“The CEI isn’t even close to all of the woke pressure on corporations today. The Post notes that it is actually “a lesser-known part of the burgeoning ESG (Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance) “ethical investing” movement increasingly pushed by the country’s top three investment firms.”
So who’s pushing these top three investment firms.
In December I ditched all my investments in Vanguard including my IRA and told them why I was doing it: Because Vanguard was pulling investments in oil and gas drilling and production companies because of ESG pressure. My investments are minuscule compared to institutional ones but I wanted to make a statement.
I know everyone likes fearporn and Soros and Blackrock are the conservatives' boogiemen, like how Halliburton was to liberals during the Dubya era. I also understand it's fashionable to blame wokeness for everything, and to be sure it is a caustic element in society.
But please...Anheiser-Busch was acquired by InBev years ago, and InBev is majority controlled by families. Blackrock could short their stock, and the families could care less.
Further, Kate Spade is a sub of Tapestry, Inc., which is about 7% owned by Blackrock. Nike is also about 7% owned by Blackrock. Does this mean Blackrock can influence these firms? Yes. Does it control them? No, especially if the other 93% of the owners think going woke is stupid.
The reality, is that the overwhelming majority of FReepers are simply not in these firms' target demographic. They don't care about us. The current and future buyers of their sneakers, women's value-priced glasses frames and pocketbooks, and low-priced beer, are basically GenZers and maybe Millenials. That's where the money are.
The geniuses at these firms have made a decision, MAYBE based on research, that making their spokesman the current day equivalent of Divine will appeal to their curstomers AND capture new buyers. Parenthetically, at least Divine was funny and Glen knew Divine was an act.
Maybe some ESG stockholder is asking questions. But stockholders love one thing - increased stock price. Sure, they are also interested in social things, but if the stock price doesn't rise, these firms are possible takeover targets OR management gets fired.
In short, the perception seems to be, that people under 35 (i.e. Their customers) are all-in on this nonsense. It's a fair question, to ask what person in marketing didn't examine the possible blowback on this strategy. It's like when Balenciaga ran that creepy child porn-like advertising campaign. And for what it's worth, most of the folks I know under 35 aren't creeped out by gays but the trans stuff IS very much at WTF kid of thing.
What people on this side of the fence need to ask, is what is the compelling alternative to Divine circa 2023 as a spokesman? What campaign would WE run to sell bad beer, overpriced sneakers, and women's stuff to folks under 35? Because we should have destroyed the Dems in the midterms, and we barely took the House. It's not enough to say "we aren't Bidet or Merrick Garland or Pelosi, and we're not weird."
We need messaging that invigorates, leads, and captivates people. Until then, it's the left that is driving the truck, and keeping us on defense. Stop being a bunch of pantywaists. Stand FOR something.