One More Wal-Mart Post
I've tried for some time to stay out of the debate among Democrats about Wal-Mart. I've been known to cover my ears and sing la-la-la when it comes up, because I don't know enough about economics to adjudge the complicated claims of that company's champions and demonizers, and the whole subject conflicts me greatly.
But since it keeps coming up, most recently in Matt's posts, I do want to make one very simple, blunt political point, that should not be confused with any defense of Wal-Mart's business models or employee policies or purchasing practices or anything else.
The point is this: in the southern small-town, rural and exurban communities I know best, and among the low-to-moderate income "working family" voters Democrats most need to re-attract, Wal-Mart is considered pretty damn near sancrosanct. And if Democrats decide to tell these voters they can't be good progressives and shop at Wal-Mart, we will lose these people for a long, long time.
Maybe it's different in Montana or other parts of the country, but probably not too widely. And I defy you to find a credible political strategist in states with a big Wal-Mart presence who will tell you otherwise.
If you think we've been damaged as a party by culturally conservative working-class perceptions of us as people who want to take their guns away, you ain't seen nothing yet if we become perceived as the party that wants to take Wal-Mart away. Indeed, it's the one thing we could do, other than espousing actual racism, that might finally give Republicans a breakthrough among minority voters, who heavily shop at Wal-Mart where the option's available.
Does that mean Democrats should abandon their principles with respect to corporations like Wal-Mart? No, of course not. We should always be for the right to unionize and collectively bargain; for good benefits for workers; and for corporate responsibility generally.
But let's don't make it just about Wal-Mart, because like it or not, it's become a cultural and economic icon to precisely the category of voters we most need to get back, and to other categories we dare not lose. Certainly any "populist" who wants to tell struggling middle-class families that they owe it to themselves to drive right by that Super-Center is going to have a serious credibility problem.
This is very constructive criticism. There are three sets of issues here. First, Wal-Mart is just so big and as a result its actions have huge effects across retail and into other sectors. As a result it gets treated like the White Whale. The target is there because of its size.
But the other issue is that Wal-Mart is expanding into places like NYC and Chicago now. And some of the reaction you are getting from community activists is of the "it might work in Arkansas, but this is the big city" mentality. Its something I hadn't thought of.
The third issue is that in crafting the specific legislation that is (almost subliminally at this point in the blogospheric dust up -- talk about reificiation) underlying this debate, the sponsors likelymade a decision to focus on just the largest corporations so that they would lessen the pushback on the corporate front. That left them with Wal-Mart in and Target out.
December 1, 2005 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that we cannot criticize people for shopping at WalMart. In my knee-jerk days, I may have. You are right, many people can only afford Wal Mart.
But I don't think the situation is as dire as you think. There are stories across the country where communities are organizing to prevent Wal Mart from setting up shop and driving out small businesses. On a personal note, my mother worked at Wal Mart for about 15 years and would always shop there after she retired. Now, that's not the case. She has seen the devestating effects that Wal Mart can have on communities and its workers who can't afford to make a living.
I'm personally not one who thinks we should get rid of Wal Mart. Nor are most union members. The goal should be making Wal Mart responsible. But you are right that reactionary rhetoric will have a negative effect--as it usually does.
December 1, 2005 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what this points to is the need for educating those folks about Wal-Mart. The anti-Wal-Mart campaign has a lot of decent propaganda out -- in fact, it's the best left wing propaganda I've seen in years -- that is designed to point out the effects Wal-Mart has on peoples' lives. Picking on Wal-Mart directly might be a little bit dicey, but going after the kind of devil take the hindmost, no holds barred capitalism that Wal-Mart practices has got to be a core part of the Democratic message.
December 1, 2005 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slightly off topic, but I should have added that the Walton family will get billions of dollars if the Republicans are able to repeal the estate tax. They have contributed heavily to Republicans because of this issue. It seems like a perfect opportunity for some grandstanding, tied into the larger debate about the Wal-Martization of the country.
December 1, 2005 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You live in the South, Ed? Really live in "the South?" Not downtown Buckhead Atlanta, but oh say out here in rural farm country Jefferson County with a Super Wal-Mart out in Commerce, GA?
If you did, you would not have written what you did, simply because you underestimate the mentality of Southerners who do shop at Wal Mart. You seem to think these folk are stupid bumpkins who do not know what Wal Mart does to their communities or how they operate towards their employees and competitors, and that having Democrats mention it would cause the simple folk to be disaffected from the message that Wal-Mart is helping destroy their communities by driving out of local business, family owned businesses that have existed for generations and have been the bedrocks of the commuities.
These are the stores that donate the money for Little League uniforms with their businesses names on the backs. The businesses that donate money for the christmas decorations strung up on the light poles downtown. The places where neighbors meet each other to say hello. The places where credit is given without plastic because you are known in the community and the church you attend; the very life's blood of this rural culture. People know damned right well what they lose when Wal Mart bigfoot's into town.
Hear's a quarter Ed, go buy a clue. These people know what Wal Mart is doing to the towns they live in. But ecomomic forces demand that they shop at Wal Mart (and not a more up-scale Target Store) because they have low paying jobs and Wal Mart has the lowest prices and one can one-stop shop for everything from food to underwear to auto tires in one place. But don't think for one minute that these people do not know that they have made a deal with the Devil. They surely do. You can figure just about every family who shops exclusively at a rural Wal Mart has kin folk or friends who have undegone ecomomic hardship or dislocation due to the closing of the textile and associated industries that dotted the rural South. They know that when a large mill closes in say, Thomaston, GA local unemployment jumps to 18% and the only jobs available are cooking meth, flipping burgers, or working at the Wal Mart.
