And yet, corporations at least seem to be liberal. Big businesses regularly host diversity seminars, publicize their support for LGBT acceptance movements, and, as of recently, some have started openly supporting race-based affirmative action and backing left-wing social movements such as Black Lives Matter. There is no equivalent outreach to conservative movements from big business. So, are large corporations truly “progressive”? Have the CEOs of America’s largest companies become committed supporters of social justice and the redistribution of wealth?
No, of course not. When we see big businesses in America show support for traditionally liberal causes, it is all a cost-benefit calculation. Supporting liberal social causes—particularly identity politics—is the most reliable way to attract young, urban customers with little risk to their bottom line.
This summer, McDonald’s tweeted its support for the Black Lives Matter movement and “social justice.” Yet, the McDonald’s branch in Azerbaijan has tweeted support for the suppression of ethnic Armenians in their disputed homeland. Google fired an employee for expressing conservative-leaning views on gender roles—after he was asked for his opinion on the issue. Yet, Google has enthusiastically aided China, an authoritarian dictatorship, in creating a censored search engine.
Examples like this show us that, when practical, countless corporations will abandon liberal principles to aid their bottom line. The defining interests of corporations continues to be making money, so this should not be too surprising.
But why does big business support progressive causes in the first place?
Corporations want consumers. They want talented employees. But a sufficiently large corporation wants cultural relevance as well; they want the trendsetters and the well-connected to both buy from them and work for them. Corporate America has calculated that that cultural relevance is centered in coastal, liberal, and urban areas. They have calculated that the “cool” people live in big cities, not the rest of America. And in response, they publicize support for causes that they believe to be more popular in those areas rather than in the Bible Belt or Middle America.
Arguably more important is to look at the issues that big business entities are not supporting: $15 minimum wages, increased taxes on the wealthy, etc.; corporations remain silent on issues that could actually lose them money. But identity politics, increased immigration, and LGBT acceptance all offer perceived potential monetary, social, and cultural gains, so naturally those just happened to be the issues that many corporations engage with and promote.
In a warped sense, big business is killing two birds with one stone. Not only do they ignore progressive policies that could hurt their profits, but by indulging in liberal causes that do them no harm—identity politics in particular—they could very well be distracting young liberals and leftists from opposing big business or seeking action on bottom line-threatening policies in the first place.
A liberal focused on gay marriage is less likely to be a liberal focused on regulating big business. A socialist focused on “people of color” is a socialist not focused on the working class as a whole. In an ironic twist, corporations acting “liberal” might end up hurting the radical left more than anyone else. So let us not be surprised when we find out that when businesses extoll liberal views, it is still just a business decision.
Ty Usey is a senior at Jackson Preparatory School. He is interested in economics, engineering, and he participates in cross country, chess team, and quiz bowl.