Nancy Solomon: This is The Takeaway. I'm Nancy Solomon, a reporter in the WNYC newsroom in for Tanzina Vega all week.

Speaker 1: Secure accessible, fair elections are worth the threats. They are worth the boycotts, as well as the lawsuit.

Nancy: Republican lawmakers across the US have introduced more than 360 bills that aim to restrict voting rights. In Georgia, Republican governor Brian Kemp recently signed into law SB 202, an election bill that has been accused of placing restrictions on voters after Democrats flipped the state blue for the first time in almost 30 years. The law reduces access to drop-boxes, slims the absentee voting window, bars sending out unsolicited absentee ballots, and criminalizes giving food and water to voters in line. Its critics, including President Biden, have referred to the bill as.

President Biden: Jim Crow laws.

Nancy: Civil rights groups and Democrats vocally opposed the bill and corporations joined them. Georgia-based Delta Airlines and Coca-Cola said the law was unacceptable and based on a lie and major league baseball decided to relocate their all-star game from Georgia to Colorado.

Speaker 2: In the middle of a pandemic major league baseball putting the wishes of Stacey Abrams and Joe Biden ahead of the Economic well-being of hard work and Georgians who were counting on the all-star game for a pay-check.

Speaker 3: We've not asked corporations to take specific actions. When there are laws in place that make it harder we certainly express an opposition to those laws.

Nancy: In Texas, where a number of restrictive bills have been introduced in the state legislature. Houston based American airlines has voiced their opposition.

Speaker 4: My advice to the corporate CEOs of America is to stay out of politics. Don't pick sides in these big fights.

Nancy: Senator Mitch McConnell retaliated by accusing corporations of behaving like a woke parallel government and former president Trump has called for a boycott of companies that have spoken out against Georgia's new law.

Trump: Today, you don't even know what the hell you're watching. I would say boycott baseball. Why not?

Nancy: With me now is Nicholas Pearce, Clinical Professor of Management and Organizations at Northwestern University's Kellogg school of management. Hi Nicholas.

Nicholas Pearce: Hello. How are you?

Nancy: Good. Thanks for joining us. We also have Frank Guridy and associate professor of history and African-American studies at Columbia University. Thanks for coming on Frank.

Frank Guridy: It's a pleasure to be here.

Nancy: Nicholas, let's start with you. The actions by these corporations, what pressure was brought to bear on them before they took their stand on these voting restrictions?

Nicholas: Many organizations are under increasing pressure to pay attention to what's taking place in the public square. Recognizing that remaining silent is no longer an option has thrust many of these organizations into ever faster, ever more decisive actions, such as the decision that major league baseball made to move their all-star game out of Atlanta.

Nancy: In response to the corporations, taking a stand against restrictive voting laws. Senator Mitch McConnell said this,

Senator Mitch McConnell: My warning, if you will, to corporate America is to stay out of politics. It's not what you were designed for, and don't be intimidated by the left and to taking up causes that puts you right in the middle of one of America's greatest political debates.

Nancy: Nicholas, what do you make of his statement?

Nicholas: I think that a true understanding of what politics are all about reveals that politics actually comes from the Greek word that refers to that which is of the people in the public square. Thus, any organization that has people in it has to concern itself with those things that are taking place in the public square that impact their people and their ability to make good on their mission and corporate objectives. Any type of action that an organization makes has political consequences, whether it is left-leaning, right-leaning, or fully centered.

I think it is a bit disingenuous and selectively beneficial for the Senator to suggest that corporations stay out of anti-Republican politics. Whereas, he might be more inclined to invite them to participate in anti-democratic politics.

Nancy: How are the companies responding so far to McConnell and Trump and the Republican party pushing back on them?

Nicholas: Some organizations that are trying to figure out whether they want to dip their toe in the water of equity and social justice efforts are probably thinking twice after that thinly veiled threat of political retaliation from the Senator. However, those organizations that are well on their way in their diversity equity, inclusion and social justice journey will look at that comment as a thin veneer of threat that will not deter them from their commitments.

Nancy: Frank, let's bring you in. I'm wondering how we should be thinking about this term woke corporation. Does this have real meaning or is it just an insult intended to gin up the Republican base?

