Corporations and the Culture Wars

                A commentary

                By J.F. Kelly, Jr.

                Why is it that some who enjoy celebrity status like popular rock stars, actors, athletes, other billionaires and, lately it seems, CEOs of large corporations, sometimes feel that they have some special qualification by virtue of their career success to issue public pronouncements on social issues that divide the country? They, of course, have a perfect right like any other citizen to do so but for CEOs it could be bad for business, especially when the public is more or less evenly split on hot, push-button issues. But when they do, they should expect pushback.

                It’s always been common, and properly so, for CEOs and other corporate executives to lobby legislators and to campaign in favor of business-friendly laws and regulations and against those that are bad for business. But, for the most part, they have historically avoided taking public stands on contentious issues for fear of alienating some customers, shareholders and other stakeholders. Engaging in the culture wars as a method of virtue signaling can be particularly risky. Better to stick to the knitting, as we used to say in business school, and focus on what they presumably do best and are paid handsomely to do well which is running the business, complying with applicable laws, and hopefully producing a product that customers want, resulting in profit for the owners of the business which is to say, the shareholders. As evenly divided as Americans are on such issues as abortion, voting procedures, what our children should or should not be taught in school, etc., why should any CEO or business executive risk alienating as many as half of the company’s stakeholders?

                When the Georgia state legislature recently revised its election laws, which it had every right to do under the Constitution and which many states also did, the changes were characterized by the liberal media as being more restrictive of minority voting access. They were, in fact, less restrictive than the voting laws in many reliably Democratic states including President Joe Biden’s home state of Delaware, but the narrative nevertheless persisted. Some companies based in Atlanta, including Delta Airlines and Coca-Cola, protested the voting laws. Said Delta’s CEO, “The voting laws do not match Delta’s values.” I doubt that many of Delta’s customers were aware that the company’s values included positions on Georgia’s voting laws. Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred was so upset by the changes that he moved the 2021 All-star Game out of Atlanta, a move that only punished the local economy including the vendors and workers involved, not to mention the fans who planned on attending the game in Atlanta. Said the Commissioner, “Fair access to voting continues to have our game’s unwavering support.” Who knew “the game” had a position on such matters?

                In Arkansas, legislation to block gender transition treatment of children was strongly opposed by some companies intent on virtue signaling. And in Florida, some employees of the Walt Disney Company decided that they didn’t agree with Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Law which bars instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in grades 1 through 3 and limits such instruction to age-appropriate material beyond third grade. Apparently, employees determine the company’s position on such matters because the CEO caved, publicly opposing the law and promising a fight to repeal it. This didn’t go over at all well with the Florida legislature which responded by drafting a bill which Gov. Ron DeSantis signed that terminated the special tax district that had allowed Disney to virtually self-govern the land on which its theme parks, resorts, hotels and other businesses sit with significant tax consequences for Disney.

                 Said Gov. DeSantis, “You’re a corporation based in Burbank, California, and you’re going to marshal your economic might to attack the parents of my state? We view that as provocative and we’re going to fight back against that.” So far as I know, neither Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Goofy nor any other influential cast members in the Magic Kingdom has responded. CEOs that engage in the culture wars should not be surprised by pushback which may impact the bottom line.

                A recent full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal paid for by something called “Empire State Development” announced that “reproductive rights and equality have always found a home in New York State and your business should, too. From immigrants and LGBTQ+ rights to women’s reproductive rights New York State has been and will always be on the right side of history and welcomes and supports companies who share in these beliefs. If you’re a company that truly values your workers’ health protections and right to access abortion care, you should move to a state that does, too.”

                That would be New York. However, those businesses planning to move there may notice a whole lot of traffic fleeing the state. That would be because of one of the highest tax rates in the nation with a crime rate to match. These things just seem to go together in Democrat-run states and cities.

                With Americans suffering greatly from inflation, liberal politicians are looking for someone else to blame and the usual targets are those greedy corporations which they accuse of price-gouging. Of course, their own profligate, progressive-pushed spending is the last thing they would blame. But companies are not in business to lose money, or to solve inflation problems caused by politicians who spend too much of other people’s money with little to show for it. Engaging in the culture wars and virtue signaling is the very last thing CEOs should be doing now. Best to stick to the knitting.

