Lion of the Blogosphere

Our liberal left-wing corporations

There’s an article in the Washington Post which explains what I’ve been telling my readers for years, that corporations are now full left-wing liberal. The only “conservative” position they support are tax loopholes that benefit themselves, and Republicans are stupid enough to view any tax loophole as a fast one that they pulled on the Democrats.

The Republican “any loophole for big-business” attitude is just a case of working against their own voters to support the enemy.

* * *

In response to comments…

The corporation I used to work for was NOT run by Ivy Leaguers (except for our legal department*), and that helps to explain why the senior executives were so clueless. But the company was definitely committed to “diversity,” it wasn’t just lip service to avoid lawsuits.

The previous CEO was a smart Jewish guy from New York who grew up at a time when smart Jewish people went to local schools. However, he wasn’t interested in day-to-day operations and left that to people who were a lot less smart than him. And he also didn’t get new technology at all, which caused him to make some huge strategic mistakes which are obvious now and were evident eleven years ago to some younger people at the company with much lower-level jobs. His talents were with schmoozing people from outside the company.

The current CEO is a graduate of a third-rate school and not as bright as the previous CEO, but I guess he’s very good at playing corporate politics. I am sure he would happily espouse any liberal beliefs if he senses that’s the way the winds are blowing. And the winds are indeed blowing liberal.

I used to enjoy the annual address to employees of the previous CEO, he was quite entertaining, but any talk by the current CEO is a big snoozer.

Please don’t try to impress me by guessing in the comments what company I am writing about.

*Note that the only way to get a job as a corporate lawyer is to have previous work experience at Big Law, and pretty much only graduates of Top 14 schools get hired by Big Law. Don’t feel sorry for the Big Law associates who don’t make partner, those corporate law jobs are cushy 9-to-5 jobs which pay well-enough and you get your own private office which makes you feel superior to the vast majority of the corporate drones who work in cubicles or shared offices. Despite the difficulty of obtaining a resume qualifying you for a corporate legal job, I saw no evidence that the job required any sort of exceptional legal talents.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 30, 2016 at 9:04 AM

Posted in Politics

66 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Framing is a big hurdle.

    Grassroots Republicans aren’t very good at saying things like “our values are NOT for sale!” It’s foreign to them, sounds pinko, and bigbiz still has a vestigial association with capitalism and competition in their minds.


    March 30, 2016 at 9:15 AM

  2. a quote from the article:

    “Generally, in the past, big business wanted to keep out of social issues,” said David Boaz, a longtime leader at the libertarian Cato Institute. “The corporate world has moved more to the cultural left. ”

    yes, but WHY have corporations embraced cultural leftism?

    Corporations want more profits. Therefore I submit that corporations embrace leftism because it increases profits.


    Leftism increases the supply of labor, suppressing wage growth and increasing profits.

    Multiculturalism, specifically the anti-white, pro-nonwhite aspect of multiculturalism, increases the number of people in america and in the labor pool, which suppresses wage growth and increases profits.


    March 30, 2016 at 9:21 AM

    • Simpler answer: corporate employees, including those, especially those, in executive-level management, are SWPLs who attended liberal Ivy League schools.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 30, 2016 at 9:23 AM

      • No, Randy is right. Ivy Leaguers consider corporate jobs beneath them – acceptable careers for Ivy Leaguers are law, finance, academics, arts, politics, journalism or the entertainment industry. Maybe management consulting. The vast majority of C-suite types at Fortune 500 companies are bright kids from lesser universities, they studied subjects like business administration, accounting or engineering in college where they were not exposed to that much SWPL propaganda, and they consider themselves Republicans. They have gone left culturally because over the short term immigration is great for business – drives down labor cost and labor protection. Gay rights is good for business – the execs know how much purchasing power gay couples have. Corporations are desperate for growth and new markets. That means more people just sounds like a good thing to your average CEO. Increasing the purchasing power of women, gays, blacks etc. sounds like a good thing. Even destroying Christianity is good for business – Christianity is an anti-materialist religion that tells people that consumption is bad, spending time with your family or your community is better than shopping, and that unbridled excess is a sin. No wonder businessmen see those ideas as “old fashioned”. Competition is fierce and no one wants to be the loser spending time in Church on Sunday (unless the networking is useful). I am always amazed how many American paleocons refuse to understand that unbridled capitalism is the enemy of traditional culture everywhere, including America. European conservatives see that as a matter of course.

