Mr. Sargent observes that the stance of Coca-Cola and other large business enterprises vis-à-vis the Georgia voting law “may reflect a broader cultural impulse toward defending democracy and toward the need to denounce serious threats to it.”
Well, I suppose it might.
And I suppose that Mr. Sargent’s phrasing is one way of describing the situation.
I used to do some legal work for Coca-Cola. There were some very fine people there at the time, and I am confident there are still some very fine people there today.
But, that said, culture me no “broader cultural impulses” to explain the the thinking in the executive suite.
Coke sells its products in the State of Georgia, in the Republic of Georgia, and pretty much everywhere else around the world. I am confident it would prefer to stay out of politics. I am confident it would love to continue selling Cokes to rednecks and to people needing a pickmeup after attending the latest Black Lives Matter demonstration.
But here’s the thing. When put in a position where it is absolutely required to choose between pissing off a large group of customers and pissing off a smaller group of customers, what the hell do you think Coca-Cola is going to do?
This is not a trick question.
P.S. And What about Pepsi?
Do y’all think that Pepsi is going to be excited about becoming the drink of the culturally deprived, the conspiracists, and the insurrectionists?
Do y’all think this will give Pepsi a new competitive advantage in its eternal commercial war with Coke?
Cause if that’s what you think, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.