Laura Ingraham’s advertisers aren’t really staging a boycott: It’s a capital strike

Laura Ingraham’s advertisers aren’t really staging a boycott: It’s a capital strike
Laura Ingraham (Image: YouTube screen grab)

[Ed. – We’ll have to remember this for the next time advertisers boycott a liberal outlet.]

The swiftness with which Ingraham has found herself in dire straits has left some perturbed. Commentators have raised concerns about the fairness of boycotts and the threat they pose to free speech; some conservatives have also attempted to initiate counter-boycotts of the companies that have parted ways with Ingraham.

Yet it’s not quite right to classify these advertisers’ decisions as a straightforward boycott. In the context of Ingraham’s long career in right-wing media, sniping at a teenager over college admissions is perhaps one of her less obscene stunts, which suggests it’s unlikely that these companies suddenly grew a collective conscience and decided to bring their expenditures into accord with their morals. It’s more likely that Ingraham is the victim of a capital strike, when investors withdraw or withhold investments en masse because they’ve determined that potential hazards outweigh potential gains.

Remember: Capital is capital; it is not your friend. Conservatives are learning this the hard way, and those on the left shouldn’t forget it, even when companies happen to decide the best bet is the morally correct one.

Trending: People want to know who’s delivering pallets of bricks to protest sites across the U.S.

Continue reading →