On Big Stores and Advertising

Earnest Hemmingway wrote in his memoir, “If you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, then wherever you go for the rest of your life it stays with you, for Paris is a moveable feast.” I agree completely. Not a day goes by that I do not think back fondly on my years walking the historic and fashionable streets of Paris. France left me with the indelible conviction that life is better when society is not so obnoxiously full of huge chain stores and pervasive advertising. Although the United States should avoid many Western European policies like the plague, we should follow their example by helping small shops and regulating manipulative, in-your-face advertising. Corporate stores and rampant advertising contribute to a materialistic culture and an undesirable physical environment, both of which are enemies of American spiritual, emotional, and physical wellbeing. Our American Dream should be about the contributions we will make to our families and to society, not about the stuff we buy.

Big Corporate Chain Stores

There are fewer and fewer small consumer-oriented businesses left in America. We buy our Chinese-manufactured clothing from chain stores. We buy our genetically modified groceries at chain stores. We buy our furniture from chain stores. Same goes with our electronics, hardware, beauty supplies, and sports equipment. Although there are a few Ma & Pa restaurants and shops around, we buy almost everything from big corporations. I dislike shopping at big chain shops because the quality of products and service is poor. There is a plausible argument that big chain stores are cheaper and more convenient than shopping at small shops. I generally disagree; but the argument is intelligent. However, that big corporations put out better quality products and services than small shops, nobody has even begun to prove. Owners of small shops take greater pride in their services and products. Products are higher quality when they are made by a particular craftsman for a particular customer. Unfortunately, many Americans have become habituated to poor quality products—plastics, wax, and cheap construction are everywhere. Similarly, small service providers tend to outdo their corporate counterparts.

I’d like to briefly address the arguments that big chain stores are better because they are cheaper and more convenient. Products are generally cheaper at big stores, but their duration is shorter, which costs more. For example, a tailored suit will be more comfortable, look better, and last longer than a mass-produced, cheap suit. It is very possible that the a man would have to buy two or three cheap suits to dress himself for the same amount of time that the tailor-made suit will last him. Big stores are probably cheaper than small stores to some extent, but much less than many Americans seem to think. If there were much fewer big shops around, shopping at little shops would be more convenient than shopping at the big places. It isn’t much more convenient to walk the length of a street in the same store; you might as well walk the same distance from little shop to little shop. Since all of our stores are huge nowadays, we have to travel longer distances to get what we need. If shops were smaller, we would be better able to walk to buy our food and supplies rather than have to drive—healthier, more sociable, and generally more pleasant.

I have found that many people do not know that public corporations are required by law to put the pecuniary interests of shareholders before all interests of consumers. Frequently, pleasing customers translates into increased profits, but not always. Big corporations wield their influence over government and society to make their job easier and more lucrative. They use their power to make things more convenient to make money, not more convenient for the consumer. They get customers addicted to a product or service and then decrease the quality with time. As a result, frivolous consumerism is way too much a part of American culture. The companies convince people that they need more stuff, not better stuff. The corporations convince people that they need things, they don’t really need. The corporations use advertising to teach people to envy others for their things and to feel like they are inadequate if they don’t keep up with the Joneses. It is even rather rare for critiques of corporate stores to show up in reputable publications because they are hesitant about publishing anything that will offend their sponsors.

In my opinion, this consumerism is exemplified by smartphone buying. I know a few people who spend exorbitant amounts to constantly upgrade from the iPhone 3GS, to the iPhone 4, to the iPhone 4S, and for what? Finicky voice-recognition software? A slightly improved camera? More likely, it is to keep up with the Joneses because they have fallen prey to the corporation’s message that your phone is a status symbol. Or, they have convinced them, through sly psychological trickery that stuff makes them happier than it actually does; that things are better than time. Despite all of the freedom and money we have in America, we are not the happiest people because we are too stressed about things that don’t matter. We need to stop spending our resources on stuff and status and start spending them on enjoying our family, nature, and culture—for that is where real happiness lies.

