If you think about it, it really isn't necessary to propose "one of the biggest cons of the century" to explain social conservatives falling for something. Whatever the theoretical merits of social conservatism, clearly as a practical matter American social conservatives are markedly dumber and easier marks than the rest of American society. Indeed it is hard to explain a lot of the dynamics visible in American social conservatism (which is largely a euphemism for Evangelicalism) without the assumption that a very large proportion of social conservative leaders, maybe the majority, are outright sociopaths whose overt self-understanding is that they are victimizing their sheep. *Of course* you're going to lose out in any intra-coalitional battle, you can't even stop obvious con men from taking over your own social conservative institutions (such as they even exist anymore.)
"So why the damn should social conservatives care about the 'free market' then?"
Because markets are – however unevenly and slowly, measured sometimes by years or even decades – also ultimately self-correcting.
If Anheuser-Busch's actions, on balance, alienate customers and leads to reduced revenues and profits over any term, long or short, they have a variety of market-related incentives to change their behavior. Among these, stock options, shareholdings, and performance-linked salaries and bonuses for their executives; pressure from shareholders, via board elections; and pressure from distributors and retailers.
As well, one problem with cheering on "state attacks on woke businesses" is that when a future Woke administration (or one espousing some other ideology, perhaps far more odious than any in our current culture wars) takes control at a state or Federal level, they'll happily use those in-place mechanisms of power and by-now-well-established norms – that it's acceptable for government to punish private businesses purely on their basis of "things they've said publicly" – to attack those they themselves don't like.
Your comment puts me in mind of this essay I recently published. https://www.aaronrosspowell.com/p/social-conservatism-is-suffering
If you think about it, it really isn't necessary to propose "one of the biggest cons of the century" to explain social conservatives falling for something. Whatever the theoretical merits of social conservatism, clearly as a practical matter American social conservatives are markedly dumber and easier marks than the rest of American society. Indeed it is hard to explain a lot of the dynamics visible in American social conservatism (which is largely a euphemism for Evangelicalism) without the assumption that a very large proportion of social conservative leaders, maybe the majority, are outright sociopaths whose overt self-understanding is that they are victimizing their sheep. *Of course* you're going to lose out in any intra-coalitional battle, you can't even stop obvious con men from taking over your own social conservative institutions (such as they even exist anymore.)
"So why the damn should social conservatives care about the 'free market' then?"
Because markets are – however unevenly and slowly, measured sometimes by years or even decades – also ultimately self-correcting.
If Anheuser-Busch's actions, on balance, alienate customers and leads to reduced revenues and profits over any term, long or short, they have a variety of market-related incentives to change their behavior. Among these, stock options, shareholdings, and performance-linked salaries and bonuses for their executives; pressure from shareholders, via board elections; and pressure from distributors and retailers.
As well, one problem with cheering on "state attacks on woke businesses" is that when a future Woke administration (or one espousing some other ideology, perhaps far more odious than any in our current culture wars) takes control at a state or Federal level, they'll happily use those in-place mechanisms of power and by-now-well-established norms – that it's acceptable for government to punish private businesses purely on their basis of "things they've said publicly" – to attack those they themselves don't like.