Whole Foods: An Interesting Situation
According to this Inside Catholic post, Hmmm… a boycott? No thanks. some “liberals” are now going to boycott Whole Foods because the CEO of Whole Foods is not supportive of health care reform. Inside Catholic is referencing to this article on ABC which is reporting the boycott, with people saying they will never shop there again because of the CEO’s position. In response to this, some on Inside Catholic suggest they will go against the protest and help support the company, and ponder whether or not “tea baggers” will now get organic tea from Whole Foods.
Now here is the twist: Pro Life Groups have long been targetting Whole Foods with a boycott because of its tremendous support of Planned Parenthood. One such boycott notice can be read here .
Question: which issue will be seen as more important? Being in solidarity with Whole Foods because it rejects health care reform, or being in solidarity with pro life groups in boycott of Whole Foods?
Comments are closed.
The founder of Whole Foods is a disciple of Ayn Rand, hence the fiscal conservatism combined with a pro-choice ethic.
My experience is that when christian-americans have to choose between Ayn Rand and the Gospel, they tend to side with Rand.
i guess we’ll see.
It would be funny to see all these readers of Inside Catholic (and other Catholic republicans) stepping into a Whole Foods for the first time in their lives. They wouldn’t even know what half the stuff is.
“Seitan?! What the hell is that?!”
Good find, by the way, Henry.
What I cannot gather is whether the InsideCatholic man is against health care reform generally, based upon some ideology, or against what he believes are particulars in proposed bills that hit on grave issues, like abortion…
Ayn Rand IS the Gospel for certain folks.
Many a conservative men have as their fondest adolescent memories secretly reading Atlas Shrugged into the wee hours of the morning, with their portable flashlights burning.
This is why I only eat parsnips grown in my backyard and small insects that I scrape off strips of tree bark.
I have long boycotted Whole Foods. It is viciously anti-union. They are clear their opposition to health care reform is based on libertarianism not the possibility abortion might be covered.
It is interesting and telling that Inside Catholic would actively call on folks to support a proponent of health care libertartianism.
Inside Catholic was formerly Crisis magazine. I’m not surprised at the view expressed on health care at all. The fact that it moved from a print magazine to an online rag seems to indicate their readers are dwindling, though, so I am hopeful.
Reading more replies on IC, I am seeing that many are indeed looking as this is a good excuse to ignore “some stores” supporting PP (that’s how they justify it, some of the stores do it, so it is not universal). Of course, this kind of logic I actually support. The idea that you go there means you are supporting PP is absurd. But the reason they go for this is not because they see this as a logic against their election argument (which imo, it is) but it is because, for some, stopping health care reform is more important.
Three points.
First, Mackey isn’t opposed to health care reform. If you read his op-ed he proposes a number of ways to reform the health care system. He’s just not a proponent of ObamaCare (if you can’t distinguish between someone who opposes ObamaCare and someone who opposes health care reform, then you have a problem).
Second, Mackey isn’t opposed to all unions. He is, for example, a strong advocate of company unions, which are illegal under current law. He’s not a fan of the adversarial based unions common in America, but he’s hardly alone in that.
Third, if you want to join in solidarity with pro-life groups, you might start by opposing Obama and his health care proposal (I’m sure if you asked these groups which was more important, not shopping at Whole Foods or stopping ObamaCare, they’d say the latter).
BA
1) When talking about health care reform, we must of course agree there are different kinds of reform. But the kind of reform which CST suggests and the kind which Mackey suggests are not one and the same, and the people who are backing Mackey are doing so because he is rejecting the general idea of health care reform which CST which suggest (not of course all the specifics).
2) Obama’s health care has been misrepresented on many levels by people already rejecting it before any specifics were put out, stretching ideas to extreme, ignoring that what they are saying are “bad” are already in the system (and far worse!) than what Obama would give.
3) To be pro-life is more than to be anti-abortion; as Cardinal Dulles pointed out, one can support a health care package despite what it funds for abortion without being anti pro-life; but I think those who reject the general idea of health care being moved out of private corporations are doing so contra to pro-life principles.