        Peter Akuleyev

        March 30, 2016 at 9:49 AM

      • nature is not always simple….in fact, nature is complex….look at the natural world around you….it consists of myriad patterns and interactions…plants…animals…the sun…gravity…molecules etc all interacting with each other in a complex web over time…evolving…adapting…
        environmental forces impose change on the organic entities in nature…

        We see a fox in texas. it is red.

        You go 3000 miles north to canada, to the tundra, and the fox is white.


        Nature shapes the organic entities that exist therein.

        And those different foxes went down separate evolutionary paths. And it was not a simple path. Complex, instead.

        mankind and society also exist within nature…

        what are the major forces in man’s social environment? The entities that exert those forces are the dominant forces in our social ecosystem….look around you…climb a tree or go out on a balcony in a big city…what do you see? You see skyscrapers, right? Those big buildings dominate our ecosystem…what forces put them there? Big corporations…these corporations are the dominant entities in man’s social ecosystem…those corporations therefore dominate our society and shape and mold our culture and the rules we live by.

        You refer to SWPLs who went to lvy league colleges. Right.

        But go a step further.

        Those SWPLs operate by rules. Those rules were put there by the educational curriculum. But who wrote the curriculum? Who wrote history?

        Orwell said that those who control the past control the future. Meaning that those with power write a version of history that suits them, and in doing so they control the future because that particular version of history also shapes the society of today.

        Picture an SWPL in one of those skyscraper. He worked hard as a small child, studying his books and earning A’s. He internalized that version of history and he internalized all the dogma in his textbooks.

        He accepted white man as the demon of history. Because that is what his books said. That was the version of history given to him as a young and malleable student.

        What rules did that SWPLs internalize as part of his diligent studies? Well, for one, he learned that in order for whites to atone for the sins of their past, they must allow mass immigration of nonwhites.

        Oh, coincidentally, that mass immigration (facilitated and enabled by textbook dogma and a twisted version of history) just COINCIDENTALLY happens to flood the labor supply and increase corporate profits.

        How convenient.

        Do yo see where I am coming from?


        March 30, 2016 at 9:59 AM

      • A complex issue, it has been written about better elsewhere. Unfortunately, I can’t remember where. In any case, corporations are only “full, left wing liberal” on the soft issues, the lifestyle nonsense that has no effect on the one issue that matters — profits. That’s why, if I had a company car at some big corporation, I would definitely get a little rainbow decal or some bullshit. If I was a Prof, same game. Just play along and no one ever knows what you are actually thinking.

        Prior to the 1990s, left wing liberal meant pro-Union and multi-culturalism in the form of affirmative action for african americans. Imagine how that would go over at a corporation?

        So, these controversies, they are all window dressing of a sort. I know absolutely nothing about transgendered bathrooms for example. What they are, who they are for, if we should, as a nation, develop more or less of such institutions. But of course, as a politician, college president, or executive, you can support them and keep the mob at bay. In fact, you could even create a sub-comittee and propose that the handicapped bathrooms be made available to transgendered people. It could be called the handicapped/transgendered bathroom. Of course, this would make it seem like being transgendered is a handicap, when in reality it is a great strength. This would lead to the new “Acceptance Bathrooms” or “Diversity Bathrooms”. In the end, all you would need is a new sign — $4.99 (made in China!)

        I think this also speaks to the liberalism of Clinton vs Sanders. Sanders actually wants to go old school, break up the banks, bring back the unions, etc. Clinton wants to cash checks and hug transgendered people. Amazingly, most Democrat voters don’t see through this.

        The Shepherd

        March 30, 2016 at 10:00 AM

      • The corporation I worked for LOVED diversity. They didn’t have to hire the best people to make profits because they have a monopoly.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 30, 2016 at 10:03 AM

      • On the subject of Academia:

        Most academics consider industry or real world careers beneath them. BIGLAW and Finance aren’t as prestigious as they were previously, specifically, the time before the financial crisis in 2008. Furthermore, the intense yet petty drive to accumulate something intangible and fleeting as fiat currency is prole.

