It’s no surprise that the American left, in its aggressive targeting of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, would be in high dudgeon over the recent revelation that Alito, last summer, sold off some Anheuser-Busch stock.
That is unquestionable evidence in left-of-center precincts that Alito was joining the Bud Light boycott, taking sides (the "wrong" side, otherwise they would be portraying his action as heroic, not subversive) in the Dylan Mulvaney trans ad campaign controversy.
Never mind that it might have just been a financial decision; as commentator David Harsanyi points out, the boycott began in April of 2023, and Alito’s stock had been losing value for four months when he sold in August.
But that doesn’t fit the left’s ideological narrative.
More disturbing to me is the take from Eric Boehm, writing in the libertarian Reason magazine. As far as Boehm is concerned, Alito’s sale of Anheuser Busch stock, whatever his motivation, "was a bad decision" for one reason: "it cost him money."
If he sold because the stock value was plummeting, his timing was off, Boehm laments.
It was pretty much bottoming out by then, and today is worth $100 more per share than it was when Alito sold.
But the justice was just as misguided — perhaps more so, in Boehm’s view — if he sold because of philosophical disagreements with the corporation.
"The stock market exists so we can all benefit from the wealth generated by successful businesses," Boehm asserts. “That’s all that matters.” (my emphasis) "Allowing the culture war to get in the way of that goal is a shame."
There is an arrogance in Boehm’s condescension toward "conservative culture warriors" —whom, he writes dismissively, "generally do not have an impressively long attention span," and will soon get "outraged about something else."
Actually, those who have, over several generations, stood in defense of traditional values — like the sanctity of life, the integrity of the family, religious freedom, and what used to be widely shared moral standards — have shown remarkable consistency and staying power.
The culture has shifted and coarsened, requiring adjustments in issue emphasis, but not fundamental change in the basic values they are striving to uphold.
And let’s be clear: it was not "conservative culture warriors" who injected the trans controversy into beer sales promotions. It was Bud Light/Anheuser-Busch who did so, either to virtue signal to a desired clientele, or to advance its own particular cultural values.
Whatever one’s views on the Bud Light /Dylan Mulvaney controversy — and whatever Justice Alito’s motivations were — the issue Boehm raises is much broader:
Should making money be “all that matters” in our investment decisions?
Or are there other considerations, i.e., how our money is being made?
For example: Suppose I hold stock in a pharmaceutical company, which subsequently begins manufacturing and marketing abortion-inducing drugs.
Should I, being morally opposed to abortion, divest?
Or, following Boehm’s formulation that increasing my wealth is "all that matters," should I be undisturbed — pleased, even — that I am making a financial "killing" through my investment in the literal killing of pre-born babies?
Or what about investing in American corporations doing business with China — a communist totalitarian regime whose enslavement of its own people and aggressive pursuit of world subjugation fly in the face of libertarianism’s animating principle: individual freedom. Should none of that matter, as long as doing business with China enhances our investment portfolio?
I appreciate the libertarian contribution to our political and cultural discourse.
Especially in this era of ever-encroaching government, by an elite political class that treats public office as its exclusive entitlement — and a current regime that is weaponizing federal law enforcement to an unprecedented degree against opponents great and small — I welcome the libertarian emphasis on limited government and individual liberty that were at the core of our nation’s founding.
And the pursuit of material gain is not inherently evil; it can be virtuous, when done to provide for oneself and one’s family, or to accumulate resources with which to do good.
And it generally, when engaged in honestly and without corruption, serves the common good, by stimulating production of needed goods and services, and creating job and investment opportunities that help others to provide for themselves and their families, contribute to charitable or philanthropic endeavors, or undertake their own production of needed goods and services.
But there is a strain of libertarianism, and also, of conservatism that, with an absolutist focus on economics and the profit motive, tends to elevate material gain above everything else; to the point, as Boehm seems to suggest, that what we invest in does not matter — as long as it increases our wealth.
Thankfully, not all libertarians, nor all free market conservatives, are so short-sighted, so myopic, in their singular obsession with wealth accumulation.
Many recognize, as Adam Smith, widely acclaimed as the father of free market economics, emphasized in his "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," that the exercise of human freedom — including economic freedom — must, if it is to sustain itself, be guided by something more lasting than immediate, personal material gain; something like virtue, and morality.
For three decades, Rick Hinshaw has given voice to faith values in the public square, as a columnist, then editor of The Long Island Catholic; communications director for the Catholic League and the New York State Catholic Conference; co-host of "The Catholic Forum," on cable. He is now editor of his own blog, "Reading the Signs." Visit Rick’s home page at rickhinshaw.com. Read Rick Hinshaw's Reports — More Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.