Around two decades ago, during a December 2004 segment of “The O’Reilly Factor,” host Bill O’Reilly declared a “War on Christmas” in America, citing instances of alleged attacks on Christmas traditions. The narrative evolved, with conservative figures contending that their way of life was under threat, a sentiment notably expressed in John Gibson’s 2005 book. The battleground shifted from traditional politics to culture, epitomized by the Starbucks cup controversy in 2015.
Conservatives took offense at Starbucks’ minimalist 2015 holiday cup, interpreting it as an attack on Christianity. A video by internet evangelist Joshua Feuerstein went viral, leading to then-presidential candidate Donald Trump suggesting a Starbucks boycott. Fast forward to 2023, and a Bud Light boycott, reminiscent of the Starbucks controversy, emerges. This time, conservatives accuse Bud Light of liberal pandering through a partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney.
The common thread in both “wars” is the conservative argument that their way of life is under siege. Whether rooted in genuine fear or political strategy, this narrative adapts to various issues. The Bud Light boycott, while sharing similarities, differs in its prolonged duration and direct political pressure, exemplified by Senators Ted Cruz and Marsha Blackburn investigating Anheuser-Busch’s partnership with Mulvaney.
Despite the seemingly trivial nature of these boycotts, they contribute to a divisive culture war. Social media perpetuates the narrative, fostering a conservative-facing alternative economy and fueling hate. The rising violence against transgender individuals, as evidenced by a Human Rights Campaign report, underscores the tangible consequences of this culture war. Ultimately, marginalized groups bear the brunt of these conflicts, highlighting the disparity between symbolic battles and the real victims of America’s culture war.