        American “Bourgeoise” cities in the likes of NYC and SF, are purely driven by money junkieism, not creative intellect or culture.


        March 30, 2016 at 11:27 AM

      • Peter — Given America’s brief history of < than a 1/2 millenium, do you expect this country to have a traditional culture in the making?


        March 30, 2016 at 11:34 AM

      • @ Peter

        Many elite grads head into the corporate world after doing stints in investment banking / management consulting. They often enter at the director level, and are basically fast-tracked into true management positions.


        March 30, 2016 at 2:21 PM

      • The advertising agency I worked for made everyone undergo diversity training in 2006. That’s where I was first introduced to the phrase “gender reassignment.” We were all told (more or less) that everyone except for conservative republicans were victims. The two trainers said that people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were responsible for most of the problems in America because they were bigoted and intolerant.

        Lewis Medlock

        March 30, 2016 at 4:32 PM

      • My diversity training seminar was run by a very nice black guy who gave the appearance of being apolitical and nonjudgmental. I guess diversity training creates jobs for black people who can be like that.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 30, 2016 at 4:35 PM

      • >>The corporation I worked for LOVED diversity. They didn’t have to hire the best people to make profits because they have a monopoly.

        Hmmmm. I’m going to take a wild guess at the company you worked for. The only near monopoly I know of in New York is Moodys, or Standard & Poors.


        March 30, 2016 at 5:07 PM

    • Corporations, and Capitalism in general, is inherently globalist in nature. They need to keep expanding market share.


      March 30, 2016 at 12:07 PM

    • “Capitalism, an economic system driven only, according to its own theory, by the accumulation of profit, is at least as much the enemy of tradition as the NAACP or communism, and those on the “right” who make a fetish of capitalism generally understand this and applaud it.

      The hostility of capitalism toward tradition is clear enough in its reduction of all social issues to economic ones. Moreover, like communism, capitalism is based on an essential egalitarianism that refuses to distinguish between one consumer’s dollar and another. The reductionism and egalitarianism inherent in capitalism explains its destructive impact on social institutions.

      On the issue of immigration, capitalism is notorious for demanding cheap labor to undercut the cost of native workers.” -Sam Francis


      March 30, 2016 at 1:33 PM

    • Gee I don’t know why those profit-oriented corporations in Japan and South Korea haven’t embraced the enormously profitable idea of multi-culturalism and mass non-white immigration.


      March 31, 2016 at 12:30 PM

      • Because of their governments. Every country in the world except the UK and the US practices a form of mercantilism. Corporations hq’d in Germany, S. Korea, Japan, China, are actually supposed to put the welfare of their citizens above that of corporate greed. Not the case in those bastions of “the free market,” the US and the UK. Thus the working classes of US/UK are suffering. School yourselves.


        March 31, 2016 at 7:03 PM

      • And yet their governments ARE Leftist, as are their people and corporations, thus refuting the idea that corporations embrace multi-culturalism and immigration “because profit”.


        April 1, 2016 at 10:42 AM

      • No idea what you are talking about. Mitsubishi in Japan is leftist?


        April 1, 2016 at 12:12 PM

      • Yes it is.


        April 1, 2016 at 2:08 PM

      • they wish they could….but the governmental structure of those nations, the relatively small size of the nation, and the homogeneous makeup of the population give control over to the people. And THE PEOPLE WON’T ALLOW IT.

        here in america we have a pseudo-democratic govt structure and a heterogeneous population and a large nation, which means the corporations have lots more control because the people have less.

        Aren’t you lucky I am here to teach you?


        April 1, 2016 at 3:38 PM

      • Belgium and Greece are smaller than any of those countries, and yet their small size and (formerly) homogenous population did not prohibit mass immigration.

        Corporations can, in fact, have greater control and influence in smaller countries than larger ones.


        April 1, 2016 at 5:27 PM

      • LOL, he won’t learn. He thinks Belgium has a homogeneous population. I guess he thinks all white people are alike. Jesus.


        April 1, 2016 at 7:53 PM

  3. Small businesses were ruined by liberal divorce laws. Family networks were the backbone of the petit bourgeois culture. Neither side is willing to admit just how much economic and social issues overlap here. Corporations used to be for the most driven and ambitious aspirants, but now they are for losers who can’t manage a family and who want to just get lost in the machine, unnoticed and performing well below the historical standards of merit. They get away with it too, thanks to democracy and economics of scale.

