To boycott or not to boycott? &c.

On matters of conscience, Ukraine, Russia, Syria, music, language, and more

L ast weekend, Ronna McDaniel — formerly “Ronna Romney McDaniel” — tweeted, “Guess what I am doing today? Not watching baseball!!!!” McDaniel is chairwoman of the Republican National Committee. She used to use her middle name — her maiden name — when it was good for business, so to speak. But then it wasn’t.

Anyway, we are in boycott season. Major League Baseball moved its all-star game from Atlanta, because of changes that Georgia Republicans have made to voting laws. Companies, too, have objected to those changes. Among them are Delta and Coke. So some Republicans are boycotting those companies — or saying they are.

Some boycotters cheat, right? (As in cheating on a diet, or during Lent.) Is Donald J. Trump such a cheater? Apparently, he is guzzling his favorite drink on the sly. To read an article about this, go here.

I must say, I understand boycotters, on all sides. Sometimes you want to take a stand. You want to punish — or at least not contribute to the success of — people and companies you disdain (or that disdain you). I myself have grappled with the boycott issue, over the years.

A long time ago, a friend and I talked about Ben & Jerry’s. This is a lefty company, which makes delicious ice cream. Should we refuse to eat Ben & Jerry’s? My friend and I decided that we were not Communists. We did not want to make everything, including food, political. We were political, for sure — but not totally so. We were human, and, heaven help us, we liked Ben & Jerry’s.

When I was growing up, there was a slogan on the left: “The personal is the political.” Everything under the sun was political: the food you ate, the clothes you wore, the music you listened to, the friendships you formed — what a sorry and wearying way to live.

And yet and yet . . .

Many years ago, I had done a lot of writing on Chinese prison labor. I interviewed a former political prisoner who was made to string Christmas lights in prison. And to put together Homer Simpson bedroom slippers.

I said that, dammit, I was not going to buy any more Made in China products — because there was no way of knowing whether the products came from free labor or coerced labor. Then, one day, it rained. I needed an umbrella. In a downpour, I went to three or four stores. There was not an umbrella — not one — not Made in China.

I gave in, bitterly and self-rebukingly.

For years, there were Jewish Americans who would not buy Ford cars — because of the gross, Hitlerian anti-Semitism of Henry Ford. Then his grandson, “Hank the Deuce,” made up for this in a big, admirable way. I understand the original boycotters. I understand a whole lot of boycotters.

These are judgment calls, and very personal.

Forgetting Ford, we could also talk about Mercedes, BMW, and Volkswagen. Hell, we could also talk about Wagner and Strauss!

In the 1980s, a lot of us were incensed at the Toshiba company. They had transferred submarine technology to the Soviet Union. Some Republican congressmen, on the grounds of the Capitol, took sledgehammers to a Toshiba radio–cassette player. This was dead-serious business.

At some point — early 2000s? — I quit The New Yorker. One article, in particular, had incensed me. Insulted me. Was I right to give it up? I don’t know, it was the way I felt at the time.

I have friends who will not watch football anymore, because of “kneeling.” You recall how Mike Pence went to a game in order to walk out of it. Okay, but be careful: because politics can steal from you the things you love. One day, you aren’t watching football; the next day, you aren’t watching baseball.

Politics can be such a thief: of pastimes, of friendships, of joy. Have you ever had friends drop you because of politics? I have, and it’s painful as hell.

Let me lighten up, slightly, with a tweet from Seth Mandel, of The Washington Examiner: “If you boycott baseball, that’s just more for me.” He added, “May I suggest boycotting chipwiches?” He said that these sweets would find “a truly loving belly, I mean home.”

Seth gave me a memory of maybe 15 years ago. A critic announced that he would no longer attend or review concerts of a certain orchestra. (I could get into the details, but they aren’t necessary here.) A prominent figure in the music business commented to me, “More tickets for the rest of us.”

Speaking of music, I had to make a decision a long time ago: Would I stay away from the concerts of musicians whose politics I abhorred, or whose “personal life” was abhorrent? That might leave me with all too few concerts. And yet, there are some lines you want to draw.

It can be hard to draw such lines. Ultimately, these matters are matters of conscience — I can’t tell you what to do, you can’t tell me what to do. Each of us has his own stomach, his own nose. I am a very political person — too much so, clearly. But I don’t want to be a 24/7 political animal. I don’t want to be a “totalist,” to borrow a Bill Buckley word. I want relief from politics now and then, even when others try to force politics on you, and maybe especially then.

