Elephants, Boy Scouts, and Beer

by John Stevenson

Bethany Mandel’s column in The Federalist caught my eye.  Mandel argues that Ringling Brothers made a fatal error in deciding to eliminate elephants from the circus.  That error was listening to, and trying to satisfy, non-constituents rather than customers.

Mandel reports that the “American institution and backdrop of countless memories” yielded to pressure from animal rights activists like PETA and decided to retire the elephants.  The effect was disastrous.  Mandel quotes the Ringling Brothers chairman “…when the elephants were taken off the show, the downward trend [in attendance] was much more severe than had been anticipated.”  They are now folding their tent after 146 years of entertaining American families.

Mandel contends Ringling Brothers made a terrible, although not unusual, blunder: “…they forgot to prioritize the desires of their customer base” and instead yielded to pressure from the noisy Left.  She describes “…the average PETA activist: an unmarried, 20- or 30-something…who likely considers having children to be detrimental to the earth…” compared with “…the average circus-goer: a family with several young children, eager to…experience an afternoon of whimsical entertainment…because if tickets cost that much, it better be an afternoon to remember.” 

Then Mandel shifts to the Boy Scouts of America which “…finally bent completely to left-wing activists, announcing girls who identify as ‘transgender boys’ will be accepted…”  The Scouts “decided to allow anatomically female scouts into its troops and teach its members that, despite biology, these young girls are in fact boys.” 

Mandel predicts this decision may adversely affect scouting participation.  She cites a Reuters poll which revealed that the transgender movement (as measured by responses to the North Carolina restroom controversy) is more accepted on the coasts and large metropolitan areas than in fly-over country.  The Reuters poll also showed strong opposition to the transgender agenda among frequent church-goers (although Roman Catholics were split).  Further, the poll showed support for “transgender rights” was strongest among young adults who are unlikely to yet have children of scouting age.

As with Ringling Brothers, the Scouts had failed to take into account that “…groups that most favor the societal impulse to change the definition of gender are not the same parents whose kids comprise the majority …” of scouting participants.  Mandel concluded it is too soon to say how the participation in scouting will be affected.  But Family Research Council president Tony Perkins gives us a hint: “The time has come for every church and every parent in America to sever ties with the Boy Scouts.” 

Which brings me to today, Super Bowl Sunday.  I read a Business Insider article this morning by Kate Taylor.  She discusses a Budweiser ad which describes Adolphus Busch’s legal entry into the United States and his encounter with anti-immigrant prejudice. 

Apparently this 60-second ad is stirring up considerable negative reaction, on the grounds that it is an unveiled stab at those who oppose illegal immigration.  Folks are tweeting for and against the ad, and there’s a boycott in the works.  Here’s one example: “I drank your product for 30 years and I will no longer drink it you liberal [expletive].”

So generally, the ad should please liberals and displease conservatives.  If that’s true, this looks like another organization following in the footsteps of Ringling Brothers and the Boy Scouts.  Here’s why:  Surveys have shown that conservatives favor what they believe to be domestic beer.  Liberals (when forced to drink beer because there’s no Chardonnay on hand) choose imports---maybe even with lime.  Further, when liberals must choose among the domestics, they go for Sierra Nevada or a “craft” beer; conservatives stick with the old standbys--Bud, Schlitz, Miller, Coors. 

 (Yes, I know.  You don’t need to enlighten me that President Obama had a Bud Light at the 2009 beer summit---a choice probably facilitated by pollsters and focus groupies.)

So it looks to me like Budweiser has made an error similar to that committed by Ringling Brothers and the Boy Scouts: in order to satisfy a political agenda, they failed to understand and prioritize their customer base.

Now I’m going to a Super Bowl party, where I’ll be drinking Coors.

"...and so, as the sun sinks slowly in the west, we say farewell…”

by Chris James

     Among the many scientific journals that I pored over as a graduate student was one titled "Chemistry and Industry."  It was a serious, but quixotic, attempt to bridge the gap between the cloud-cuckoo-land of academia and the real world. In a rather pathetic effort to soften its rather sepulchral tone, the last page of the journal was unusually frivolous. Below is an example of its editorial prowess in its handling of this oddball switcheroo. This was deliberately meant to be "punny":

     British lad, with a PhD in Chemistry, emigrates to the U.S., marries an American lass, and has a son. Dad and boy are very close.  Every evening, the boy sits on his Dad's lap and they watch about two hours of children's T.V. together.  Eventually, the day came when boy wanted to get into the beginner level of Little League baseball. The Mom thought that Dad should do something in Little League to support their son. So Dad signed up for umpire classes.  From the first day that Dad umpired a game, the boy never climbed on his lap again. This bothered Dad so much that he went to a child psychologist to find out what went wrong. The doctor smiled and said: "Oh, you shouldn't upset yourself.  Everyone knows that the son never sits on the British umpire."

