Can your brand afford to have a political opinion?

Do you dare endorse with your brand?

Earlier this year, Sticker Mule released a statement endorsing Donald Trump and calling for a lowering of political tensions.

Since inclusion of - or compromise with - democrats or liberals is absolutely vilified by Trump, who is easily described as a poster child for divisiveness and hate, Sticker Mule founder Anthony Constantino fell somewhat flat in his tone-deaf attempt to include Biden supporters.

Some Sticker Mule employees who weren't happy with their leader's endorsement voiced their opinions.

“The CEO implied in his email that he speaks for me, which he categorically does not. I do not share any of his views and I am appalled at the use of the company in this way,” another employee lamented. “It sends a very clear message to female and LGBTQ staff that you support someone who wants to rip away their rights.”

The bottom line is that Sticker Mule employees made it very clear:

It's hard to promote inclusiveness of different ideas when the candidate you support demonizes everything from the other side of the aisle and underscores every division with hyperbole.

Sticker Mule probably lost some business and gained some of it back from some new politically-aligned customers. However, the very fact that I'm writing this article is a testament to how willing a company must be to go under fire for controversial political statements. I'm sure some SM employees don't like the attention they're getting.

Indeed, Constantino has posted on LinkedIn saying he thinks Trump will make the world "a happier place." But happier for whom?

The Divisiveness of Blending Politics and Brands

When politics enters the business arena, it’s important to be able to at least provide a reasoned argument as to why your endorsement is authentic and can withstand scrutiny.

Can Sticker Mule rationally and apologetically address the concerns of his liberal employees that Donald Trump stands for exclusion and division - especially when it comes to a business leader voting for a candidate who has promised to take away LGBTQ and women's rights, even if that leader supports DEI in the workplace?

At best, it's cognitive dissonance. At worst, it's downright hypocrisy.

There are no shades of gray in the two-party system.

I despise our two-party system. It divides America into two camps despite hundreds of political issues. I would argue that most Americans support a wide variety of causes, issues, political stances, and viewpoints that center not around “right” or “wrong,” but rather the problems we have in our country and society.

Third-party candidates are never taken seriously, never get PAC endorsements (which are intentional loopholes in campaign finance that allow for massive amounts of corruption), and usually steal votes from the lesser of two evils.

A ranked choice voting system is far more likely to raise up political leaders with deep understandings of our real problems and strong, well-reasoned approaches to solving those problems.

To be frank, NO American should ever be 100% in any one candidate’s camp. We should be a nation of solving problems, protecting the disenfranchised, and elevating quality of life for all, and prioritizing nonviolent reform.

But here we are, stuck voting for the lesser of two evils.

To be as objective as possible, I have many issues with Kamala Harris and her policies. I also think she has some very productive domestic stances that, although not what I want wholly, trend in the direction I think of as a positive one. Still, she has a lot to answer for regarding our foreign policy with the Israel-Hamas war, and I want a more honest assessment of our economic disposition from her.

There is no longer allowance for nuance in differing political opinions.

You're either right or wrong. Right or Left. Liberal or Conservative. Leftist Commies or Right Wing Nut Jobs.

I have an acquaintance who said I shilled for Joe Biden, even when I told him I believed Biden's Israel policies were atrocious (in regards to its disproportionate military response of killing tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians - not an antisemitic judgment of Israelis or Jews*). He wouldn't answer any policy-oriented questions I asked him. He wouldn't debate any issues. He wouldn't provide supporting evidence to back up his views.

This kind of unwavering, partisan, confirmation bias-supporting power stance is one of little value and only serves to alienate the true spirit of debate, compromise, and mature political analysis.

So why do people do it? Dare I suggest that people double down in order to save face, because "how could I live with myself if the people I spent years of my life demonizing turn out to be right about some things?"

It's ineffective to possess virtues above political parties

Don't like either candidate's policies on Gaza/Ukraine/China?

Too bad. Pick one.

