The Bud Light Controversy Has Implications Beyond Transgender Protections:

Background:

Budlight and parent company Anheuser-Busch are facing harsh criticism from both conservatives and liberals for partnering with transgender advocate Dylan Mulvaney to promote Bud Light to a broader audience. The move was by no means politically motivated, yet the company now finds itself at the epicenter of a contentious political controversy due to Dylan Mulvaney's transgender identity.

Conservatives are boycotting Bud Light, deeming the partnership harmful to the American image, and have gone as far as to threaten the safety of Anheuser-Busch employees, claiming bombs have been stationed at various manufacturing centers. Prominent conservative figures like 90’s rocker Kid Rock and country singer Travis Tritt have taken up arms in the conflict by condemning the partnership on social media, publicizing their acute disapproval in hopes of inspiring others to join in the boycott.

Liberals and transgender rights advocates are also upset with Bud Light due to their vague public statement in response to the conservative boycotts that only loosely defended the company's decision to partner with Mulvaney. They are calling for Budlight to take a firmer stance reaffirming their support for Mulvaney and the transgender community.

As a result of the marketing catastrophe, two Bud Light executives are currently placed on leave. The controversy likely won’t cause substantial damage to the multinational company, but it has led to a decline in Bud Light’s stock value; Although the threats jeopardizing employee safety, a Bud Light spokesperson claimed, are the company’s primary concern.

Opinions:

Polarization will be the ultimate pitfall of our contemporary societal and political structure. Today’s America faces a plethora of dilemmas and the current BudLight controversy highlights the inescapable political polarization that plagues the public sphere. Budlight prides itself on its universal appeal as a ‘non-partisan beverage’ and undoubtedly did not intend for its affiliation with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney to be interpreted as a political statement. A Budlight spokesperson reported to CNN this past week that “Anheuser-Busch works with hundreds of influencers across our brands as one of many ways to authentically connect with audiences across various demographics.” The sole purpose of this partnership was to promote their product to a broader spectrum of consumers, a strictly marketing-oriented move, yet the company is facing unprecedented backlash from both sides of the political spectrum.

Conservatives are calling for a boycott of Budlight solely due to its affiliation with Mulvaney, which speaks to the lack of protection and support for transgender people in today’s society, a society that many like to believe has already achieved its goals in the vein of inclusivity and diversity; Clearly, this is far from the truth. The fact that in 2023, a non-partisan alcoholic beverage company is unable to allow a transgender person to promote their product without facing boycotts, declining stock prices, public criticism by prominent media figures, and even violent threats against employees, proves that society still has a long and tumultuous journey ahead of itself before it can even begin to make such claims of social ‘wokeness.’

But this specific issue ties directly back into the fundamental issue behind many of America’s problems -- The partnership was not a political statement, yet polarization and a hyper-fixation on defaming the opposing party are what caused the controversy in the first place. The Bud Light backlash of course highlights the failures concerning transgender protections, but this is just one facet of the pervasive societal discourse that turns neutral actions into political statements, oftentimes to the detriment of the original actor. If surveyed, I bet the majority of American citizens would cite nuclear annihilation as the most imminent threat to modern society, yet I believe political polarization will consume us from the inside out before any nuclear weapon strikes U.S. soil.

The political implications of wearing face masks also fit into this conversation. Surgical masks fell victim to political polarization amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and although beer and face masks share a loose relationship, in the context of this discussion, both objectively beneficial commodities were tragically transformed into political statements. In my opinion, public health is merely a matter of safety. Just because somebody wears a mask and the federal government endorses that decision does not mean that person is ‘succumbing to the government's will’ or anything along those lines. The fact is that by wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic one was simply fulfilling their societal obligation to promote public safety and support America’s efforts in returning to its pre-pandemic state, as efficiently as possible, so that the mask mandate could be lifted as efficiently as possible. However, this notion of fulfilling an intrinsic duty to our great nation was adulterated by the conservative right, and anti-masking ultimately became a defining characteristic of the conservative agenda.

The face mask controversy further exemplifies the detrimental effects that political polarization has on today’s society, and the issue seems to only be compounding itself. And to be clear, the left is equally as guilty of this phenomenon as the right. It just happens to be that in the Budlight case, which this article is based on, the right is to blame for its politicization. This issue is perpetuated by both parties and will continue to be unless both sides can set aside their hatred for one another and realize the countless avoidable complications polarization has caused. Neither liberals nor conservatives are willing to take the first step and accept any responsibility for this issue despite their acknowledgment of its existence, and hence the problem persists.

Polarization is an ego issue, somewhat reminiscent of the Cold War tensions between America and the Soviet Union, except in this case, the tensions are domestic and baked into the framework of our country. This vast fissure between political parties is one of the principal roadblocks currently curtailing societal progression. Both parties' judgment is clouded over by a dense layer of deep-seated political tensions, and until the clouds break, nonpartisan actions will continue to be portrayed as villainous by the opposing party. Consequently, polarization will continue to mar both victimized groups and society's chances of becoming the all-encompassing haven that negligent optimists champion and, in some cases, accept as our current reality.