Caffeinated agenda

The ill-fated Starbucks Coffee campaign to force a discussion on race relations in this country ran into massive customer pushback. And as a result, no longer will customers receive handwritten inclusive messages on its overpriced cups of java.

Starbucks is quick to defend its poorly conceived campaign by asserting that the first phase of their ongoing "racial discussion" has ended but not because of consumer resistance.

Baloney!

The not-so-subtle coffee cup messages were "just the catalyst" for larger conversations on race, the company says.

Though the ultraliberal management of Starbucks hoped to prompt some massive in-house discussion on race relations, I suspect they learned their customers were more interested in coffee and less in forced discussions.

One seasoned pundit suggested that if the Starbucks hierarchy was truly interested in fostering their racial agenda, they might put their franchise stores in East St. Louis or Gary, Indiana -- two communities with large minority populations but no Starbucks locations.

The company said the core aim of the initiative was to make sure that "the promise of the American dream should be available to every person in this country, not just a select few."

And though I assume you might find universal agreement with their aim, their tactics on such a personal topic were doomed from the start.

To explore or promote racial discussions is indeed a serious undertaking and one long overdue in this country.

The president's odd beer summit on race early in his first term proved that the discussion is more than a photo op or a message scrawled on a coffee cup.

A Starbucks company memo said the initiative would continue with these words, "We're leaning into it hard." Which reminds me that the motto of MSNBC -- the darling network of the progressives -- is "Lean Forward," or some such nonsense.

Someone on the left must have had a focus group opine that the word "lean" had some positive results with the public.

I found myself amused that Starbucks officials were adamant that the customers' negative reaction to the race discussion had nothing to do with the phaseout of the message campaign.

In brilliant wording that could only come from progressive academic quarters, the company said, Gosh no, the public criticism had nothing to do with our rapid withdrawal, it's all part of the "cadence of the timeline we originally planned."

I like a cup of coffee as much as the next guy and, yes, I thoroughly enjoy the Starbucks brand.

But what I will not spend my hard-earned dollars on is an overpriced coffee with a side of racial politics.

You want to have a discussion on race? Fine. Let's discuss.

But don't try to force feed me your agenda in your business with your slant on the topic.

Rumor has it that other businesses sell coffee. Just sayin'.

Michael Jensen is the publisher of the Sikeston Standard Democrat.