    The most talented Ivy graduates these days absolutely love start-ups for this reason. They’ll never admit it, eloi being what they are, closeted conservatives. The Republicans will either be stupid or pretend to be stupid because corporations are easier fundraiser targets than individuals.

    Trump has actually done more for democracy by running a relatively cheap campaign, than anything else. Corruption and money distort the will of the people. Go figure that Trump is rarely ever credited for his entrepreneurial style, relatively independent campaign when he could have simply dumped his money all over it. It’s a testament to his good character.


    March 30, 2016 at 9:27 AM

    • The most talented ivy league graduates are usually trust funders that can risk playing with start-ups.


      March 30, 2016 at 9:39 AM

    • Corporations used to be for the most driven and ambitious aspirants, but now they are for losers who can’t manage a family and who want to just get lost in the machine,

      Yes, this is why, as I noted above, Ivy Leaguers avoid working in corporations. Even 30 years ago there was an unspoken stigma in my Ivy League school about going to work for, say, Procter & Gamble or RJR Nabisco.

      Peter Akuleyev

      March 30, 2016 at 9:53 AM

      • Those companies are especially espoused by Midwesterners. I think part of it is regional, where finance and law rule the roost in the Northeast, and so do all the Ivy leagues.

        The hive mind mentality via money lust for a financier and big lawyer, isn’t all that different from those who work in the lesser rungs of prestige.


        March 30, 2016 at 11:15 PM

    • “Small businesses were ruined by liberal divorce laws.”

      Bullshit. You might as well say they were ruined by labor laws because employers couldn’t hire family and work them like dogs, knowing they could because they could just ostracize anyone who got uppity. Or hey, why not blame the minimum wage laws? Go full TruCon.

      Yes, those dynamics are being reintroduced by various immigrant groups, but that’s not a competition you want to engage in, even if you win. Race to the bottom and all. Remember, when you get lots of Armenians, Chinese, Russians, Koreans etc., you get those countries. Their own people don’t even want to live there.


      March 30, 2016 at 10:23 AM

      • “Yes, those dynamics are being reintroduced by various immigrant groups, but that’s not a competition you want to engage in, even if you win.”

        Yeah, but those immigrants are engaging in it whether you want to or not. And it will only get worse as they move up out of nail salons and corner vegetable stores into law firms, tech firms, etc. Which they are already doing.


        March 30, 2016 at 10:39 AM

      • Excellent point, although you might be overestimating their ability to move on up, especially with the numbers pressure of ever increasing immigration. There are already a lot of angry 2nd, 3rd generation Hispanics who are realizing that TPTB had no intention of ever letting them move on up rather than import huge numbers of new workers, and increasingly angry Orientals talking about the Bamboo Ceiling.

        But giving into that logic is like responding to massive black crime rates by telling non blacks to toughen up and learn to literally fight it out in the new reality.


        March 30, 2016 at 11:14 AM

  4. Exactly. And corporations love the crony capitalism that democrats are so adept at and hate any sort of free market that increases their competition.


    March 30, 2016 at 9:37 AM

  5. This has usually been the case. In the 1960s big business was in favor of the civil rights act forbidding private business from discrimination. In the South most stores were segregated. Business wanted to be able to sell to all customers, but they feared if they ended segregated stores, the white customers would go elsewhere. The federal government requiring them to end segregation allowed them to do this without losing business.

    Mike CA

    March 30, 2016 at 9:40 AM

    • and the civil rights movement also expanded the supply of labor for many jobs, thus putting downward pressure on wages….but the fact that the civil rights movement depressed wage growth and therefore increased corporate profits for the corporations that control washington DC, that is a mere coincidence….likewise, the fact that the civil rights movement grew the economy by creating more consumers, thus increasing profits for those same companies, that is also a coincidence.

      Remember, to be a good american, you must realize that there are many coincidences. Many….


      March 30, 2016 at 3:51 PM

  6. America is a large, diverse country. It seems perfectly logical that big business in a capitalist economy would go out of its way to signal itself as friendly to minority groups, be they racial, sexual, whatever.

