The primary party inconvenienced by badly organized boycotts is the boycotter himself. Moreover, the quiet refraining from patronizing a certain business is no political action at all: voluble publication of the boycott is a necessary component of increasing its efficacy and momentum. Personally, permanently refraining, for example, from patronizing Starbucks proves utterly futile because by definition there is no chance for the boycott to spread to likeminded individuals. On the other hand, boycotts are frequently quite effective if sizable, definite in time period, and well-coordinated. (But if monolithic, indefinite in duration, or non-orchestrated, they are virtually useless.)
Now, there is nothing immoral in inefficacy. Many right-wingers adopt household policies involving refraining from consuming Starbucks, for example, which is perfectly fine. We designate such households “monolithic boycotters.” But such campaigns are simply ineffective and shouldn’t be considered the standard for retrogrades, whose watchword is not only principle but also efficacy. More often than not, the monolithic boycotter proves to be the one virtue signaling to the retrograde, not the other way around. That is, the lone boycotter is usually the agent of hypocrisy, although it is a counterintuitive thought. Here’s why.
Generalizing for a moment, the profile of this “too busy to get involved” right-winger is that of one who is usually trying to substitute his ineffective private boycott for recognizable, real political action against the wicked radical company (being taken by retrogrades). Still generalizing, the monolithic boycotter is usually the one on his high horse, rallying against the vastly more effective retrogrades who are actually making a dent (perhaps as they drink coffee). All this adds up to a hypocritical preachiness heard all too often from uninvolved conservatives.
Far more effective—if more laboriously orchestrated—techniques and actions against radical corporations are smear campaigns like old-fashioned picketing, aggressive contra articles or commercials, or celebrity interventions; for example, “Starbucks supports the following monstrous causes: [list them].” Damaging ads and published attacks frequently work because global companies prize their “brand”—which equates to future profits—as highly as they value current profits. When an uninvolved conservative monolithically boycotts, he damages neither the evil company’s present profits (because billion-dollar companies don’t notice the opportunity cost of a cup of coffee) nor its future profits (because the boycotter has done little or nothing to damage the company’s brand). The company’s evil continues unabated in the face of the monolithic boycott.
In the logic of the fight, damaging the radical company’s priceless brand is the most effective thing a retrograde can do, even if (for the sake of argument) he’s consuming the company’s product as he does it. There is little or no contradiction in consuming coffee while attacking the coffee’s wicked allocation of profits, because the retrograde never formally cooperates in Starbucks’s intents.
The best attempt to bring down a radical brand is the direct attempt, either forcing a change in profit allocation or actively ruining the brand’s reputation. Once more, the watchword is not just principle but efficacious principle. Making needed sacrifices is the most beautiful aspect of the fight; making needless sacrifices (like refraining from a leftist company’s coffee) is one of the silliest. If one is going to fight drawn-out, arduous battles, one needs priorities!