Boycott Logic

Watch the conservative commentary shows and you’ll soon learn that the French are obstructionist, anti-American, self-serving, devious, ungrateful and desperately in need of being taught a lesson about who is really in charge of this world. French president, Jacques Chirac has clearly stated his opposition to the US efforts in Iraq and has actively undermined our policies world-wide and, the implied and occasionally directly stated reason is a desire to see a European balance to an American hegemony, preferably one controlled by France. Consequently, the likes of Bill O’Reilly, John Gibson, Rush Limbaugh, et. al. have urged that loyal, patriotic Americans unite to boycott French goods. Regular Internet users have probably even received those incredibly long lists of products and manufacturers to avoid because of their French ties. No more Bordeaux, Cognac, Champagne or Michelin tires, let alone the Brie, Camembert and tickets on the Cunard Line. Let’s even eschew the French fries at Mc-Burger-Wendy-Sonic in favor of “freedom” fries. Is this logical? Would it be effective? Is it worth it?

Unfortunately, as with all political questions, the answer is “yes and no.” Would a total boycott of French imports to the US have a significant economic impact? Absolutely. But, would that achieve the desired political outcome?

At the most basic level, we must first acknowledge an assumption about the rationale for boycotting. Aren’t the boycott advocates suggesting that French companies, French workers, and the French people are responsible for the policies of Chirac that we find offensive? If we consider our own recent election for just a second, it becomes clear very quickly that despite the tendency to characterize America as “red states” and “blue states”, there really is a very balanced split between those citizens who embrace one political ideology and those who embrace the opposite. Further, we aren’t really red and blue states because even the bluest of blues has a lot of red and vice-versa. The point I’m making here is that America is a very pluralistic society and the government’s policies do not represent some sort of monolithic thinking on the part of the nation. Ditto for France.

Then to punish the people indiscriminately for the actions of their government doesn’t seem particularly just. I don’t agree with your president, so I’m going to hurt your children by trying to make your business fail. But, is it that simple? Of course not.

Undeniably, a massive boycott of a nation’s products would have an impact on the economy. Profits would drop, jobs would be lost, and government tax revenues would drop. That should get those Frenchies in line pretty quickly. Would it? Maybe momentarily, but in fairly short order the response would be government intervention to retaliate. Punitive tariffs, counter-boycotts, economic leverage through third-parties and other responses would ensue. Next development is an economic impact in the US. Who would have thunk it?

Of course, there is the basic Jeffersonian principle that governments gain their power from the consent of those governed. If true, then the French administration of Chirac receives its power from the consent and approval of the French people. If a boycott causes discomfort to the French people, they will manifest their displeasure at the policy of their government by withdrawing their consent. Chirac will be forced to modify his stances or be unelected at the next plebiscite. That might be a desirable outcome of the boycott. But, the government may be reflecting the preference of the electorate by opposing US policies. Then, the boycott will supply their comeuppance. So, points for the boycott notion.

Now that I’m ready to boycott, who do I avoid? Once it was pretty easy to determine who was who, but today with Hondas made in Alabama and BMWs in South Carolina how can we be sure that we’re hitting the right target? It’s pretty easy for Americans to avoid buying a Peugeot or Renault, they simply aren’t found here anymore. But what about Cognac—I know it’s French because only brandy made from that region in France can be properly titled Cognac. But who owns the company? In many cases the Cognac producer is simply one component of a multi-national corporation. So, my boycott may be penalizing workers in the Netherlands or Great Britain which has been our staunch policy ally. Now it gets confusing. Well, those Michelin tires can come off the car. But, close examination of the sidewall might disclose that the rubber that’s meeting your road is from Mexico or Brazil. Oops. How does one precisely aim this boycott thing?

And, we’re just beginning to scratch the surface of the nuances of foreign policy. It would be nice to simply say, France-bad, boycott-good. That would leave us feeling warm and fuzzy about “showing them who’s boss.” But a nation isn’t politically in lockstep. A “national” product may or may not be isolated to a particular nation. An economic impact is almost invariably going to create a backlash of some kind. And whether or not the boycott has the desired outcome is pretty dubious.

Meanwhile, I’m drinking Spanish brandy because I prefer it. I’ve put Bridgestone tires on the sports car because they had better performance stats than the Michelins I replaced. I’m still buying French wine, but also Italian, Australian and US as well. My car is Japanese, my clothes are made in Asia usually since they seem to have cornered the market on pants, shirts and associated items, and whether or not French policy gets impacted by my purchases is very low on my list of concerns.

Oh, and by the way, French’s Mustard isn’t French. For that matter it isn’t quite American either, since it is part of a conglomerate that is British-based.