Sticker Shock

The owner of a sticker company in upstate New York has received death threats and calls to boycott his business. His transgression? Preaching tolerance for political choices and revealing his own.

AMSTERDAM, NY — “Our stickers kick ass,” proclaims the upstate New York labels, stickers, and promotional products company Sticker Mule. And while the company’s stickers might “kick ass,” there are those that have been looking to kick the company owner's ass, or worse—merely for preaching acceptance of other’s political choices, and for revealing his own. Yup, nowadays them are fightin’ words.

“I don’t care what your political views are but the hate for Trump and his supporters has gone too far. People are terrified to admit they support Trump,” Anthony Constantino, Sticker Mule’s owner, posted on the social media platform X shortly after the failed assassination attempt, “I’ve been scared myself. Americans shouldn’t live in fear. I support Trump. Many at Sticker Mule do. Many at Sticker Mule also support Biden. The political hate needs to stop.”

But what began as a call for tolerance ended with slurs and death threats. The backlash was immediate, harsh, and sometimes veered to the violent. Constantino was attacked as homophobic, racist, and accused of endangering the welfare of his employees. His life, and his business, were threatened. The media site Slate described it as “MAGA” and Mule Sticker’s employees as “shocked.” Not shocked, mind you, that Constantino received death threats, but “shocked” he was bold enough to admit he supported Trump.

Forbes magazine’s “workplace culture, equity and belonging” columnist Rebekah Bastian, a self-proclaimed “product leader, entrepreneur, writer and artist,” in an article titled “Sticker Mule’s Political Stance Undermines Workplace Inclusion and Customer Trust,” wrote that Constantino, by revealing his supported Trump, “alienated many of the company's employees and customers.”

She says she spoke with three Sticker Mule employees (out of the company's more than 1,200, hardly a representative sample), all who wished to remain anonymous (of course) “for fear of repercussions,” and who “all shared a lack of belonging and psychological safety at work from this incident.” Funny, but they don’t appear to have been complaining about the “lack of belonging” or fearing for their “psychological safety,” before the “incident.” Is just the knowledge that your boss, or maybe a co-worker, is a Trump supporter now a workplace “incident?” Will the new hashtag be #MyBossIsMAGAtoo?

“Talking the talk,” but not “Walking the Walk”

Political leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, constantly talk of “uniting” Americans, and of “building bridges,” but it’s mostly empty rhetoric. They “talk the talk,” but rarely “walk the walk.” More often they are burning, rather than building, bridges.

In his Inaugural Address, President Biden said the goal of his administration would be “Bringing America together. Uniting our people. And uniting our nation.” Yet according to a recent Pew Research survey, Americans are more divided than ever. “Ordinary Americans,” reports Pew, “are more polarized than in the past. Partisan divisions on issues are wider than they were a few decades ago, and many Americans hold deeply negative views of those on the “other side” of politics.”

In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last month, Trump told the crowd that “The discord and division in our society must be healed. We must heal it quickly. As Americans, we are bound together by a single fate and a shared destiny. We rise together. Or we fall apart. I am running to be president for all of America, not half of America, because there is no victory in winning for half of America.”

For both Biden and Trump, the rapprochement was short-lived. Neither could stick to the promises they had made just days earlier to tone down the rhetoric. For Biden it was an interview with Lester Holt right after Trump’s Butler, PA rally, for Trump it was later in the very same convention speech where he had said “our society must be healed.” Perhaps he meant “heeled?” Hotter heads eventually prevailed, and both went on as before. Trump was back to being the “existential” threat to democracy, and the President was back to being “crooked Joe.”

Dump Trump? Then What?

Many on the left want those on the right to repudiate Trump, sometimes as a condition for maintaining a friendship or respect, sometimes—as with Sticker Mule—in the name of workplace harmony. But if Trump supporters—at least the non-deplorable ones (if there are any)—dump Trump, what can they expect in return?

