Politics of Business

The politics of business has become more complicated in today’s climate. More corporations are using their money to lobby government policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels. Most corporations will have to remove their conservative ideals and align themselves with the left-wing to pass legislation. Alexander Djerassi has seen the best and worst of politics in business. A corporation with an overtly liberal stance on social issues such as gay marriage will be challenged by its employees. It might lose business because of its stance on social issues.

Negative politics can be highly destructive for a business. When a company tries to serve both the employee and owner, it creates hostility and resentment. This hostility is not healthy for a business and helps no one. Positive politics can help maintain productivity and help build a healthy work environment. Positive politics can also help a business owner retain his employees.

The first principle of business is that a business must serve the customer. It is illogical to think that a business can do business with its employees if it does not approve of social conscience or socially conscious employees. Many companies have replaced their advertising with “green” advertising. This type of advertising promotes environmental responsibility for the company while simultaneously increasing the bottom line. The values of socially conscious employees can help both the owner and the employee.

The second principle of business is never to forget who owns the business and to leave the politics to the customers. When a company becomes too involved with the politics of the community, it loses its unique branding. It seems like the corporation is part of all the problems in the world rather than an entrepreneur who is solving his problems. It is illogical to think that a business should seek to protect itself from government regulation if it can easily accomplish through voluntary action what it could quickly achieve without regulation. A business owner who is skilled in politics can use that skill to help his business succeed. A business owner should also be careful in what he speaks about concerning politics.

The third principle of business is that if a business serves the public, then that business will be successful. In other words, a business needs to appeal to the general public to stay successful. By carefully catering to the public, a business can increase customer loyalty and increase customer satisfaction. A business that successfully appeals to the public always receives positive word-of-mouth advertising that helps it grow.

The fourth principle of business is that people are afraid of the loss of their freedom. The owner can hire people who will act as agents of the business. The owner also has the power to refuse to work with people who have certain behaviors that interfere with the freedom of others. A business that is run in this manner will continue functioning even when the owner is not there. Alexander Djerassi understands that if a job has policies against business politics, individuals will still use it.

Media’s Role in Politics

In many ways, the mainstream media and the upper echelons of the Washington political establishment share something of a symbiotic relationship. Without their contacts at the Capitol and the White House, for example, major news organizations such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal would lack insight into the day-to-day workings of American political power.

In order to get their agenda across in Washington, conversely, politicians in Washington need big news media organizations to publicize their talking points and policy concerns on a national level. For a political candidate to launch his or her career in earnest, moreover, they will likely need some measure of attention from mainstream news outlets.

In many respects, President Donald Trump understood more than most the power of publicity inherent to the American media system when he first began running for public office in 2015. Without the constant attention of media outlets, in fact, President Trump may not have been able to run such a successful campaign the next year.

But Trump is not alone in his reliance on publicity: Clearly, mainstream politicians such as Barack Obama are adept at engaging with the media when necessary. Before any big policy proposal hits Washington, for example, most Sunday news shows will be jam-packed with political spokespeople eager to tell their side of the story.

But not everyone is happy with this sometimes too-cozy arrangement. Himself no stranger to the parallel relationship between Washington’s political class and the major news outlets, Fox News editorialist and former judge Andrew Napolitano has frequently commented on the stalwart connection between news organizations and political heavyweights in Washington.

A stern constitutionalist, he is frequently concerned about the rights enshrined by the Founding Fathers to ensure free speech among American citizens. To this end, he has sometimes voiced concern about the power of big news outlets to silence non-mainstream political operatives.

By his standards, we must also weigh this political ecosystem of intrigue and information aggregating against the recent rise of social media platforms such as Twitter. In Washington and elsewhere, media outlets often pick up on Twitter pronouncements made by leading politicians; these “tweets” often become headline news.

Without Twitter, for example, President Trump would arguably not have been able to secure his political base in the run-up to the 2016 election. But the question arises: When private citizens become leaders of the nation, what kind of speech becomes protected by default? Should Twitter be treated as a public utility or a private company? Does Twitter have the right to censor speech that occurs from users who hold high-level political office?

Andrew Napolitano appears to think that the answer is more complicated than we might imagine. Because the social media service is a private company rather than a government agency, for example, he has suggested that the First Amendment does not necessarily apply to Twitter.

As more and more news organizations shift to online-only formats, it will only be a matter of time before these issues become a widespread concern. For now, however, it is clear that the close relationship between the mainstream media and Washington won’t let up anytime soon.