I previously commented on the continuing conservative boycott against Bud Light. I wasn’t really expecting to write about it again, or at least, not this soon and not in this context. As a refresher, in April 2023 the brain trust at Bud Light decided to promote their mediocre beer by partnering with a mentally-ill man who believes that he’s a woman. The stunt was widely mocked by the American Right, and the brand's unpretentious, everyman image collapsed practically overnight.
The financial fallout was swift and severe by most measures. Few other right wing boycotts have been so effective or so persistent, owing to two key points. First, the boycott is virtually painless for conservative consumers to carry out. There are plenty of alternatives to Bud Light's bilgewater, and cheap beer is hardly a necessity in the first place. Factor in Covidflation's impact on the average American's wallet, and crossing Bud Light off of the grocery list becomes that much easier.
Second, blue collar Americans are historically a core consumer base of Bud Light. The company's ad campaigns were typically apolitical and appealing to the down-to-earth working man. The brand's recent decision to glamorize mental illness was surprising, but the consumer revolt was not.
But as absurd as the ad partnership was, the comments from the brand's VP of marketing were perhaps even worse, wherein the VP rebuked what she perceived as Bud Light's historically “fratty" image. Anheuser-Busch has since tried to rehabilitate Bud Light's image with more traditional and less controversial advertising, featuring Clydesdale horses and the Manning football brothers. The boycott continues, albeit against the wishes of some influential people.
Last year I noted that Donald Trump Jr. had gone out of his way to call for an early end to the boycott. While he conceded that the partnership was foolish, Junior argued that the company deserved a mulligan because of their history of donating to the Republican Party. For somebody who styles himself as an outspoken and unapologetic warrior against political correctness and the corrupting influence of big donors, Junior's plea was remarkably ill-timed, self-serving, and spineless.
Setting aside the fact that the company has also donated to the Democratic Party, what should it matter if a corporation occasionally donates to a Republican (i.e. not necessarily conservative) campaign? Thankfully, Donald Junior was mostly ignored at the time, as far as I can tell. The boycott continued, though his comments may have helped soften the financial impact. There’s no way to reliably measure how many people returned to drinking Bud Light because of his comment, but the effort is still contemptible.
The boycott has been undermined once again more recently, this time at the hands of his father. In a Truth Social post, Donald Trump Senior also conceded that the company had made a mistake, but stressed that Anheuser-Busch was not woke, that they donated to veteran's causes, and that the company should be commended for employing Americans.
There are more than a few problems with the de facto Republican nominee's assessment, not the least of which is the fact that Anheuser-Busch is owned by AB InBev… a Belgian company. What sense is there in drawing up a list of woke companies (which itself is not a bad idea), only to exclude a company that conservatives have been successfully campaigning against for the better part of a year?
Furthermore, while it may be true and indeed respectable that Anheuser-Busch employs thousands of Americans, that they partner with farmers, and that they donate to veteran causes, the exact same can be said of Walmart. Don't misunderstand - I don't necessarily begrudge those who continue to shop at Walmart. Oftentimes it’s the least expensive retail option around, and sometimes it's practically the only option. I’ve been personally avoiding the blue giant for years as much as I can, given their dreadful working conditions, horrible customer service, their unmatched ability to decimate mom-and-pop stores in smaller markets, and the fact that their shelves are lined with cheap, made-in-China garbage. Should I return to shopping there, simply because they employ Americans? Should I pick up a Triple-Double-Mocha-Quantum-Deluxe Frappulatte at Starbucks tomorrow? The ubiquitous “coffee” giant employs Americans as well. Your mileage may vary, but I don’t find the American employment argument to be a good enough reason to patronize either company.
You might be inclined to write off Donald Senior's defense of Anheuser-Busch as a simple mistake or some sort of pawn sacrifice in a larger strategy. Unfortunately, it's worse than that. According to Trump's business filings, he owns at least $1 million of stock in Anheuser-Busch. If that weren’t enough, a lobbyist for Anheuser-Busch, Jeff Miller, is scheduled to hold a fundraiser for The Donald in the next few weeks.
Trump Senior's clear financial stake in Anheuser-Busch constitutes a blatant conflict of interest. Given Trump's stated opposition to the donor class and lobbyists, these comments are a massive disappointment, if not an outright betrayal of his purported platform. This is perhaps not that surprising, given that he staffed his own administration with lobbyists.
To give credit where it's due, many otherwise enthusiastic Trump supporters have balked at his call, insisting that the boycott isn't over yet. And it most certainly isn't over. As far as I’m concerned, the boycott must continue at least until the company issues a public apology. While an apology may sound like a hollow gesture, it’s actually very important in this context.
Compare and contrast with the left's many, many boycotts and campaigns against companies and public figures that step on their toes. Typically, the left does not stop until the company openly capitulates, or less commonly, until the company actively digs in its heels and tells them to get lost. Apologies in this context are important because they affirm power. By squeezing an apology out of a company or person, the left reaffirms its social and cultural dominance over a company or individual, and they are emboldened to extract a capitulation from the next company that crosses them. If apologies were pointless, the left would not be demanding them so frequently. Without a public admission of wrongdoing, you can count on Anheuser-Busch to do something similar in the future if the boycott fizzles out and they surmise that they can endure the financial cost.
Bud Light's more recent “traditional” advertisements do not constitute an apology or an admission of wrongdoing. Such efforts are a cheap attempt to sweep their bad publicity under the rug, and it's incredibly frustrating to watch Donald Trump and his son rush out and call for an end to the boycott before such an apology is secured, especially when they have an obvious and perverse financial incentive to do so.
It's perhaps even more frustrating to see that some supposedly conservative or conservative-sympathetic pundits and personalities are uncritically going along with Trump's statement, telling the rest of us that it's time to let it go. Most of these personalities probably don’t have a direct financial incentive to see the company perform well, so their abrupt about-face can only be characterized as sycophantic.
Forget the absurd partnership or the boycott itself for a moment. Did these people actually miss the taste of Bud Light that much? Are elements of the supposed American right so addicted to cheap beer that they couldn’t wait to run back to the store for a six pack once they believed it was acceptable again?
Don’t underestimate the value of this boycott, because it's not just about Bud Light. Other companies are watching the right’s reaction carefully. If the boycott ends at Trump's behest, it will send a clear message to Anheuser-Busch and any other company that i’d watching: you can promote leftist insanity, wait out the ensuing right wing boycott until it grows bored or collapses into needless disunity, and conservatives will inevitably come crawling back. A conservative capitulation now would declare: “we need these products more than they need us.”
Ignore the self-serving people telling you to drink up. Don't be a listless vessel. Keep voting with your wallet.