Levi’s Teams with Billionaire Michael Bloomberg to
Attack Gun Rights
Friday, September 7, 2018
Levi Strauss & Co. established its brand in the
mid-19th century by selling durable clothing to working-class Americans. As
Levi’s signature jeans gained popularity amongst a wider set in the middle of
the last century, the pants came to symbolize American freedom. As Stanford
Historian Niall Ferguson points out in his book, Civilization: The West and the
Rest, during the Cold War, the American pants were so desirable
behind the Iron Curtain that citizens would break any number of laws to obtain
them. At one point the company even celebrated America’s armed heritage in a
circa 1950 advertising brochure, “Levi’s Gallery of Western Guns
& Gunfighters.” It’s with some irony then that Levi’s has
abandoned this rugged image to team up with a billionaire oligarch in an effort
to empower the government to trample upon the fundamental rights of the
American people.
On September 4th, Levi’s CEO Chip Bergh announced that
the San Francisco-based clothing manufacturer (which also owns Dockers) would
openly advocate for gun control. As part of this campaign, the company will
donate more than $1 million to radical anti-gun groups, including Michael
Bloomberg front-group Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords, formerly Americans
for Responsible Solutions and the Legal Community Against Violence. The company
will also match employee donations to these groups and is encouraging its staff
to devote their time to anti-gun activism.
Further, Bergh stated that the company has joined the
Everytown Business Leaders for Gun Safety. The business wing of Bloomberg’s
outfit is dedicated to leveraging member companies’ “market footprint… employee
networks, [and] public communications platforms” to diminish Americans’ Second
Amendment rights.
In a repulsive insult to the nation’s 100 million gun
owners, Bergh likened Levi’s campaign to restrict the rights of law-abiding
Americans to previous company efforts aimed at combatting pre-Civil Rights Era
racial bigotry.
Among gun owners, Levi’s intemperate foray into the world
of gun control politics has been met with the disgust it
deserves. However, it shouldn’t be met with surprise.
Since the late 1990s, Levi’s has used its name and
resources to attack gun rights. In 1999, the company gave $100,000 to gun
control group PAX, followed by a $250,000 donation in
2000 and another $100,000 in
2001.
PAX was founded in 1998 by Dan Gross, who went on to
become president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. PAX would go on
to change its name to the Center to Prevent Youth Violence and later merge with
the Brady Campaign.
Much like Bloomberg’s Everytown, PAX placed an emphasis
on attracting corporate partners to their gun control efforts. As part of
Levi’s relationship with PAX, in 1999 the apparel company teamed up with the
band Goo Goo Dolls to attract support for the anti-gun group during the Levi’s
Fuse ’99 summer concert tour. Concert goers, and visitors to Levi’s website,
were encouraged to sign the PAX Youth Petition. Moreover, the denim company
donated a percentage of all Levi’s Fuse ’99 t-shirt proceeds to the gun control
group.
The PAX Youth Petition endorsed a variety of severe gun
control measures that have repeatedly been rejected by the American public
through their elected representatives. The document called for the “licensing
and registration of guns, like automobiles.” The petition also demanded the
“elimination of assault weapons and other weapons of war.” As the 1994 Clinton
“Assault Weapons” ban was in place at the time of the petition, this imprecise
demand appeared to call for prohibiting the sale of the remaining lawful
semi-automatic firearms, confiscation of the firearms grandfathered under the ban,
or both.
Given the majority of Levi’s 165-year history, Bergh’s
decision to use a formerly-quintessential American company to attack a
quintessential American right is a particularly sad episode in the current
surge in corporate virtue-signaling. We can only assume that Levi’s accountants
have determined that resulting skinny jeans sales will be enough to offset the
permanent damage to their once-cherished brand.
No comments:
Post a Comment