    What doesn’t make sense — and I’m not sure if this is actually happening YET — is the idea of big business in a capitalist economy actively trying to alienate whites, Christians, etc.

    Kasa no Obake

    March 30, 2016 at 10:03 AM

    • this was the comment i was going to leave. long-run, they will lose money.

      a similar phenomenon happened with he dnc. why become anti-white? blue-collar whites + swpls* + non-whites = permanent majority.

      *auto-correct changed “swpls,” to “swells,” which is old school slang for the wealthy.


      March 30, 2016 at 12:53 PM

  7. Vox Popoli has a simpler answer: Corporations are subject to the entryism of social justice warriors. They are easily infiltrated institutions. The leftists that then take over proceed to dismantle the company from within.

    It’s the axiom that any institution not explicitly right-wing will eventually become left-wing. Big business is no exception.


    March 30, 2016 at 10:24 AM

    • Precisely. The colleges really do a great job of turning normal white middle class kids into raging SJWs (well, it starts in grade school and high school). This is why I scoff when people say “the Liberals aren’t breeding, we TruCons haz babbies and we’ll take over in time!”

      Nonsense. Your TruCon kids are converted into SJWs and SWPLs every day.


      March 30, 2016 at 10:42 AM

      • This is so true, the cons are breeding, but the schools convert a healthy number of conservative kids into liberals and SJWs.


        March 30, 2016 at 11:40 AM

      • This is why I scoff when people say “the Liberals aren’t breeding, we TruCons haz babbies and we’ll take over in time!”

        By contrast, I get a kick out of people who think that “school” turns kids liberal. How? What is the mechanism? (Unless you mean that school is a good venue for applying peer/group pressure in general.) Any time anyone argues that “college” is turning kids Leftist, I always want to ask them if they even went to college themselves. Good grief, the vast bulk of the student population doesn’t care what their teachers think about “social justice”.

        Pop culture is the real bogeyman, and it is true that conservatives lose kids to social pressure conveyed through the media.

        In any event, the fertility argument is interesting, and certainly holds merit, but needs to be understood properly. It’s true that slightly-right-of-the road folks – who *lean* conservative and will “probably” vote Republican – don’t have a great fertility advantage. Eric Kaufman, for instance, acknowledges in his talk that the baby disparity between everyday evangelicals and mainstream liberals exists, but isn’t that large, and would take centuries to effect a real cultural change – even without attrition. It’s a difference that will allow (e.g.) evangelicals (or whatever other conservative minority) to *persist*, but probably not to *win*, not on the strength of fertility alone.

        Samson J.

        March 30, 2016 at 1:42 PM

      • “How? What is the mechanism?”

        Peer pressure. And not so much from liberal professors, but rather from the other students.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 30, 2016 at 3:21 PM

      • My experience at college was that the liberal kids came in liberal and the conservative kids came in conservative and for the most part no one changed their mind. Colleges are not where tolerance for gay rights or feminism is bred. That happens in popular culture. A TV show like “Modern Family” has done more to push America towards accepting gay marriage and multiculturalism than a thousand Marxist professors.

        Peter Akuleyev

        March 30, 2016 at 4:30 PM

      • Nonsense. Your TruCon kids are converted into SJWs and SWPLs every day.

        Hell, old Republican “white guys” are converting RIGHT NOW.

        Look how Trump is turning so many Republican “white males” into SJWs!!! It’s amazing.

        It’s like being in an area that is being overcome by a plague. People are dropping dead all over the place, even people you thought were healthy and resistant.


        March 31, 2016 at 9:38 AM

  8. To avoid the negative publicity and expense of discrimination lawsuits, companies spew out a constant stream of image-polishing BS that gushingly praises all the bigmouthed, highly litigious grievance communities.

    Mark Caplan

    March 30, 2016 at 10:33 AM

    • While I think it’s standard for libertarian types who don’t actually work at big corporations to say stuff like that, “map” has the correct answer, which is that the people who work there are true believers.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 30, 2016 at 10:36 AM

      • yes, the people doing the work are true believers, but those people only get hired because the owners/executives are worried about the above.

        it all comes down to scale. before a company hits a certain threshold, they can operate without having to worry about diversity, EEOC, etc. they screen for exactly the type of people the want: the right skill set and the right “culture fit” (ie they dont hire anyone that they suspect will rock the boat).

        once a company gets to a certain size and/or growth rate, they need to hire too many people to continue with the same level of screening so they lower their standards and bring in an HR team to handle the recruiting (sometimes they avoid the HR team and either miss hiring targets or have poor retention, then bring in the HR team). the HR team then grows like cancer and starts to hire people that they want to be around vs. whom the employees want to be around.