May 25, 2022

Keeping Up Appearances

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                This was going to be another column on the abortion issue, but there’s been enough of these already and none of them is likely to change many minds. Besides, I’m really not qualified to pontificate on the subject since I’m not a female, er, berthing person, and I’ve never been pregnant, although who knows what might be possible in this novel new world of gender identity flexibility. Instead, this will be a rant on a subject closer to my modest area of expertise: ships and military uniforms,

                My qualifications for presuming to write on this topic include over 30 years of active military service, command of three warships, serving as executive officer of two others and service in the Pentagon. In Washington we usually wore our uniforms only on Wednesday which was commonly referred to as war-suit Wednesday, and on special occasions. There were three likely reasons for this, first to blend in with the civil servants and avoid intimidating them with symbols of high rank, second to avoid visible reminders that there are a whole lot of military officers stationed in Washington, and third to ensure that the uniforms still fit. I loved wearing the uniform of my country and my branch of service and was always proud to wear it in public, even when we were referred to as baby-killers by some Vietnam War protestors and dared by fellow Harvard students to walk across Harvard Yard in my service dress blues.

                I also delighted in showing my off my ships to visitors in both foreign and domestic ports. I always felt that our ship was the best-looking warship on the waterfront and thought that the taxpayers should get a chance to see and be proud of what their tax dollars bought and that foreign visitors would be impressed. I would regularly volunteer to be open for general visiting on holidays and would volunteer for port visit assignments, with the enthusiastic support, I might add, from almost all the crew (you can’t please everyone) who also liked to show off their ship. I also knew that the crew would be treated like royalty during those port visits and would make many new friends for the navy.

                Which brings me to the first topic. Recently, the navy’s top officer, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday, complained about navy ships returning to port covered with rust. The admiral was quoted as saying, “Rust-free ships are critical for deterrence and naval readiness.” Added the U.S. Naval Institute’s retired Vice-Adm. Peter H. Daly, “You have to look like you mean business.” Quite so. Rust and corrosion, as every sailor should know, are among a ship’s worse enemies.

                The issue was raised after pictures of rusty-looking navy ships showed up on the internet. One of the worst examples was the supply ship USNS Alan Sheppard, a civilian-manned Military Sealift Command ship that was photographed in the Strait of Singapore looking, worn, tired and streaked with rust, according to reports. “The nonchalant attitude many are taking to the physical condition of the public-facing part of the navy is, in a word, disgraceful,” said one former surface navy officer. Said another, “We have become the worse-looking navy in the world.”

                Over-reaction? I don’t think so. Appearance matters. Would you feel comfortable boarding an airliner for, say, a trans-oceanic flight, with streaks of rust on the wing and fuselage or a cruise ship with running rust all over the hull and superstructure? And everyone knows a clean car, inside and out runs better. Why? Because it usually means that it’s also well-maintained by an owner who is fond of his vehicle and cares for it tenderly. I know from years of experience that with ships there is a high positive correlation between appearance and performance and also between appearance and crew morale. No sailor wants to serve in a rust bucket.

                Then there is the matter of personal appearance and the image that it projects to the public. I won’t presume to speak for the other services, but the navy has been through countless uniform revisions since I wore bell-bottoms as an officer candidate. Each change, in my opinion, has made matters worse. Would that the time and energy spent on surveys and designing new uniforms been spent instead on designing ships that actually work unlike the low-end disasters such as the patrol hydrofoil ships of the Zumwalt era and the littoral combat ships (LCSs) of the recent era.

                Why are sailors appearing in public places dressed like desert warriors just in from combat? Why, instead, don’t they dress like professional mariners like they used to? Why are they wearing camouflage in our cities when they are nowhere near a combat zone, unless you count the gang warfare occurring regularly in Democrat-run major cities? Why are they wearing clothing apparently intended to conceal them from—what?  And there appears to be a great effort to conceal their rank, displayed only on their chest, nearly hidden amidst the camouflage background so that it’s difficult to distinguish a petty officer’s eagle form a captain’s rank device without getting really close and squinting at the wearer’s chest which must make females feels somewhat uncomfortable. The original blue and white cammies blended with a blue sea and made it difficult to discern a sailor in the water who had fallen overboard. The later color variations weren’t much better in a green-colored sea.

                We managed to get through World War II and Vietnam dressed like military professionals in public, not in loosely-fitting pajama-like garments. Even during the war, appearance mattered. We are, fortunately, not at war now and yet our sailors dress like they are. Appearance matters. In March, 1943, when we were indeed at war, halfway through the North Africa campaign, Lt. Gen. George S. Patton assumed front-line command. Among his first orders was, “Every man who is old enough will shave every day. Officers will wear (neck)ties into combat. And anyone (not wearing) a steel helmet will be shot (presumably he meant by a German sniper, not by him). According to Stephen L. Moore, author of “Patton’s Payback”, recently reviewed by Daniel Ford in a Wall Street Journal book review, Patton seldom appeared without a tie, steel helmet, cavalry breeches, knee-high boots and a pair of ivory-handled pistols on his hips. In spite of pleas by his staff, he never concealed the three stars denoting his rank which made him a prime target. He wanted to be subject to the same risks as his soldiers who carried rifles, making them targets as well.        