Is there a bill in Congress? There's about a 30% chance that bill will become a law, regardless of the level of popular support it receives.

We don't have true representation in our government. We have the illusion of representation.

What we're facing in 2024

Regardless of who you're voting for, you should be able to back up your reasons why. They should be rational and based on a basic understanding of political science, and there is no excuse for not knowing exactly how our three branches of government work and what their responsibilities are, and the constitutional limits of their powers.

If you don't know these basic tenets of American government, you shouldn't be voting.

Harris vs. Trump

Preferences vs. Reality

• I don’t like some of her values and policy stances. There are also obvious benefits I see to her presidency, not the least of which is not living under a psychopathic, narcissistic, corrupt, 34x felon and sexual offender, but those things have nothing to do with Kamala Harris. She can't rely on the "This guy is a douche" argument to make her a good president.
• I want a reframing of the job market and I want politicians in general to accurately acknowledge that statistics like employment rates, the rate of inflation, and I want the phrase "strong economy" stripped from our vocabulary. It's a misnomer. It only indicates how Wall Street is doing - not Main Street.
• I want an honest reckoning of the distribution of wealth in our country and its overwhelming impact on the vast majority of Americans.
• We desperately need economic reform in the form of federal minimum wage increases and limits on capitalism's inevitable predatory response by raising prices, reducing supply, etc.
• We need a massive tax on people with net worth of over $50 million. By no means should we live in a world where 26 billionaires have as much money as the rest of the world combined. We don't have to come anywhere close to making rich people destitute, but it could definitely raise some out of destitution.
• Workers' productivity needs to have a standard legislative algorithm employed to reap profits that correspond to the company's overall profits.
• There needs to a limit on how many companies one company is allowed to own. is the lining of a billionaire's pocket, and they didn't do anything special enough to deserve to hoard the money supply at the expense of lower- and working-class families are battling the imminent threats of homelessness, crime, expensive childcare, soaring home prices, shrink/greedflation, and the skyrocketing cost of living.

These are my low-hanging fruits. Will the Harris Administration touch them? We'll have to see, and I won't hold my breath, but right now, we're just trying to escape the likelihood of a fascist dictatorship.

But Donald Trump has proven he is willing to say anything and everything for his own interest, defend his actions only by attacking others, and has no interest in solving real problems that will have long-term impacts. He’s encouraged an insurrection, pushed election lies, and the vast majority of his former staff has denounced him for a myriad of reasons.

Since that time, the vast majority of Donald Trump's language and behavior has been hyperbolic, narcissistic, deflective, vitriolic, inflammatory, and wildly misrepresentative (there is no evidence anywhere of a pet-eating epidemic, but both the scale, location, offenders, and the crucial details of the incident presented by Trump are all incorrect).

Kamala Harris doesn't always answer the questions either, but it's a far cry from Trump starting his own cryptocurrency company while vying for the position that has the power to appoint the person who regulates the crypto market - among his other conflicts of interest - on top of exhibiting classic symptoms of narcissism and an astoundingly disability to form cohesive thoughts or demonstrate self control on any level.

So WHAT?

I don't know how we're going to democratically change our democracy to be more fair, representative, and functional.

I do know that we will never change it if we don't all get wiser about our politics and stop missing the forest for the trees. Congress does not function at anything close to representing the will of the people, and it hasn't for decades.

Until then, be careful about any official political support your business may take, and may you never stop seeking wisdom at the ballot box, in your local elections, and voting for our next president - and most of all, as you seek to find ways American can lead the world into a kinder, fairer, more balanced society that makes life good for all - not just a few.

*The history of Israel and Palestine goes back millennia, and the past 6 years of Israeli/Palestine history is murky at best, but there is an argument to be made - and evidence to suggest - that Israel's government has perpetrated apartheid-like crimes against the Palestinian population. I encourage readers to dig into the last several decades of research into the region's many conflicts and the geopolitical dynamics of Israeli/Palestinian lands.