        March 30, 2016 at 3:33 PM

  9. Many people say that immigration is all about lower wages. Which is half the truth. The other half is consumers. Consider, America without the 1965 immigration act would have about, oh, 100 million fewer people in it right now (and would be a friggin’ paradise, but I digress). While a lot of those people aren’t wealthy, they still buy stuff, and they buy stuff at USA prices (not Mexican or African prices), and they get money from the government which is turned over for food and iPhones and prescription drugs, and they generate billions of dollars of income flow to the corporations. Hell, they even buy houses and cars with zero money down loans! And the brighter ones get government loans to go to college! Everybody wins, except middle and working class white people.


    March 30, 2016 at 10:45 AM

    • peterike wrote:
      “Many people say that immigration is all about lower wages. Which is half the truth. The other half is consumers.”

      Exactly,…and you and I seem to be the only people in the world pointing this out…the usa and western europe are run like livestock ranches, and the owners always want more worker-consumer livestock…what it is really all about is the economy…and corporate profits….immigration increases the size of the herd, and the bigger the herd, the higher the profits…

      another aspect of it is that the corporations want more control over the government–the less control the people have over the govt, the more control the corporations have….immigration increases diversity, and diversity decreases the unity of the people…the less unified the populace, the less control they have over the politicians, which means the corporations have more control…and the more the corporations control the govt, the more easily they can use the govt to make the country be managed in a way that increases profits….


      March 30, 2016 at 1:37 PM

      • Wow, what a bunch of poor, one-sided reasoning. Let me show why you all are so wrong.

        More brown consumers sporting EBT cards loaded with money confiscated from Whites via taxation is a “robbing Peter to pay Pablo and Tyrone” sort of scheme where now the White workers have less to spend on corporation-created goodies because brown people have now that exact same amount to spend on those same goodies — zero sum. Also, having more brown consumers means corporations must hire more workers to produce those goods, meaning proportionally they pay just as much in taxes as they ever did.

        You’re welcome for the education.


        March 30, 2016 at 6:00 PM

      • hard9bf wrote:
        “Wow, what a bunch of poor, one-sided reasoning. Let me show why you all are so wrong.”

        I want to make something — I myself do not support economic growth via mass immigration. Really, any decent reader should have been able to pick that up from my post. You however did not. So I have to make this clear for people like you. That’s OK.

        hard9bf wrote:
        “More brown consumers sporting EBT cards loaded with money confiscated from Whites via taxation is a “robbing Peter to pay Pablo and Tyrone” sort of scheme where now the White workers have less to spend on corporation-created goodies because brown people have now that exact same amount to spend on those same goodies — zero sum. ”

        WRONG. The white people who have to pay for welfare moochers will just have to work harder. Voila! Increased economic activity, and the profits for the corporations just went up. See how that works? Not that hard to understand. Well, for most people, anyway.

        hard9bf wrote:
        “Also, having more brown consumers means corporations must hire more workers to produce those goods, meaning proportionally they pay just as much in taxes as they ever did.”

        But profits still increase. More workers and more consumers are just like more livestock.

        You’re welcome for the education.


        March 30, 2016 at 11:35 PM

    • don’t forget tax revenue (social security shortfalls)


      March 30, 2016 at 3:35 PM

      • “don’t forget tax revenue (social security shortfalls)”

        Ahh yes, the myth that adding a billion brown and black people will pay for old white folks to have comfortable retirements! For starters, 900,000,000 of those billion people are net tax drains, so there’s that. (Cuck math: zero x a billion equals a billion). And believe me, five minutes after non-whites REALLY take power (which will happen in Europe far sooner than in America) the first item on the agenda is going to be pulling the plug on welfare for old white people. Old white people will be left to die, if not killed outright. This is as certain as night following day.