Additionally, the growth of big corporate stores concentrates wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer citizens. Some of my friends who disagree with my sentiment here argue that I am going against the free market. I am not so sure that I am—but, perhaps I am to a degree. I measure the value of the free market first by its ability to bring about a good society and secondarily by its ability to maximize wealth and American political power. Regardless, I think that these big chain stores are engaging in anticompetitive activity by elbowing out their competitors with an onslaught of manipulative advertising, political influence (e.g. procuring favorable changes in the tax structure, business regulation, etc.), and even pushing urban designs that favor big stores over little ones, even to the detriment of city beauty and the health of the environment.

Some businesses perhaps provide more public good to us as Americans if they are big. I do not doubt it. This essay is not against all big natural resources, pharmaceutical, manufacturing companies, etc. What I am convinced of is that quality of life is better when there are more SMALL SHOPS than there are corporate mega-chains. Having a few big stores is fine. But, the proliferation of corporate chain stores has weakened local economies, stripped communities of their beauty and character, and impoverished civic and cultural life in American towns and cities. 

Advertising

But wait, there’s more! We are practically drowning in the manipulative marketing of big shops. I have tried American-style advertising for free and I want to return it for a full refund. The trial was definitely not risk-free. It was fraught with puffery, misleading information, psychological chicanery, and false portrayals of reality. The ubiquitous nature of the loud and bright advertising is so constant that it fatigues you and pounces when you are too tired to adequately defend against its cunning attacks. You see, advertising works. It sells. But, it is annoying and bad for America on a cultural and moral level. Even the advertisements online are worse in the United States. They are more common, more in-your-face, brighter, and cheesier.

In my opinion, the only proper purpose of advertising is to inform people of their options with regard to products and services. Advertising in America is, to some degree, protected by the First Amendment and is backed by big-time support of lobbyists; but we need more truthful advertising, fewer commercials, fewer ugly billboards, and fewer product placements in the media. We need to emphasize America’s natural beauty and family values by making the places we live and the activities we engage in supportive of those things. 

Correcting First Amendment Jurisprudence

The four traditional police powers of government are to protect public health, safety, welfare, and morality. In American law, the police powers are legitimate and even compelling justifications for government legislation and regulation. Usually, government exercises of the police powers can pass any level of judicial scrutiny. Within these realms, the courts do not challenge the legislature or executive branches in their capacity to regulate behavior and enforce social order.

However, some courts have explicitly rejected the power of government to protect citizens' morality. Courts began to embrace moral relativism in the context of pornography and indecency cases under the First Amendment.

In Cohen v. California (1971), the Supreme Court heard a case about a man, Cohen, who had been convicted under a California statute prohibiting anyone from "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct." Cohen had worn a jacket that prominently displayed the phrase "F*** the Draft" in a government building with children. Although the Court could have held narrowly on the unconstitutional overbreadth of the California statute, it articulated a broader ruling. The Court held that California cannot censor profanity in public places because "one man's vulgarity is another man's lyric." Such a holding seems to endorse an almost unlimited personal autonomy. It chants the selfish mantra, "you can do whatever you want, so long as you don't hurt anyone." Justice Burger, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Black dissented in part because they (correctly) asserted that we do not "live in a world so incapable of communication that it can be said that 'one man's vulgarity is another's lyric.'"

More recently, Justices Kennedy and O'Connor seem to have accepted moral relativism by asserting that the Court cannot rule on morality in cases dealing with abortion and same-gender sex (Lawrence v. Texas; Planned Parenthood v. Casey). But, I will keep the scope of this post to the First Amendment.

Judge Robert Bork criticized the Court's capricious admission of moral relativity in, among others, the Cohen case. He points out that moral distinctions stand at the very foundation of the law. If it were not for morality, law could be established in very few areas, "[a]fter all, one man's larceny is another man's just distribution of goods." Moral relativism as a formula for justifying and fashioning the law is totally vapid. A change in deeply entrenched and widely accepted moral environment is harmful.