Frank: I'm inclined to say that the latter is true, that this is rhetoric right from the leadership of the Republican party because these corporations are responding to the movement to reinvigorate democracy in this country, which has taken a variety of forms. One, of the movement for Black lives, which is highlighted the brutalization of black people by police departments across the country. Then the grassroots movement to push back against this long history of voter suppression in places like Georgia and Texas and elsewhere. The corporations are responding to the movements in the streets, right?

This notion that they are driving what's happening now in terms of pushing back against voter suppression is a mischaracterization. I think that's consistent with what we've seen certainly over the last year, where we've seen the corporate responses to the movement for Black lives and at a greater emphasis on promoting our equity and inclusion in these companies.

Nancy: Is boycotting something that we see from both the right and the left throughout US history? The effective campaigns that come to mind, in my mind at least, tend to be progressive ones like the Montgomery bus boycott during the civil rights movement or the fight against apartheid in South Africa. What we're seeing now from the Republicans, is that an outlier or have they done this throughout history too?

Frank: I think it's mostly an outlier because the Republican party throughout its history, and certainly since the civil rights era and certainly since the election of Richard Nixon, has been firmly tied to corporate interests in this society. What's making this moment interesting is that if you look at the Republican coalition since then, three core constituencies have been corporate interests, have been the movements against desegregation in the South and elsewhere, so white grievance politics, and evangelic Christianity. I think with the election of Trump has done is that it's severed or destabilized this coalition, right?

To support the Republican party, you have to go along with these movements that are pushing anti-democratic movements like what we've seen in Georgia and elsewhere, right? The mythology around the 2020 election being a hoax. That's what's interesting about this time that I think is distinct, right? We're seeing a real destabilization, I think, in this coalition, which has really driven Republican party politics. It's going to be interesting to see what happens as corporations will continue to face this predicament as politics remains polarized.

Nancy: There were so many times during the four years of the Trump administration when I think the prognostications were, "This is going to be the end of the Republican party. They can't do this." Then they did, and it wasn't the end. I wonder if this is another nail in its coffin or whether it's a reinvigorating move.

Frank: I'm hesitant to say that it's the end we've. A lot of people have been talking about the end of the Republican party. I'm not suggesting that at all, because we've seen how dangerously close they become to establishing more authoritarian policies in our country. They're still really very much about circumscribing the vote to ensure that they remain in power by any means necessary. That's their number one policy objective, and stoking white supremacist, white grievance politics to pursue that goal. That's their fundamental goal. If it means alienating corporate interests, it seems like right now that they're willing to do so.

I think that even though the whole discussion around major league baseball is interesting, because there's plenty of precedents of professional leagues doing this before, right? When Arizona refused to adopt the Martin Luther King Day holiday in the 1980s, the NFL threatened and then pulled out the Superbowl from Arizona. Then once that was done, soon thereafter, Arizona adopted the holiday and the NFL brought the Superbowl to Arizona in 1996. This is not unprecedented at all in terms of professional sports league doing this, standing for policies that are really for democracy that most people want.

Nancy: Nicholas, what do you think about this criticism that moving the all-star game is going to hurt working people in Georgia because of the loss of income there because of what a big driver that game would be for the economy?

Nicholas: It's certainly true that there will be small business owners and others who were looking to benefit economically from the all-star game being in Atlanta. It's not only major league baseball and the players that benefit. There are hotels that benefit, there are restaurants that benefit and a whole host of other workers who would stand to see a tremendous economic benefit. However, at the same time, I think that major league baseball is recognizing that they have to make a statement that is sufficiently bold and that is sufficiently swift, to counteract the narrative that they are silently consenting to the infringement of voter protections.

It is challenging for workers in Atlanta and at the same time, I do think the message has been received in the government of Georgia that major league baseball or other major corporations, as we've noted, are not standing idly by and will bring economic consequences to the state of Georgia, which ultimately will roll up to taxation consequences for the state.

Nancy: Do you think it could hurt baseball? So much of the fanbase has been white America versus football and basketball being more popular among the Black community.

Nicholas: I do not believe that any backlash or retaliation against baseball will be long lasting or ultimately detrimental. That this will be a chapter in which major league baseball will come out looking on the right side of history and they will continue playing baseball.

Nancy: Nicholas, in general, how do you even gauge the success of a boycott ? If these boycotts really take off, how likely are they to succeed?