This is a big topic, but maybe I’ve said enough for one day, one Impromptus . . .

• Putin’s Russia is accelerating its war in eastern Ukraine. Ukraine is a proving ground for the democratic West. What will the result be? Some of us aren’t sanguine about it.

Peter Meijer, the new congressman from Michigan, tweeted,

The Russian military buildup near illegally-occupied eastern Ukraine is deeply troubling. It now it appears an offensive to again attack Ukraine may be imminent. Russian provocation and attacks against sovereign nations will not go unanswered.

A commendable statement, a commendable sentiment — but I think those attacks will go unanswered. I also think that the Russian state can kill Alexei Navalny with impunity. For a day or two, there would be tut-tutting — and then, no more.

Bill Browder, the human-rights campaigner, tweeted,

BREAKING: Alexei Navalny moved to prison hospital with severe respiratory infection. This is the next step in Putin’s slow-motion assassination of him. Now that Navalny’s in their custody they can continue this without anyone ever knowing what’s happening.

Yes, Bill saw this happen with his own lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, who had blown the whistle on the Kremlin’s corruption. Following the death of Magnitsky, Bill devoted himself to “Magnitsky acts,” which enable sanctions on individual human-rights abusers.

I might say that I podcasted with Peter Meijer the other day — go here. And for a piece I wrote on Bill Browder — and his remarkable family — go here.

Meanwhile, Putin signed a law — a “law”! — that will allow him to stay in power until 2036. Funny that autocrats think they have to do these things. It is the tribute that vice, or autocracy, pays to virtue, or something. They want to go through the motions. Have their little toy parliaments and so on.

• Sometimes a picture is accurate. Sometimes it is misleading. Sometimes it is worth a thousand words. In the third category, I think, is the picture over this article, from RFE/RL (that combination of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty). The article is headed “Russian Rights Groups Condemn Moscow’s Role In Abuses In Syria.” The picture shows Assad beaming at the Russian defense minister while Putin beams at Assad. Perfect, really.

By the way, both Assad and Putin have considerable support in America — at that weird juncture where Left and Right meet.

• Bob Mundell — Robert A. Mundell — the great, free-market, and iconoclastic economist, has died. For the New York Times, Tom Redburn has written a superb obituary. You can really get to know Mundell, through this obit.

Let me also recommend an obit by Penelope Green. It is of the Vatican’s chief art restorer, Gianluigi Colalucci. It was he who led the restoration of the Sistine Chapel. Young people may not know how controversial this was — hugely controversial. The obit brings it all back.

• A little music? For my “livestream chronicle” in the April New Criterion, go here. I bring up a number of performers, composers, issues. See what you think.

• For Law & Liberty, I wrote a piece looking back at the Weather Underground, and recurring cycles of political violence: here.

• I have done a sportscast, with three of my favorite gurus: Sally Jenkins, the columnist for the Washington Post; David French, senior editor of The Dispatch, who writes and comments sagaciously on almost everything; and Vivek Dave, whom I habitually introduce as “the corporate high-flyer and Motor City bad boy.” His late uncle, Jagdish Danak, one of my dearest friends, used to refer to Vivek as “my personal ESPN dot com.”

At the end of this podcast, I ask, basically, “Why does it hurt so bad when your team loses? So damn bad? Even at a relatively ‘mature’ stage of life?” Sally Jenkins gives a beautiful reflection, on fandom.

• Finish up with a language note? On Twitter, the diplomat Alan Eyre asked for a “ruling” on the word “fulsome.” Does it mean “1. complimentary or flattering to an excessive degree” or “2. of large size or quantity; generous or abundant”? My answer:

Alan, “fulsome” has always been negative, in correct usage. It would be a shame to lose this word. But I think we already have, given the widespread misunderstanding of it. In language, when the people say 2 + 2 = 5, it does. (Math is different!)

Responding to me, Mr. Eyre wrote, “I realize the apparent futility, but am going to continue the fight. As Edith Hamilton wrote, ‘To the heroic, desperate odds fling a challenge.’” Ha, sounds good!

Have a good one, my friends.

If you’d like to receive Impromptus by e-mail — links to new columns — write to jnordlinger@nationalreview.com.