One of the chief objections to Bork's critique of moral relativism in the judiciary is that, with Cohen, the Court was not dealing with regulations of Conduct like larceny, but speech, which has special status under the Constitution. This seems to me to be a widely accepted tenant of First Amendment theory. That, somehow, speech, as a right, is superior to other rights because it is memorialized in the First Amendment. First Amendment jurisprudence demonstrates a belief that the First Amendment enthrones speech and self-expression as higher than all other values save health, safety, and financial well-being of others. Since Judge Stone penned the famous footnote four of the United States v. Carolene Products case, rights specifically mentioned the Constitution have been blindly treated as superior to other rights.

I refute this notion. I believe most all of the founding fathers would heartily agree. The purpose of the First Amendment was not to give speech superior status relevant to other rights, but to declare the status of speech as a right where it had previously been treated only as a privilege in the law. Thus, speech is on no greater footing than other rights and must be balanced against other rights. Whether Cohen's "absurd and immature" form of protesting the Vietnam War can be regulated, I am not decided. However, the Court proceeded incorrectly, and in so doing, set dangerous precedent. Rather than proceeding on the assumption that no morality exists, the Court should have recognized the rights of parents to steer their children away from such indecency or the right of persons to function normally in society without having their moral sensibilities accosted. Then, the Court should weigh the rights of the speaker against the rights of the audience to come to a conclusion. Judicial consideration should take into account the justifications for free expression, asking: (1) Does the speech have a positive or negative affect on the marketplace of ideas, as a step to truth? (2) Does the speech have importance in checking government abuse or in sustaining a healthy democracy? And, (3) how important is the person's interest in autonomy and self-expression as compared with the opposing party's rights.

Although we may dispute the definition of moral good at the margins, there are certain ubiquitous virtues that should define the contours of the law. We may disagree about exactly what it means to be kind. But, virtually every society across time and geography values kindness and dishonors cruelty or selfishness. Rather than shun morality, Courts should sculpt the contours of the law around fundamental principles of morality.

Americans have the right to pursue a broadly virtuous life without being unduly burdened. While we can argue at the margins of what it means to be good; there is a central core in the American tradition of what it means to be virtuous: wise, courageous, kind, temperate, and transcendent. Our freedom of expression cannot be superior to the right to live normally without being exposed to a waterfall of profanity, lustful nudity, gratuitous violence, outright lies, and verbal abuse. Our policies must support virtue. Or, we will lose virtue. Benjamin Franklin understood well the results of a morally relativistic citizenry when he said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

Free Speech and the Middle East

The United States Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was killed by an armed Islamist mob attack on September 11, 2012. Originally, the Obama administration stated that the attacks were a “spontaneous reaction” to “a hateful and offensive video…” (Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the UN). The video she was referring to was an amateur film, made in the U.S., which mocked Islam and was called “Innocence of Muslims.” This initial reaction was probably false as the timing (11 years to the day after September 11, 2001 attacks) and subsequent investigations appear to show the attack was coordinated and planned. Whatever the case may be, there have been many violent anti-American and anti-West demonstrations and actions throughout the Muslim world ostensibly as a reaction to the wildly unprofessional “Innocence of Muslims” movie trailer or the French publication, Charlie Hebdo, who published cartoons mocking the prophet Mohamed.

These events highlight a major difference in the way some Muslims (enough to fill big town squares during the workweek) and the West view free speech and tolerance of religion. In this post, I attempt to color that difference, to comment on American free speech, and to talk about my own view of free speech.

AMERICAN FREE EXPRESSION

The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This view of free expression and religion is inherited, in large part, from John Lock and John Stuart Mills. Locke believed that keeping established religion within the heart and home and out of political policymaking would lead to tolerance and end wars of religion. John Stuart Mills advocated the value of a marketplace of ideas. In essence, he thought that, although imperfect, the free trade in ideas was the best way to find truth as a society. Other philosophical justifications undergird American freedom of expression too. Self-governance requires freedom of opinion, religion, and expression. Suffrage requires it. If people are to be sovereign, they must have their own free opinions and be able to express them. There is also a deontological argument that it is an essential right for autonomous and self-determining human beings to express themselves. Otherwise, life would be meager. Free speech serves as a check to the abuse of power.  Free expression serves as a release or safety valve giving a recourse to dissidents other than draconian violence.

