San Francisco Abandons Red State Boycott

A Tale of Identity Politics and its Predictable Results

The city of San Francisco officially ended its nearly four-year-long boycott of red state companies, as city officials voted to repeal Administrative Code 12X.

The controversial code was initially put in place as a city government response to states that “discriminate” against person of LGBT orientation, restrict the “right” to choose, or “suppress” voting rights by requiring identification. The boycott was deemed ineffective and causing administrative hardships.

Conservatives have long argued that Code 12X was a classic case of liberals practicing discrimination against those whom they claim discriminate. It was also a boomerang that aimed at punishing those who failed to be liberal and instead has had deleterious effects on businesses in San Francisco and surrounding areas. The poorly conceived, and hastily implemented Code 12X, is another example in a long list of agenda-driven leftist decrees executed without due diligence or care for the common good.

Reactions to the city’s decision have been mixed. Some politicians praising the move as pragmatic and necessary, while others argue that it is a betrayal of the woke agenda San Francisco claims to champion. Those in businesses affected by the boycott have voiced relief, as many have faced severe financial strains, giving further proof to the cliché “go woke, go broke.”

Enacted by the Board of Supervisors, Administrative Code 12X forbade San Francisco city employees from traveling to 30 states on official business. In addition, it also curtailed the use of city funds using businesses headquartered in these states. The bold law was meant to sanction all those states who disagreed with the city’s ultra-liberal agenda.

However, city officials now realize that the boycott was not having the intended effect. It punished liberals with unforeseen financial strain, hampered economic growth and burdened both city staff and vendors. San Francisco suffered by eliminated links and trade with thirty American states and their business opportunities.

In justifying the repeal, Board Supervisor Rafael Mandelman stated, “It’s not achieving the goal we intended. It’s making our government less efficient.” This view resonated widely within the political and business communities, resulting in a unanimous decision to lift the boycott which represented political grandstanding.

The end of this divisive policy has garnered mixed reactions from politicians and the business community. Some impacted businesses suffered from significant drops in revenue and strained relations with affected firms. They now hope their businesses can recover based on good economics and not social justice rhetoric.

On the other hand, advocates for LGBT “rights” and opponents of voter ID laws fret that this repeal sends a message of surrender to conservatives. If not even crazy San Francisco can stand firm for its “principles,” they reason, then no one will prevail.

Ironically, San Francisco liberals espouse a live-and-let-live attitude, but don’t hesitate to punish those who live in different ways than they do. Those who claim to be tolerant prove to be intolerant of ideas do not live according to their norms. That’s why Administrative Code 12X backfired—and did so spectacularly.

The long-term effects of the repeal remain uncertain. However, the shift caused by San Francisco’s changes, is altering the political landscape by weakening similar controversial policies enacted elsewhere. Since the city’s boycott appeared as a bold statement against conservative policies, the decision to abandon it will favor more freedom. It also demonstrates that the city does not enjoy the massive majority it claims to have.

The end of San Francisco’s boycott of red state companies is likely affect the ongoing debate over identity politics and its consequences on every level of society. Administrative Code 12X is an example of destructive liberal political bias. Small businesses deserve better than hasty, ill-informed decisions that hurt their bottom lines simply because radicals want to promote perverse sexual proclivities and other unnatural practices as “normal.”