     The phrase "the sun never sets on the British empire" is attributed to John Wilson in 1829.  However, there are many claimants for its originality, or for phrases similar to it. They range throughout history from the ancient Persian empire to the Spanish empire to Victorian Britain. This verbal progression is an apt metaphor for the real-life fact that empires come and go.  They are as flaky as the parody in the above paragraph.

     Most of us have heard that "history repeats itself."  A fair amount of empirical evidence exists to suggest that there is a robust element of truth to this claim.  Then there's Santayana's famous aphorism, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  It is another maxim that has appeared down through the ages in one form or another, giving it the weight of credibility. And lastly, we have Scottish author Thomas Campbell's warning that "coming events cast their shadows before."  He wrote it prior to the Battle of Culloden (1746), in which the Scots were quickly and bloodily defeated by the English, and the country was subsequently put to the sword.  Specific as this phrase was to, what turned out to be, the last pitched battle on British soil, it actually had, and still has, an infinite number of generic applications.  So, keep these three trenchant, perceptive canons in mind when you read what follows.

     Well then, what about the British empire?  Our story begins with the Treaty of Paris, late 1815 to early 1816, that ended the Napoleonic Wars.  Napoleon was deposed and exiled.  France made large reparations and was required to set its borders back to pre-war locations.  However Britain, as lead negotiator, resisted any attempt by the allies to break up France, to repress France with an on-site standing army or to confiscate parts of the French empire. British reasoning was that such draconian punishment would destabilize post-war Europe and risk further trouble as a result.  Very perceptive and statesman-like.  The outcome was that Europe had a satisfying period of growth and Britain, with its massive Empire, became world leader - a role that peaked around the turn of the 20th century.

     World War I proved to be the sun starting to set on Britain's top-spot.  Britain's fall from grace occurred not just because of the War's enormous economic toll, nor because of the massive loss of able-bodied manpower.  Several other factors were involved.  Arguably, the most important of these were the burdens imposed by the cost of the rising trend in social legislation and by the aggressive growth of unionism.  Justifiable as these factors may have been, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Worse, the early days of global anti-Imperialism did nothing to help Britain's fading influence on world affairs.

     Britain's demise was not over in an instant.  It was a long road down.  It did not cause the complete evaporation of the country.  Today, Britain is still a player among the "major powers," but a very minor one.  However, the gradual erosion of British power allowed the controlled emergence of a new world leader to take Britain's place.  

     In April 1917, the United States finally entered World War I.  There is absolutely no doubt that the impact of U.S. military power shortened the War by several years and brought the allies to victory.  The calling card of the next world leader had been dropped in the world's tray.  The subsequent Depression in the U.S. certainly put a dent in the prototypical new leader's image, but the dominant role of the U.S. in World War II left no doubt about who was in charge.  And so it has been ever since.  That is until the fairyland, pussy-wussy peregrinations of the Obama administration pirouetted onto the world's stage. 

     If Obama's slimy international policy was not enough, then consider U.S. social legislation during the last eight years.  Obamacare, tons of new rules and regulations, tsars to play God and run the show, piles of new debt to finance this farce.  Plus we have two wars, mishandled by the Obama bone-heads, as well as the rise of public employees union aggression (for local readers, see "BART," a poster-child example).  Do I have to spell it out?  Britain: Socialism, unions, war.  U.S.: creeping Socialism, unions, two badly managed wars.  Britain, roughly 1816-1916.  U.S., roughly 1916-2016(?).  Yes! We may indeed have front row seats to view the potential unraveling of a one hundred year place-in-the-sun routine.  Such beautifully symmetric history is a relatively rare phenomenon.  So stand by for more unintended consequences, and count yourself lucky - or not so lucky - to be able to say "I was there." 

     And so that you can all sleep well at night, I ask: Do you really believe that President Trump has the slightest idea of what is at stake here?  And do you really believe that his strategy of isolationism (please don't make me go over, yet again, the long list that he has cobbled together to do just that) is the way to make America great on the world stage?  If we play "follow the leader" and withdraw into ourselves - and feel mighty good about it - then who will step up to be the next true global leader?  Russia, China, India, Iran, Burkina Faso, Greenland?  Hey!  Have a nice night!