Australia: Coopers controversy: Less politics, more beer please

THERE is a simple and elegant solution to the problem of people being annoyed by brewers doing promotional deals with the Bible Society, or phone companies waving the rainbow flag for gay marriage: Stop listening. Stop caring.

Stop paying attention to anything that a business has to say about anything that is not connected to its core business.

If a manufacturer wants to make noise about trade policy or the price of electricity, fair enough, that’s bread and ­butter stuff. But if that same company decides to start playing in the social policy arena, the most appropriate response is to say “what would they know?” and move on.

In a healthy society people can have disagreements with one another and still do business together. Likewise, in an ideal world companies would stick to ­providing quality goods and services rather than believing their success is dependent on their political stances.

But in an unhealthy society, not so much.

That is why the events of the past week were so disturbing, particularly when it came to the case of Coopers, whose executives were forced to back down in a public self-criticism that wouldn’t have been out of place in the Cultural Revolution.

The great irony in all of it was that many of the same sorts who claim to worry that society is being torn apart by division and hate seemed to be doing their damnedest to spread it. And even if you support extending marriage to same-sex couples, the whole thing was a textbook example of why we should resist attempts by corporations to add their political voice to the public square lest absolutely everything be ­infected by ideology.

Because while CEOs are as free as any other citizen to have their say, corporate campaigns, particularly those that might send a message to employees or smaller suppliers that they’d better sign up or else, are best ignored. If they have no cut-through they won’t be seen as effective, which is far better than a world where even brands carry political baggage.

Coopers bosses were forced to back down in a public self-criticism that wouldn’t have been out of place in the Cultural Revolution.

Once the beer you drink or mobile phone provider you use becomes subject to a political litmus test, there is no limit to what then has to be decided, first and foremost, as a political question.

Imagine it. Will the practice of listing whether animal products on menus are “free range” be supplemented by coloured dots on the wine list indicating whether the vigneron voted Labor, Liberal or Greens?

Will the big two supermarkets have to declare themselves “red” or “blue” and market solely to their respective audiences?

(Of course, there will always be limits. It would be interesting, for example, to know how many purveyors of the very virtuous and ABC-approved Halal Snack Pack are paid-up members of Australian Marriage Equality, though that’s another story).

In the US, which stands as a cautionary tale in this regard, corporate boycotts are old hat and now everything from ­online personals to ads for housemates regularly say “no Trump voters need apply”. ­Online magazines have published numerous accounts of Americans (generally of the Left) cutting off their families.

What a dreary way to live.

These things can backfire as well. Also in the US, when ­activists tried to launch ­boycotts of the Chick-fil-A fast food chain because it donated to anti-gay marriage causes, sales went up, not down.

And even if a company’s political efforts must be ­engaged, Australians should always remember free speech only works when everyone is committed to answering argument with counterargument. Attacking corporations for taking the “wrong” stand on an issue and trying to hurt their sales is no different from the more personal and sleazy tactic seen all too often, in which Twitter mobs pick a target and try to get them fired and destroy their livelihood. Answering an opponent’s stand by organising boycotts and trying to shut down their business and livelihood isn’t really in the spirit of the doctrine.

Which is why, easy as it may be to blame the feral Left, those on the Right must also tread carefully.

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton may have been understandably frustrated when he told 2GB: “If people want to enter politics ... don’t do it from the office overlooking the Harbour on multi-million dollar fees each year.”

But in a free society CEOs can say what they like. We, too, have a right to engage or ­ignore. The only unacceptable choice is whether to shut them up or shut them down.