Nicholas: Sometimes it can be very difficult to ascertain the success of a boycott. If you look even historically at one of the most famous boycotts, the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott, that was such an integral part of the civil rights movement. It certainly achieved its goal, as the Supreme Court ultimately struck down segregation in busing over a year after the boycott started. However, it was over a year after the boycott started. Sometimes the tale will be told in years, not days. Other times it may be in months and weeks. It's very, very challenging to tell sometimes. If we hold them all to the same metric, sometimes it really does take a while to figure out whether such collective action has had its desired effect.

Nancy: After the CEO of Georgia-based Delta airlines said the state's new voting law was unacceptable, the state house Republicans there voted to rescind a $35 million fuel tax benefit. Delta is still holding on to the tax break because the state Senate didn't actually consider it before adjourning in the end,, but that's a pretty big shot against the bow of a company, Nicholas, isn't it?

Nicholas: It is a pretty big shot. However, as Frank mentioned, the relationship between the Republican party and corporate interests is long and well-documented, thus it would be tantamount to shooting its own self in the foot. Any retaliation of this sort, I believe, will be ultimately short-lived and will actually backfire if it is ever enacted. Some of this is more bark than bite.

Nancy: Well, let's talk more about the history of boycotts in the US. Of course there are many examples where consumers have been able to demand concessions, like the civil rights movement. Frank, tell us what has been the success or failures of boycott movements overall?

Frank: It's just following what Nicholas was saying. Boycotts have worked best when they are one of a number of strategies employed by a grassroots social movement, right? The Montgomery bus boycott example is a great example of a ongoing Black freedom struggle that was taking shape, yet again, in the 1950s. That boycott issue, the segregation of the buses in Montgomery was just the issue that galvanized the movement in that state. That was successful even though Nicholas is right, it took a long time for that victory to be won, but it was one a year later.

The other example of course is the Delano grape boycott, which was impelled by the United farm workers movement in California in the mid 1960s. Again, the boycott was one strategy of a number of strategies used by that union to beat back against the discriminatory and explorative practices of the California growers. When you look at the same thing with the anti-apartheid struggle, they're not successful when generated from the top, unless you're looking at things like economic sanctions of one government against another. Those things can have certain effects in terms of foreign policy.

That's why I'm inclined to agree with Nicholas, that I don't see this as having a whole lot of bite, the Republicans' efforts to generate a reaction against corporate interests because there isn't a mass movement against the restriction of the franchise in our country. This is totally a political calculus being made by the Republican party leadership. That's why I'm inclined to think that it will be like many boycotts efforts that are not an outgrowth of a movement. In fact, this strategy is a reaction to the grassroots movement to reinvigorate democracy right now in our time.

Nancy: It sounds you don't see this as having a lot of potential to shift public opinion. This could become, it could move from Republican leadership to the base if they're able to successfully use it to build public opinion and build opposition to Democrats. Especially in, dare I say, we start talking about the run-up to the midterm elections. Do you see it having that potential to start to motivate their base?

Frank: It certainly could, just like the myths around the 2020 election could, which was assaulted in the disaster of January 6th earlier this year. There's no question that this plays well to the base, but the base is significant. It's certainly is, I'm not trying to diminish that at all. It certainly will play a role in politics as we move forward, but it's just one of a number of strategies. From this to the reaction to Dr. Seuss, these cultural wars that they fight are just a way to reaffirm their base, but not expand it necessarily.

Nancy: Frank, what do you see in terms of this tight rope that organizations or businesses have to navigate between what has become this increasingly polarized political state that we're in?

Frank: It's not just corporations, it's all institutions. What has happened in reaction to the movement for Black lives, but again efforts to beat back democracy in our society is that people are going to have to make choices, institutions have to make choices. Are they going to choose to side with movements that are really trying to ensure that we actually have a democracy in our society or are they going to ally themselves with the fascistic elements? I don't use that word loosely. That's what makes this moment fascinating as a scholar, I am scholar of social movements and in US history, is to see that, yet again, we seem to be in a, I hate to use this overused word, an unprecedented moment in us politics in a lot of ways.

That's going to be the predicament that every institution is facing, from corporate interests or universities like where I work at. We're in the moment of a great reckoning and it's going to be interesting to see how this will transpire.

Nancy: Nicholas Pearce is a Clinical Professor of Management and organizations at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. Frank Guridy is an associate professor of history at Columbia University. Thanks so much to both of you.

Frank: Thank you.

NICHOLAS: Thank you for having me.

Copyright © 2021 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.