It’s difficult to make criticisms of those who are on the same moral side as we are. We are group-oriented creatures, bound to those who we feel are trustworthy and those who fight for our causes. Exacerbated by a hostile political climate that forces movements to radical places on the political spectrum, our own polarization often gets the best of us, causing us to view all progressive ideology as good and all conservative ideology as bad, or vice versa.
I’d argue, though, that criticism of our own side is necessary to push for progress. Existing in cognitive dissonance is the only way that we can overcome and improve our weaknesses, errors and misinterpretations.
This is why, recently, I’ve become deeply concerned at the behavior of those on the so-called “radical left,” or as I prefer to call them, “Twitter leftists” — young, absorbent and desperate to be involved. In a dystopian social environment that has somehow romanticized the most radical of political thought, it appears that a number of those who are politically involved have forgotten their critical thinking skills in an effort to make a difference. Performative activism, a lack of in-depth research and an embarrassing ignorance of privilege have permeated the movement of the left, delegitimizing the efforts of real change-makers and those with well-founded political backgrounds.
For instance, one Google search will tell you that the most recent Starbucks boycott has no political or moral foundation. In an official statement updated by the franchise in October 2023, the company made it clear that they dissolved their partnership with Israel in 2003, and have since provided them with no financial support.
Initial public boycotts stemmed from misunderstandings regarding Starbucks’ opposition of a pro-Palestine statement made by Starbucks Workers United, a worker-led unionizing effort. This incident was inaccurately characterized by the public as a political issue regarding support for Israel as opposed to the reality: trademark infringement. The ease with which one could find this information — which according to my stopwatch, took forty-five seconds — is troubling, because it indicates the lack of research associated with worldwide boycotts and movements.
Let me be clear: Starbucks has certainly not taken an ideal approach to the crisis. They have not contributed in a meaningful way with humanitarian aid to victims in the Middle East, released a public statement standing with Palestine nor accomplished anything significant that we’d hope to see from a major corporation. But if you’re that up in arms about a company that hasn’t taken a publicly pro-Palestinian stance, I hope you’re equally intense about your boycotts for Amazon, McDonald’s and just about every other major establishment out there.
I empathize with the appeal of being involved in something like the Starbucks boycott. It is comforting to our group-inclined minds to find strength in numbers, especially when we believe that we are doing the right thing. But we’re boycotting Starbucks because it’s simple — and demands nothing from us other than to sit in the comfort of our home and yell at strangers on the internet for buying their kid a frappuccino. The attention that has been devoted to the boycott could have very easily been spent elsewhere in causes that are genuinely productive.
We choose the easy route because we don’t have the resilience or empathy to do anything else. Many lifelong American citizens who demand their opinion be heard first have never experienced true oppression — the type of oppression that plagues other parts of the world in real, tangible ways.
The tendency that some leftists have to grapple for the lowest rung on the ladder is disgusting. Our glorification of the underdog has contributed to a rhetoric that we are in the same category of persecution as the victims of a genocide — a viral post on X that equated homophobia and sexism in the Middle East to homophobia and sexism in Florida is just one example of this. It’s exhilarating to deny our own privilege.
