To the extent you mean that seriously.... I couldn't disagree more. This is what has been getting the Democrats owned for a long time, possibly some remnant of Marxist professors from the 1930s who believed that every motivation was secretly economic/class-based. You will see a very common phrase in Democratic op-eds: poor people / country-dwelling folk who vote Republican are "voting against their own interests." That is, that they'd get all these worldly benefits like healthcare and taxing the rich if they vote for the Democratic Party, but not all of them do! What's up with that?
Well... true as it might be, this is a surprisingly weak argument. It can essentially be spun to be the equivalent of "we're offering you thirty pieces of silver, why don't you hurry up and betray Jesus?" Telling people "do it because we coastal elites will deign to not boycott you and deny you precious money" is dangerous business. No matter how much sense it makes, it's only convincing a few very coolly rational people. To take a slightly more noble example, the South in the Civil War thought that economic embargo would bring the British to heel. We'll make them lose money! Then they'll have no choice but to support us! Unfortunately for them, the opposition to slavery for religious reasons was prominent among the exact people in the British fabric industry they hoped to influence, so it went over like a lead balloon. (I don't for a second think that abolishing slavery and teaching transsexual monsters a lesson are remotely equivalent, but all you have to do is believe that to proponents of the bill, it seems that way.) Or, for another example, from Spanish history... there was a long perception in Spanish history that Jews and later crypto-Jews used their money to buy influence among the out-of-touch elite in the courts. This perception was 100% true: the common person was way more psychotically anti-Semitic than educated people at court, and Jews really did band together to make "voluntary donations" of extra taxes and the like to the crown in an effort to win privileges like, say, not having all the Jews in a town be enslaved because one of them was accused of some crime by a former business associate. And I don't even blame them, they were frantically doing whatever they could. Still, it played badly; telling people "Let's accept the bribe from the Jews and spare them of the horrible fate they deserve for being a God-cursed people" is not going to convince many people.
Now, if you tried that in Spain nowadays, you wouldn't need the bribe, because people there understand now that Jews are people and not Satan's accomplices. Proposing it would get you condemned and ignored. That's what fixed the problem. The argument can't be "ignore Jesus, we need the money we'll lose from a boycott;" it needs to be "Jesus loves everyone, including weirdos, and they're not THAT weird if you get to know them. That's why people are so upset and doing the boycott." So yes, appealling to people's good nature is what might fix the problem, just like the Spain example.