                Patton was not a kindly, magnanimous leader, but he loved his soldiers and famously said that he did not want his men not to die for their country but to make the enemy die for his. The Germans considered him the most capable and feared general they faced. No one is suggesting that we return to his style of military dress (although the pearl-handled pistols sound rather cool), but there’s an important lesson in his legend. Appearances matter.

May 15, 2022

The Great Abortion Divide

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Abortion, even more than immigration, is the most polarizing issue in America today because of the stark conflict it presents between two basic rights: the right of an unborn child to life and the right of a woman to control what is happening within her own body. Women have a perfect right to (peacefully) defend that right and to vigorously protest laws that would deny or restrict it and anyone has a right as well to defend, peacefully, the right of the unborn child to live. There are complex moral, religious, health and emotional issues on each side and compromise is difficult at best and for some, impossible. It threatens to divide the country as no issue has since the days of slavery leading up to the secession of the Confederate states and the Civil War, the bloodiest in our history, that turned neighbor against neighbor and was fought over, not only slavery, but the balance in Congress between slaveholding states and free states and the right of states to secede from the union.

                There isn’t much question anymore as to when human life begins. It begins with conception. The Constitution is silent on the matter of abortion, but the Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. In abortion, the unborn child is deprived of life. If deprived of legal access to abortion and forced to carry a baby to term, it can be argued, surely, that a woman is deprived of a degree of liberty. Although most polls show a majority of Americans favor retaining the right to legal abortions with some restrictions, most would probably also agree that the right to life is the most precious of the freedoms. In any case, the Fourteenth Amendment language against depriving persons of life or liberty is directed, not at the federal government or U. S. Supreme Court, but at the individual states.

The Tenth Amendment states that powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states, respectively. We are, it should be remembered, a union of states with certain rights prescribed by the Constitution, not simply a monolithic entity. The individual state legislatures have the power to enact legislation pertaining to persons within the state, as long as it is not in conflict with the Constitution, including life and liberty issues such as, for example, capital punishment and physician-assisted suicide. There doesn’t appear to be much disagreement, then, at least among serious law scholars, that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and that abortion law is properly the responsibility of the individual states. It is, therefore, up to the voters of each state to make their wishes known to their elected representatives regarding laws they want enacted. If a majority of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court believe that a case was wrongly decided and is in conflict with the Constitution, then, clearly, the proper recourse is for them to reconsider that decision rather than continuing to live with a flawed one. That may not be a popular course of action for everyone but it is the proper one.

 For those who disagree, their fury is wrongly directed at the U.S. Supreme Court. They should make their feelings known to their elected state representatives and, if they wish, to their U.S. representatives in Congress. In fact, Congress will consider drafting a federal law protecting abortion rights although it hasn’t a chance of passing, given the ideological deadlock on this issue and the opposition of nearly half the states.

The leaking of Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s preliminary draft has caused a popular uproar and a public meltdown by such as Sens. Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, They warn of dire consequences and further restrictions to come from the court such as restrictions on gay rights or inter-racial marriage, although the draft made clear that only abortion was in question. The leak occurred just as the mid-term election campaigns were beginning which will determine control of the Congress. The timing is probably not a coincidence, creating the suspicion at least that it was leaked by a law clerk of liberal persuasion with the intention of firing up pro-abortion Democrats, particularly women, in order to salvage the mid-term elections where Democrats have lagged in the polls. There’s a good chance that this strategy will work by winning most of the female vote. The leak will damage the trust and integrity of the court and the leaker needs to be exposed but the damage is already done and the majority of voters may be decisively influenced by this single hot button issue alone.

The draft, as everyone should know by now, is not the final decision but it was authentic and the eventual outcome seems pretty predictable. The six conservative judges can’t cave in to noisy demonstrations and threats without losing all credibility. But no one who was following the news should have been surprised by the contents of the draft. The court had been considering this matter for months and given the conservative tilt of the court, the outcome shouldn’t have been much in doubt. Nearly half the states already have legislation in place or about to be triggered by the court’s decision expected in June.

Meanwhile in more than a dozen states such as New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut and, of course, California, where just about anything goes, nothing much will change. Abortion will still be legal. Some states will allow abortion on demand, even as a method of birth control. It will be up to the citizens in each state to decide, which is where the matter belongs, not to unelected justices in Washington. California will proclaim itself as an abortion sanctuary, even offering financial aid to those who want to travel to the Golden State for their legal abortion. On the other hand, at least two states may pass legislation charging illegal abortion providers with homicide.

  Republicans have minimized the threat that this issue will pose to their chances to score big gains in the mid-term elections and capture the House and the Senate but they would be wise to take it very seriously. Timing is everything. Instead of focusing on issues like the need for change in our Democrat-run, crime-filled, drug-infested, homeless-populated cities, with chaos at the border, inflation out of control and the threat of war, the focus may instead be on abortion.

May 7, 2022