        March 30, 2016 at 3:45 PM

  10. I think Lion is mostly right. Corporations that coin money due to out-sized market share are often run by liberals types who want to (and can afford to) do good. On the other hand, crony capitalism accounts for corporate support of a lot of government initiatives. Look at the growing ring of government serving corporations around Washington DC. Or ask Epic Corp what it thinks of Obamacare, which practically requires health providers to use software that only a few companies can provide, and which Epic dominates.

    March 30, 2016 at 11:28 AM

  11. You know that the “conservative movement” is dead when even big business has turned leftward. Hell, the goddamn Pope, the head of the Roman Catholic Church isn’t even a conservative. And mainline Protestants and Jews are obviously lefties now, by and large. All the major institutions of this country that confer respectability…corporate, religious, media, academic and governmental are marching left.

    The writing is on the wall. SoCons are total losers.


    March 30, 2016 at 11:41 AM

    • That’s why the alt-right is the new counter-culture.


      March 30, 2016 at 12:08 PM

  12. Lion,
    Yes! I totally agree. Once corporations or firms reach a certain size, they start to espouse more liberal views. Small businesses and medium sized corporations don’t really care of liberal issues or “diversity”. My firm, per-merger, never once mentioned anything regarding “diversity”. Once we merged to become a larger firm, the SJW-type stuff started creeping in.


    March 30, 2016 at 12:06 PM

  13. OT, but perhaps you will find this interesting enough to make a post about it. I just found this site that lists college majors by the IQ of the high school students going into them. It also does a break down by Verbal and Quant scores. I found it interesting because back in the day, I entered as a physics major and then decided my math abilities weren’t strong enough. If I had had this chart, I would have known that in advance. With an IQ of 134, without the breakdown, I should have been smart enough for physics, but Differential Equations was what convinced me that I just wasn’t good enough. But then, I was never satisfied to be anything other than an A student. Also interesting, is that I switched to, and got my degree in, philosophy, which is the second highest IQ on the list. If I had it all to do over, I would have gone into accounting, which averages 110 and pays much more than similar-IQ majors. I think accounting would have been an easy A for me, and I would have had a clear career path, which wasn’t the case at all with a philosophy major.


    March 30, 2016 at 2:25 PM

  14. Maybe we should convert to Islam. The Muslim countries don’t have the problem of this kind of bullshit.

    Otis the Sweaty

    March 30, 2016 at 2:28 PM

  15. As for corporations being leftwing, that may be true of most of them, but there are exceptions. I doubt the executives at Exxon Mobil are leftwing, for example (though the descendants of Exxon’s founder Rockefeller certainly are — IIRC, they tried to get the company to abandon oil several years ago).

    Dave Pinsen

    March 30, 2016 at 3:06 PM

  16. For what it is worth, I have seen a trend of companies paying very small dollars to have in-house counsel that takes care of very small issues (writing letters for claims, etc.) and managing the outside legal vendors. Think relatively fresh JD – JD/MBA people from random law schools. Comp in the ~$50k/range. These jobs are generally pretty 9-5.

    For the types of legal positions that are getting filled by the BIGLAW people, I typically see them working very long hours… especially if they work at a public company that is focused on reducing SGA (ie push more and more work from their outside counsel onto inside counsel to save money)


    March 30, 2016 at 3:40 PM

    • 9-5 BIGLAW doesn’t exist, except on the partner level. It’s grueling serfdom, with a scant few who become aristocrats.

      $150K entry level salary for a 60hr/wk, doesn’t sound sexy at all, when you adjust for taxes, loan payments, and Manhattan rental prices. Most important, this was the same salary level pre-2008, which indicates wage stagnation, while costs of living continue to rise.


      March 30, 2016 at 10:51 PM

      • BIGLAW has horrible hours, but after putting in a few years, like I said, you can get a 9-5 in-house corporate job.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 31, 2016 at 1:07 AM

  17. Many left-liberals still don’t believe this. They think corporations are pushing socially liberal policies for cold, Machiavellian reasons, because doing so benefits their bottom line. They still can’t grasp that the people running the corporations are liberal true believers.


    March 30, 2016 at 8:25 PM

  18. So you just discovered the full name for capitalism is liberal international capitalism?


    March 30, 2016 at 8:55 PM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: