The Cost of Being Political

The Mel Gibson silliness brings with it an interesting point.

The cost of being political is rising.

This is not news. Anyone who remembers the Dixie Chicks as a country band (as opposed to a Mommy Rock group) knows this. Jane Fonda knows this. Bruce Springsteen knows this.

What's interesting is how the shoe is on the other foot. And how it gets there.

Wal-Mart has embraced its politicization. At some point (whenever its critics get a brain about it) Wal-Mart is going to suffer from this. Millions of Wal-Mart's best customers are poor or minority. If its opponents convince these people they should shop elsewhere, Wal-Mart will be hurt in the only place that counts, the marketplace.

Which brings us to Mr. Gibson. Gibson is being excoriated for failing to maintain a political image he created for himself. Would we react in the same way if, say, Toby Keith got sloshed, insulted the cops, then later (after sobering up) apologized? I think it's far more likely we'd take the apology of Mr. Keith, although no doubt he'd take a hit.

Gibson's real sin is becoming political. Not so much the content of his politics, but the sin of being political. It's the activism that makes him a target. You put yourself out there, on any issue, for any reason, and those who feel the other way about the issue are just waiting for you to fall, in some way. They will jump on you with both feet when you do.

The price becomes higher when we reach a political crisis, as we have today.

And that's why both Wall Street and Hollywood have the same aversion toward political activism. It cuts your market right off, and it leaves you very, very vulnerable.

Wal-Mart will learn this lesson in time.