MUSLIM FREE EXPRESSION

Many Muslims do believe in free expression. Modernity, it appears, demands it, and it really seems easily reconcilable with the teachings of the Koran as I understand. Yet, too many Muslims refuse to embrace tolerance and free expression. Too few are willing to be offended in order to have peace and free conversation. For them, there is no difference between public and private. The reputation and integrity of their religion outweighs free speech and tolerance. If America disagreed with the distasteful speech, they believe, the government would prohibit it. Since America doesn't censor the speech, they must condone it. For such extremists, an offense to the religion is a personal assault not to be met with more words only, but also violence. If the Americans wont stop the speech that attacks them, they feel entitled to do it themselves.

Some of the Muslim world is easily offended. The reason for this is deep and tender. The beginning of Muslim history is one of spectacular success. The religion started in the 7th Century in the desolate and poor Arabian Peninsula and within a few hundred years spread from Spain to Indonesia. Muslim science and trade surpassed that of the entire world. The thinking of their philosophers was cutting-edge for the day. They had amazing architecture, art, and literature. Islam was great and was supposed to spread throughout all the world.

But, it didn’t. The fall of the Muslim, and particularly Arab Muslims, was swift and brutal. Mongols, Europeans, and Turks beat them militarily and surpassed their knowledge in humanities and sciences, and prospered above them. Even the most proud of Arab Muslims, when you talk to them, seem to be tenderly aware of their culture’s weaknesses and failures. The poverty, disparate treatment between men and women, rich and poor, and from faction to faction are all too easily observable to ignore. When outsiders poke at those tender weaknesses, some Arab Muslims explode into anger and violence.

In a way, their feelings are understandable; yet, violence is only hurting their culture more and incurring more disrespect and ridicule from outsiders. Taking responsibility as a society and channeling that frustration into improving life in the Arab world is the proper direction; not violence against annoying speech. Turkey, currently ruled by an Islamist party, has embraced pluralism and is one of the most respected and prosperous Muslim countries in the world. In some ways, Turkey is an example of a better direction. I am optimistic that change will come, perhaps slowly, but it will.

RECONCILING RIGHTS OF SPEECH WITH OTHER RIGHTS AND THE INTERESTS OF THE STATE

The right to free expression is not without bounds. It is necessarily delimited by other individual rights held by American citizens. In my view, the primary interests of the State are protecting its citizen’s individual rights and promoting a virtuous society. Freedom of speech and the right to receive information freely should be unfettered to the extent that it does not impinge on the rights of others. However, when the rights of others are affected (e.g. perhaps yelling fire in a crowded theatre or verbally abusing someone day in and day out week after week) then the state has the legitimate right to restrict the expression and receiving of information.

When a question arises as to where to draw the line between the right to free speech and some corresponding and mutually exclusive right, courts and legislatures should engage in an analysis similar to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Laws restrictive of speech based on viewpoint are particularly suspect, content-based restrictions are suspect on an intermediate level, and content-neutral restrictions are presumed to be a legitimate use of State power unless proven otherwise. I assert that citizens should be afforded the RIGHT to pursue moral living without burdens that a reasonable or average American could not withstand. In other words, if they are accosted by pornography or abusive language or intellectual dishonesty that would overcome an average person’s ability to reason or live honorably within broad strokes of morality, than the law should be quick to limit speech at that point. Insults, blather, pornography, obscenity, threats, objective falsehoods, and the like are of such slight value as a step to truth, that the benefits of free speech are plainly outweighed by the broad morality, safety, and order such speech threaten. As we become a more virtuous society, the abilities of a reasonable person might improve. However, I believe that moderating free expression, not to promote morality, but to enable morality, is within the providence of government. Freedom is necessary for a virtuous society.