If, on June 16, you Googled “crass commercialism,” you got 88,500 hits. If you Googled “crass politics,” you got 7,830 hits — fewer than one-tenth the number of hits for “crass commercialism.”

Why do we accept so readily the classification of commerce as “crass” while politics does not commonly get criticized as such? What can possibly be more crass than political campaigns featuring adults dissembling, lying, and shifting — and kissing babies and posing with hardhats for the cameras — in order to persuade the masses that they are secular saviors?

One possibility is that “crass commercialism” is more alliterative than “crass politics.” But given the contempt that intellectuals typically pour on the likes of Wal-Mart, McDonald’s and commerce generally — and given also the plaudits that these same intellectuals bestow on politicians who excel at demonizing commerce — “crass commercialism” catches on as a phrase because too many people really do despise commerce.

Why? Those activities that regularly get labeled as “crass” are those that appeal to the masses. Hollywood blockbusters are “crass”; indie movies are cool. McDonald’s is “crass”; artisan cheesemakers are cool. Wal-Mart is “crass”; a boutique merchant selling hand-knitted sweaters is cool. Supermarkets are “crass”; farmers’ markets are cool. Shopping malls are “crass”; tiny stores tucked into basements along Bleecker Street are cool. Disney World is “crass”; Iceland’s fjords are cool. The suburbs are “crass”; Georgetown is cool. Budweiser is “crass”; Sierra Nevada brews are cool.

Whenever entrepreneurs adopt business models that appeal to large numbers of people, they are called “crass.” Far more appealing, apparently, are entrepreneurs who refuse to seek higher profits by catering to large numbers of people. Cool are the entrepreneurs who ignore the desires of the masses and concentrate their attentions on serving only select handfuls of customers.

Strangely, the opposite holds in politics. While catering to the masses commercially is criticized as crass, catering to the masses politically is celebrated as commendable.

Yet almost all of the commerce labeled as “crass” is commerce that equalizes. When the talented indie filmmaker “sells out” by using his skills to make a Hollywood blockbuster, he shares his talents with a far larger number of people than he did when he made esoteric indie films that won the applause only of the film critic of The Village Voice. This filmmaker, by “selling out” — by pursuing crass commerce — spreads more evenly throughout the population the fruits of his unique talents. When the celebrated chef “sells out” by creating fine cuisine with mass appeal for sale at airports and shopping malls — rather than continuing to cook exclusively for high-dollar diners in the French Quarter — she makes more equal the distribution of gastronomic delights. When the acclaimed designer of chic wardrobes for the rich and famous “sells out” by starting a line of clothing to be offered for sale at Target, he helps to deconcentrate the wealth of access to uniquely designed clothing.

“Crass commercialism,” in other words, is really mass commercialism. It is commerce — driven chiefly by the “crass” pursuit of profits by the “sellouts” — in which creative talents of producers are “distributed” more evenly throughout the population rather than hoarded by elites. In contrast, mass politics is simply crass politics.

Donald J. Boudreaux is a professor of economics and Getchell Chair at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.

---

Copyright ©2026— Trib Total Media, LLC (TribLIVE.com)

---