about power -- about squelching open open debate on proposals that one disagrees with.

These people don’t want a discussion. They don’t want to hear ideas. They want you to shut up and do what they say, or they’re going to punish you.

In many respects, the quest for power is the epitome of political fetishism--valuing an abstraction over the real value of human welfare. The basic process is that a person convinces himself that once he achieves the abstraction, everything else will take care of itself. The fallacy here is two fold -- first, these abstract goals arise from speculative social theories and we should not have any confidence in the cause-effect relations that are proposed; second, people adhering to different fetishized social theories will struggle over the abstraction (i.e. power) to the point that the original goal is forgotten about. As sung by Axel Rose:

But still the wars go on as the years go by
With no love of God or human rights
'Cause all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide
And history bears the scars of our civil wars

I don't shop at Whole Foods, but there's one not too far away, and though I disagree with major elements of Mackey's views on healthcare, he should be lauded for getting involved in a thoughtful manner.

So I am going to reverse boycott Whole Foods and go buy some stuff there.

Q: What's the opposite of a boycott?

A: Sympathy buying?

anyway, i think this will be good for whole foods -- because any publicity is good publicity.

their current customers like something tangible about the store, so they'll keep shopping. Right-wingers may have dismissed the store in the past, but now they will give it a shot. I think many of them will find things that they like about the atmosphere of the store -- for one, I see a lot less sexual marketing (no Cosmo magazine) there than at other groceries.

I think Mackey is brilliant.

I've never even SEEN a Whole Foods. Based on what I've heard about them though, my money wouldn't be going there even if there was one nearby. I get behind the idea of all-natural and/or locally-made when I can, & I think it's nice that some place tries to specialize in that. But the price premium on that kind of stuff thanks to the rich Trendies is ridiculous. If they're expensive enough where even those types complain then I'll pass.

It says a lot about how we approach food that the lower the inputs & transportation costs the HIGHER the result ends up costing...

for the stores in my part of town, whole foods is not particularly expensive. For some products they are cheaper, for some they are more expensive. Likewise, some products i can only get at whole foods, and some products i can't get there. My wife is a vegetarian, and only whole foods has good, cheap vegetarian food.

I actually shop at three different grocery stores, and tend to buy different products at each (with some overlap). Typically, if product at whole foods is more expensive than at another store, it is simply because it is a higher quality product (ignoring organic/local concerns).

I've got a Trader Joe's practically around the corner. But there's not a Whole Foods nearby, sadly. After this boycott I really want to start shopping there to do my own small part to counter act this absurd boycott.

As it stands, though, the Trader Joe's is by far the best place for me to shop given the urban environment. I can walk to it and it has decent prices. There isn't another option for me absent driving.

I'll never do my general grocery shopping at Whole Foods, I'm just not that into the whole natural thing.
But they do have some very cool specialty items that I occasionally want, and can only find there.

Real Chesire cheese, from Chesire, is one thing, and they sell a very good quality Mahi Mahi ans swordfish steaks.

In any case, I hadn't planned on stopping in any time in the near future, but now I will.

Mackey's "libertarian" views have been a known commodity for some time, and he has been in the crosshairs of the "political left" before because Whole Foods is not a union shop. Frankly, I think the root of this latest "boycott outrage" by progressives every bit has to do with with the WSJ hackery of the piece, that served to frame it in a far more partisan light not necessarily intended by Mackey. All it took was "ObamaCare" and the quote about "Socialism" and the progressive fury of the hounds of hell were unleashed.

Adam uses this latest outburst as an example of "political fetishism." However, I prefer to use the term "tribalism." We should recall Jonah Goldberg originally had Mackey and Wholefoods in the title of his book about "liberal fascism." I imagine Goldberg now sees Mackey in a different light. Progressive outrage over Mackey demonstrates the tribalistic influence of communitarianism. You would be hard-pressed to find a much better example of someone who puts into practice the "social responsibility of the corporate citizen"(there is a possible left-libertarian critique of Mackey, noting his role in enacting the National Organic Standards Act, but I won't go into that here). But since Mackey and Whole Foods primarily relies on voluntary cooperation, that simply won't do. Progressives abhor voluntary cooperation in favor of a democratic process that operates through the channels of Political Capitalism and Political Unionism. When the politics of it doesn't go their way, it because of "racism" and corporate "free-market fundamentalism" . When it does go their way, it demonstrates the admirable qualities of the "joint public-private partnership."

Although progressive tribalism might be rooted to an extent in the type of abstract moral fetishism Adam describes in his post at his personal blog--just reference the likes of Rosenberg at Open Left and his theory of the stages of cognitive progression in explaining why everyone doesn't think like him,noting that he considers you inferior in cognitive development if you don't think like him--I'm not so sure that conservative tribalism is rooted in the same thing. But following the likes of Arthur Silber, whether it's progressive or conservative tribalism, the end result on the evolution of our political institutions is largely the same.

I think most expressions of tribalism are fetishized. The desire to belong are probably the source of much fetishized thinking (the unwillingness to evaluate dogma as a means to an end).

You probably make the immediate issue more clear when you write about "tribalism" rather than "fetishism", but I just love to promote that essay about moralism.