BA,
“Health care reform” as shorthand for this moment in American history’s leading reform proposal is an imperfect term, but scads more acceptable and proper than the pejorative “ObamaCare.” Had you made the first point without going on to use the pejorative, I might have bothered reading your other two points.
the kind of reform which CST suggests and the kind which Mackey suggests are not one and the same, and the people who are backing Mackey are doing so because he is rejecting the general idea of health care reform which CST which suggest (not of course all the specifics
Which parts of what Mackey suggests are, in your view, inconsistent with CST?
as Cardinal Dulles pointed out, one can support a health care package despite what it funds for abortion without being anti pro-life
Cardinal Dulles said that, did he?
BA
Of course I was taking Dulles’ statement and paraphrasing it, but here is the whole of it “To vote for an appropriations bill that includes some provisions for funding abortions would not be so gravely sinful as to warrant excommunication under Canon 1398. The vote might arguably be licit if the funding for abortion were only incidental and could not be removed from a bill that was otherwise very desirable.” With the importance of health care reform, and the questionable aspect of how much the bill really deals with abortion, I would say this is a time of such licitness.
As for CST — it’s not supportive of Rand.
Henry,
Okay, so Dulles didn’t actually say that. In the future you should be more careful in how you phrase things.
I’ve read Mackey’s op-ed and I confess I can’t find the references to Ayn Rand. If you think that Mackey’s proposals are inconsistent with CST you should be able to say why you think this. Simply noting that he likes Ayn Rand doesn’t cut it.
BA
If you can’t understand how Dulles’ point is that one CAN vote for something despite its support for abortion, than the problem is yours, not mine. Indeed, I had already done a discussion on this, which therefore explains my use here.
Second, if you can’t see how Mackey’s rejection of health care reform stems from his Randist ideology, and how his views do not support but hinder those in need, again, the problem is yours.
The Dulles quote seems pretty straight forward.
So much of this stuff is straight forward. There seems to be a wide-spread impulse to reject prudential reasoning.
FWIW, Mackey recently distanced himself from “Randian” capitalism by claiming a philosophy of what he called “conscious capitalism” which he claimed is all “…about seeking a greater purpose.” This was at FreedomFest; here’s a link.
Most Randians end up making moves like that.
Michael I
And it follows with their own understanding of ethics given to them by Rand; they always look to find ways to suggest they “promote virtue” by their selfishness.
Yes, we shouldn’t take him at his word. Why accept what the historical Mackey says when then Mackey of faith is so much better a target for our scorn?
And it seems “conscious capitalism” still includes union-busting as a cardinal point. It is okay to fire an employee who dares to desire a union.
Pauli – I have no doubt he is being sincere.
If you can’t understand how Dulles’ point is that one CAN vote for something despite its support for abortion
You said that Dulles said X when in fact he said Y. Maybe you think that Y implies X, and if so you are free to argue this. But you shouldn’t say that Dulles said X.
if you can’t see how Mackey’s rejection of health care reform stems from his Randist ideology, and how his views do not support but hinder those in need, again, the problem is yours.
Mackey doesn’t reject health care reform. The op-ed in question actually lays out his proposals for reform (he rejects Obama’s proposal, but this can’t be equated with health care reform as such). Maybe Mackey is motivated in his health care views by Rand and maybe not. Who knows, and more importantly, who cares? People can support the same proposal out of a variety of different motivations. The question is what there in what Mackey proposes that is inconsistent with CST. That you repeatedly decline to address this question suggests that you have no answer.
The question is what there in what Mackey proposes that is inconsistent with CST.
Mackey seeks to fund abortions. (tssutrw)
Kurt Kurt Kurt, don’t you realize that Cardinal Dulles said there’s needn’t be anything contrary to CST in funding abortions?
Seriously, though, I must have missed the part in Mackey’s op-ed where he says we should fund abortion. If you could point it out to me, I would be most grateful.
If you think that Mackey’s proposals are inconsistent with CST you should be able to say why you think this. Simply noting that he likes Ayn Rand doesn’t cut it.
Indeed, I recall Henry signing a different tune when it came to considering the views of a self-professed Marxist such as Slavoj Žižek. But then, this is Vox-Nova, after all. Allowances must be made.
BA,
Read it again and think hard.