“Time and again, from 2016 to the present,” writes New York Times columnist Ross Duothat, “the Democratic Party has treated Trumpism not as a civic emergency but as a political opportunity, a golden chance to win over moderate and right-leaning voters with the language of anti-authoritarianism while avoiding substantive concessions to these voters and actually moving farther to the left.”

Dumping Trump—and when I say “dumping” what they mean is either voting Democratic or not voting at all—means abandoning the political, social and cultural values and policies that make them Republicans, or conservatives, or lean-right. That’s not compromise—that’s surrender. “Democratic leaders,” continues Duothat, “mostly aren’t interested in offering serious accommodations to erstwhile conservatives in return.”

If Democrats really thought Trump was the “existential” threat to democracy they claim, Douthat argues, they would be willing to make concessions worthy of that threat in order to woo right-leaning or independent voters. But they won’t, “at least not if that means passing up chances to enact policies you think are necessary or giving up on causes you hold dear.” Why should Democrats expect moderate Republicans to abandon ship when they won’t even throw them a life-preserver?

So instead, the strategy is to “shame” Trump supporters into either going woke or staying home. Back in 2016 the New York Times published a political “post-mortem.” Columnists—mostly Democrats—reacted to the election of Donald Trump with either apoplexy, reflection—or a mixture of both. “It turns out,” wrote Michael Lerner, a rabbi and progressive advocate, “that shaming the supporters of Donald J. Trump is not a good political strategy.”

In his essay, Rabbi Lerner warned fellow Democrats that supporting Trump “does not reveal an inherent malice in the majority of Americans,” only that there are “many who feel misunderstood and denigrated by the fancy intellectuals and radical activists.” In her essay, Sarah Jaffe, an author and fellow at The Nation Institute (now the Type Media Center) observed that “Mr. Trump was a bomb they were willing to throw at a system they felt was failing them.” Even Hilary Clinton admitted that “half [of Trump supporters] are people who feel the government has let them down and need understanding and empathy.” The other half, of course, were a basket of “deplorables.”

Rachel Kleinfeld, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment, notes that while American voters might not be as ideologically far apart as they believe, it’s our political leaders who have become more extreme, pulling the most extreme voters—kicking and screaming at the other side—with them. “More ideologically extreme politicians,” she observed, “have been running for office since the 1980s.” Classic political science theory assumed that politicians chased voters. Seems it's now the other way round.

“Leaders on both sides need to stop describing the stakes of the election in apocalyptic terms,” pleads a recent Wall Street Journal editorial. “Democracy won’t end if one or the other candidate is elected. Fascism is not aborning if Mr. Trump wins, unless you have little faith in American institutions.”

There is, however, some cause for optimism—and it’s coming from an unlikely place—college campuses. According to another Wall Street Journal editorial, “The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill is opening the doors at its new school committed to free expression…The School of Civic Life and Leadership will offer three courses this fall, including a primer on the American political tradition and a class on the fundamentals of civil debate.” The goal, says the the school’s dean “is creating an environment where students can disagree better.” Maybe there is hope on the horizon.

Speaking of what’s on the horizon, like it or not, in a little more than two months, about half, or more, of voters will be casting their ballots for Donald Trump (75 million did in 2020)—unless, of course, the left can shame them all into voting Harris-Walz. That seems unlikely. Trying times are ahead for many. So too for Washington Post columnist, and editorial board member, Colbert King.

In an essay in Saturday morning’s Washington Post, King recalls a Washington National Cathedral forum on reclaiming civility in public life he attended earlier this year. The Cathedral Dean told attendees, “I can think of few topics more important than civility and the need for civil discourse in order for our democracy to thrive.” His column is very much worth a read.

“Keeping that in mind as we encounter Trump on the campaign trail is asking a lot,” King confesses, “But it is the correct challenge.” The Harris campaign, “shouldn’t go low,” he writes, and it “shouldn’t give in to contempt and hate or speak about Trump and his supporters in dehumanizing ways.”

You want to stick it to Sticker Mule? Don’t buy their labels or stickers. Wanna stick it to the boss? Quit. But don’t be an ass.