Politics at the Checkout Line

• Published date: 01 December 2011
• Date: 01 December 2011
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912910379232
• Author: Benjamin J. Newman,Brandon L. Bartels

Political Research Quarterly

64(4) 803 –817

© 2011 University of Utah

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1065912910379232

http://prq.sagepub.com

Politics at the Checkout Line:

Explaining Political Consumerism

in the United States

Benjamin J. Newman1 and Brandon L. Bartels2

Abstract

Political consumerism is the intentional buying or abstention from buying specific products for political, social, or ethical

purposes. We develop and test hypotheses regarding the individual sources of political consumerism in the United

States. Analysis of survey data shows that similar to voting, education, political interest, and citizen duty promote

political consumerism. Akin to protest behavior, political consumerism is enhanced by political distrust and general

discontent. In contrast to turnout, political consumerism significantly decreases with age. Given the extraelectoral and

self-initiated nature of political consumerism, citizen initiative and a proclivity for individualized forms of activism are

significant sources of political consumerism.

Keywords

political consumerism, political participation, activism, lifestyle politics

“Fair Trade.” “Sweatshop Free.” “Buy Local.” “Not

Tested on Animals.” “Environmentally Friendly.” “Buy

American.” These are just some of the slogans and prod-

uct labels that prompt American citizens to “be political”

during the course of everyday consumer activity. The

intentional buying or abstention from buying specific

products for political, social, or ethical purposes consti-

tutes the core of what has been labeled political consum-

erism. The notion and practice of using consumer

purchasing power as a political device is not a new devel-

opment and has several significant precedents in Ameri-

can history: the boycotting of British goods through the

formation of nonimportation and nonconsumption pacts

during the American Revolution (B. C. Smith 1994); the

National Consumer League’s white label campaign from

1898 to 1918 that encouraged consumers to purchase

nonsweatshop goods (Sklar 1998); the well known Mont-

gomery bus boycott of 1955 (McAdam 1982); the boy-

cott launched against Nestle in 1977 in protest of their

marketing of infant formula to developing countries

(Keck and Sikkink 1998; M. Friedman 2004); and the

boycotting of Nike running shoes during the Nike sweat-

shop labor campaign that culminated in the mid-1990s

(Bennett 2004). More recently, gay rights activists boy-

cotted various California businesses that contributed

money in support of the anti-gay-marriage state ballot

measure, Proposition 8 (Ostrom 2008); and a boycott was

called against Whole Foods Market by universal health

care advocates due to the company CEO’s public opposi-

tion to a single-payer health care system in the United

States. (E. Friedman 2009).

In addition to its historical record and persistence over

time, there is evidence that politicized consumer behav-

ior, such as boycotting, has been on the rise in the United

States and other Western industrial democracies begin-

ning in the mid- to late 1970s (M. Friedman 1985; Norris

2002; Stolle, Hooghe, and Micheletti 2005; Dalton 2008).

In terms of political consequentiality, the efficacy of

political consumerism as a form of political action has

been observed in the form of policy changes by targeted

firms and the precipitation of desired forms of govern-

ment intervention and regulation of targeted industries

(Emmelhainz and Adams 1999; M. Friedman 1999, 2004;

Micheletti 2003; N. C. Smith 2001) as well as the regis-

tering of economic impacts in the form of declines in the

stock prices of targeted firms (Pruitt and Friedman 1986;

Pruitt, Wei, and White 1988; Rock 2003). Despite its his-

torical recurrence, increased prevalence, and observed

efficacy, political consumerism has received little direct

1Stony Brook University, NY, USA

2George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Brandon L. Bartels, George Washington University, 2115 G Street,

NW, 440 Monroe Hall, Washington, DC 20052, USA

Email: bartels@gwu.edu