Strong-arming tactics的意思

分享一个知识点：

Reader question:

Please explain “strong-arming tactics”, as in “I do not believe in strong-arming tactics.”

My comments:

The speaker doesn’t believe in force, that’s all.

To get what he wants he prefers using reason and persuasion – rather than forcing other people to agree with him. In other words, he won’t force his will on other people by pinning them to the ground using his strong arms.

Strong-arming, you see, is literally the show of force by demonstrating you have strong arms and making use of them, especially when it’s obvious that your arms are much bigger and stronger than your opponent’s.

Judging from its simplicity, it’s safe to assume that this idiom is American in origin, and an excellent expression it is too.

For example, if you are the boss of a company and you tell everyone to give up their weekend for extra work by threatening to withhold their paycheck if they fail to follow orders, you’re using the strong-arming tactic, i.e. using your power over them in a coercive way.

Needless to say, it sounds terrible.

Anyways, strong-arming tactics refer to the use of force, sheer force and brutal force to get one’s way instead of using good reason, persuasion and via cooperation.

Here are media examples of the strong-arming tactic in practice:

1. At the urging of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, forty of the world’s richest families have promised to give at least half of their fortunes to philanthropy.

By taking the “Giving Pledge,” the forty families or individuals, most of whom are billionaires, are promising a collective sum of at least $125 billion to charitable causes, based on Forbes’ current estimates of their net worth and other data sources.

On the whole, Americans have given more than $300 billion per year in recent years, though giving has declined since the start of the recession, according to the Giving USA Foundation.

“We’re hoping that America, which is already the most generous society on Earth, becomes even more generous over time,” Buffett told reporters on a conference call today. “More philanthropy and smarter philanthropy in the future is the goal.”

....

Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates reached out to some 80 members of the Forbes billionaires list, asking them to sign on. Over the last month and a half, they personally called and hosted private dinners, hoping to convince them to pledge. About half agreed, and they’ll continue to push for others to join in the cause. Right now, the Giving Pledge is focused on Americans, but the campaign could eventually expand worldwide.

“They’re really strong-arming them to do this, and they’re doing it themselves,” said Matthew Miller of Wealth-X, which tracks the world's richest people.

Miller added that that not everybody says yes, and there’s even something of a backlash among the super-rich.

“Some billionaires are saying, ‘You know, I don’t really need to be called out publicly,’” said Miller. “[They say] ‘I don’t appreciate it. It’s a publicity stunt.’”

- The Giving Pledge: Billionaires Promise to Donate at Least Half Their Fortunes to Charity, ABCNews.com, August 4, 2010.

2. One of the largest online retailers, Amazon.com Inc, continues to oppose sales tax collection by offering to create jobs instead. Thanks to the weak jobs scenario and consistently depressing jobs reports, regulators that had once been hungry to narrow deficits are now seriously considering the cost of job creation.

A few states appear to have taken the bait (South Carolina and Tennessee) according to a Forbes report, although agreements are far from concrete and are now up against much controversy and opposition from brick and mortar outfits.

Wares from these retailers appear more expensive when compared with those from online retailers, since they are forced by law to collect taxes on behalf of their respective states. As the growth in online retail continues at a rapid pace, largely at the expense of offline retailers, the animosity between the two camps has increased.

...

Amazon has seen much greater opposition in important states, such as California and Texas. But the company’s efforts continue regardless. It is now collecting opinion through the “More Jobs Not Taxes” coalition with California consumers, for which it needs half a million supporters to bend the legislative stand. (Amazon intends to create 7,000 jobs in the state if it is exempted from the collection of sales taxes up to at least 2014.) Since a delay in implementation is all it is looking for, Amazon is very likely to succeed in its efforts.

In Texas, the story is a little different, with legislators divided on the issue. Here, Amazon has already been charged $269 million worth of sales taxes (including back taxes), something the company continues to fight. Despite the promise of 6,000 jobs, Amazon’s lobbying in the state appears to have fallen short.

Amazon continues to threaten the closure of operations in all states where it is required to collect taxes. At the same time, it is ostensibly supporting the bill introduced by Senator Dick Durbin, which seeks to force online retailers to collect taxes in the same way as those operating offline (possibly because the bill is unlikely to be passed given the limited support from the Republicans). While these strong-arming tactics are unlikely to go down well with legislators, Amazon could win in the short term and buy itself the few years it is seeking.

- Amazon Playing the “Jobs” Card, Zacks.com, September 6, 2011.

3. Paul Krugman is urging Greeks to vote “no” in a referendum that could determine their country’s future in the European Union.

In a New York Times blog post published Sunday evening, the Nobel Prize-winning economist argued that the July 5 referendum would simply preserve the same dysfunctional austerity regime that has left Greece languishing for five years.

In that case, Krugman said, it would perhaps be better for Greece to leave the euro, reissue the drachma as a currency and simply try to weather the economic tumult that would result.

“Maybe, just maybe, the willingness to leave will inspire a rethink, although probably not,” Krugman wrote. “But even so, devaluation couldn’t create that much more chaos than already exists, and would pave the way for eventual recovery, just as it has in many other times and places.”

Moreover, Krugman pointed out, voting “yes” on such a ballot would have the effect of undermining Greece’s popularly elected government. When the leftist Syriza party was elected in January, it was seen as a strong rejection of the past five years of austerity policies imposed by Greece’s creditors. Now, if Greek voters approve the cost-cutting measures that Syriza negotiators failed to nix from the new bailout plan, it would usurp the mandate on which the party was elected. In a speech Monday that highlighted Europe’s strong-arming tactics, Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, tellingly said that voters should “say ‘yes’ regardless of what the question is,” since a “no” vote would “mean that Greece is saying ‘no’ to Europe.”

“The troika clearly did a reverse Corleone — they made [Greek Prime Minister Alexis] Tsipras an offer he can’t accept, and presumably did this knowingly,” Krugman wrote. “So the ultimatum was, in effect, a move to replace the Greek government. And even if you don’t like Syriza, that has to be disturbing for anyone who believes in European ideals.”

- Paul Krugman Urges Greeks To Vote ‘No’ On Bailout Referendum, HuffingtonPost.com, June 29, 2015.