Republicans Call ShareACoke Campaign Obama’s Latest Move Toward Socialism


This summer, Coca-Cola launched the second season of its ShareACoke campaign, in which all of their labels were imprinted, not with the iconic logo of this all-American brand, but with a stranger’s name: Zach, Brandon, Makayla, and, more than likely, Hussein. The message here was clear: Although it was your hard earned $1.25 that purchased twenty ounces of that fizzing pop, although you broke your back to make that cash, although that patriotic one-dollar bill and that precious quarter are composed of paper, metal alloy, and your blood, sweat, and tears, it now belongs to someone else. In fact, it has their name written all over it. Who is the lucky recipient of your involuntary charity? Who is this individual with their hand out and their mouth ever so slightly ajar? Maybe an immigrant. Maybe a Muslim. Maybe even a Muslim immigrant. And guess what? That Muslim immigrant is making you thirsty.

Republicans demand to know who was behind this communist scheme, and they demand to know it was President Obama.

It’s no secret that President Obama is a slow-talking Marxist (and that he has big ears). What remains to be seen is how he got his socialist meat-hooks into this nationalistic corporation. What was once a chemical beverage emblem for the United States of America now promotes the very cyanide of our beloved capitalism: compulsory donation. These labels are not a suggestion. There are no question marks following those needy names. No ellipsis. It isn’t “Mom?” Or “Mom…” These labels are a firm declaration of false ownership. It’s welfare, personalized and carbonated.

They might as well follow the names with exclamation points.

Fine, if that’s what you think, you aren’t invited to my birthday party!

*I’m nervous to publish this post, knowing that any mention of politics results in angry backlash, no matter how benevolent the mentioner intended to be. For the record, I, the mentioner, intended to be extremely benevolent.

I have several problems with politics, but one of the main ones is that individuals from both parties rarely acknowledge that, in most cases, their opponents have good points. If issues were cut and dry between right and wrong, there would be no need for debate; the answer would be clear to everybody. That is not the case. Most issues fall in a gray area, with no perfect solution, and political parties are divided by what they believe to be the lesser of two evils–one party contends that the benefits of their solution outweigh the negatives, and the other party thinks the opposite. However, they always neglect to say, “Yes, I see that we’re caught in a bind here. It’s a tough situation, with no clear solution. Either way we go will have consequences. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a utopia where one choice is the perfect choice, but here’s why I think my consequences are more benign.” No, it’s more like, “I’m right and you’re an idiot,” so it often feels like we might as well have Kindergardeners running the country, and who we elect should be based on which candidate has the strongest dad.

I’m hesitant to use this as an example but, take the recent debate over contraception. It’s an issue with no ideal solution. On one hand, separation of church and state is compromised by the government interfering with how religious organizations run their businesses. Church and state aside, it’s also arguably intrusive to allow the government to make such specific demands of private corporations, and setting a precedent for that could result in a slippery slope. In my opinion, those are two fair points. On the other hand, allowing private corporations to limit coverage according to moral objection leaves a lot of room for interpretation and, as my mother says, if people can take advantage of the system, they will. Businesses think in financial terms, and if they see an opportunity to cut insurance costs, they will–even if it isn’t completely legitimate. Additionally, if you are not prepared to raise and support children, using birth control is the responsible thing to do. Discouraging birth control may result in unintended pregnancies, which may further result in a higher population of individuals dependent on government support. And I know that isn’t what Republican want.

Birth control is a widely used, widely accepted medication, and I understand the injustice of having that denied by your insurance provider. That really, well, sucks, and if I were in that situation, I would be pissed. But perhaps that’s something one needs to consider when agreeing to work for a Catholic organization, and to take into account when negotiating benefit packages. If when accepting a job I discovered that my employer’s insurance wouldn’t cover birth control, I would calculate how much that would independently cost me per year, and factor that into salary agreements. It’s similar to if an employer won’t offer dental. My friend Maureen broke her tooth last year. It wasn’t covered by Yale’s insurance plan, and she had to pay $1500. That bites–hehe–but is the right of the employer. (I can almost feel the dirty glares of people who disagree with me over my last statement. Okay, dental and birth control are not exactly the same, but it’s the best analogy I could come up with.) Side note: My boss would probably add that, although Catholic organizations might not offer contraceptives, their other benefits are out-of-this-world. A little nun humor for you.

No matter what you believe, there is NO excuse for the kind of language that’s been fired across enemy lines. Slut? Prostitute? Someone needs to flush Limbaugh. Shame on him! Not only is that horribly disrespectful and humiliating to that witness, but he makes the rest of his party look bad. He twisted the argument into: birth control covered by insurance=women wanting money for sex. That’s dumb, inaccurate even to traditionalists considering that married women are on birth control, and NOT an example of a good point in this argument. As a well-known Republican face, he should learn to represent his party more effectively, appropriately, and intelligently.

When it comes to politics, differences of opinion explode into uncivil unrest. I understand that we can’t live in a perfect world where all the answers are obvious and where donkeys and elephants skip together in green pastures beneath an American flag billowing in the breeze, but I’m pretty sure we can manage to be, if not kind, then courteous.

And if courtesy is impossible, we are just some dirt and water away from mud-wrestling, so let’s at least make these debates entertaining.