You seem to think they like that choice? That they are beholden to Wal Mart like an NRA fanatic is to his rifles?
People down here shop at Wal Mart because they don't have the money to shop anywhere else. It is not a lifestyle choice for them,....its survival. You think that they would not just love to have a better paying job so they could shop at a Target, a Kohl's or Belk's and get better quality stuff?
I can give you the names of several small business owners locally whose families have lived out here for 4-5 generations and they can see an entire lifestyle and culture dying out and they cannot do anything about it because of the economic might that Wal Mart has....and damned if Wal Mart doesn't get government handouts too that these small folks never see.
Its supposed to be up to you fancy-pants college educated boys to conjure up the proper rhetoric to help connect for these folks how democrats can bring about an ecomomic renaissance that will give them more choices than meth, burgers, or Wal Mart.
It is a mark of profound ignorance of rural Southern life or brainwashing by corporate propaganda for you to talk about Wal Mart as a cultural and economic icon.
December 1, 2005 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for making this one last post. It's probably the best one yet. There's a right way and a wrong way to draw attention to the problems of Wal-Mart. Surely the wrong way includes once again for the umpteenth time making the latte liberal stick to the Dems like glue. (Think about where "latte liberal" comes from: the whole idea of paying $4.50 for a cup of coffee that most folks think is overpriced at 75 cents.)
Robert Reich got it right early this year. I think he hit exactly the right tone.
This is where I'd like to see Dems on the issue. If there's one thing that I would call a "third rail" slogan, it go something like "higher prices for all, never pay wholesale, always pay retail." I've got lots of working class relatives, including many Depression babies among the older set, and not a single one wants to go back to the supposed good old days of only local stores and no large discount stores and no imported goods. You can argue all you want on how that the current situation is no sustainable, but they won't vote for anyone who wants to force change before it's time on that front.
As to the small town jobs situation, I agree that this needs to be handled with nuance, too. I am quite aware of what damage Wal-Mart has contributed to changes in American rural culture, but anyone who has honestly studied the situation must admit that there is a chicken-and-egg problem with all of that. They had trouble keeping the kids down on the farm way before Wal-Mart was around--many towns were dying. Let me exaggerate to make a point: the choice for some: the newest state prison or Wal-Mart.
December 1, 2005 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slightly off topic, but I should have added that the Walton family will get billions of dollars if the Republicans are able to repeal the estate tax. They have contributed heavily to Republicans because of this issue.
You don't know what you are talking about. That family can afford the best lawyers and accountants and has everything set up in trusts so the estate tax doesn't apply. Families with large holdings like that laugh at the estate tax. Ask Ted Kennedy - do you think he has paid an estate tax on anything he has inherited?
December 1, 2005 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the small town in Northeast Arkansas where my family hangs out, they really like both of the Wal-Marts in town. A Target recently opened and people are delighted with that too - more options.
The author of this post is right. This is one more example of elitist Democrats from another part of the country getting in the face of Southerners (or Midwesterners) and telling them how to live their lives. And yeah, why do you need those guns, anyway?
No wonder this party keeps losing elections.
December 1, 2005 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ed Kilgore wants us to believe that we cant criticize corporations, like Wal-Mart, because we will lose votes...
one word response - comical.
Aside from the fact the Kilgore and the DLC have given us nuanced, no value, republican-light messages and advice for years and you know what it has got us...gyess what.. it has helped us lose the house, the senate, the white house (twice)...
...they want us to believe that now if we criticize a company that makes 10 billion in profits but treats its workers like dogs, abuses taxpayers, and break child labor laws (i.e. Hey Ed read the canada story about wal-mart and child labor that came out today)....and we will lose votes? What planet is he from?
Oh wait, the one that talks about the south and what southern voters want...but knows about as much about the south and its voters as he does about Wal-mart terrible record....do you have even a simple point of reference or is more about another agenda?
Ed, you are right. The DLC is right. Dont talk about Wal-Mart, becuase we might lose votes...because your advice has helped us win so many votes these many years.
Hear my advice...go to wal-mart, work there for a day, talk to the local community that lost jobs, or some one who worked at a manufactuting job that got shipped oversears, or how about some poor child working like a slave, or how about the millions of women who were discriminated at Wal-Mart...let alone trying to explain to anyone why a company like Wal-Mart expects us to pay for their health care when they make 10 billion in PROFITS!!
Give me a break...you should be ashamed to be another democratic apologist for Wal-Mart...they are the leading example of what's wrong with coporate America...and if you took one day to listen to the criticism...you would know that what the critics want is to change them...not destroy them...is that wrong?
My advice is that the best thing you could do is stop giving political advice to the democratic party and democrats... maybe then we would have a better chance to win an election...
drotto
December 1, 2005 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
kuvasz:
Since you chose to go ad hominem on me, I guess I should explain that I grew up in places like Gainesville, Augusta, LaGrange, Rome and (then non-metro) Marietta, Georgia; also spent quite a bit of time working for a state agency that dealt with rural and small town communities; and now spend most of my spare time in rural central Virginia. I did live for one year in Buckhead, in a heavily immigrant-dominated cheap rental complex that's since been torn down.
My extended family lives in places like Winder, Douglasville, Villa Rica, Tallapoosa, Dahlonega, and Cleveland, Georgia--places Starbucks has not yet penetrated. Most of them barely have two dimes to rub together, so don't tell me I'm out of touch with the people I wrote about.
And all this awareness of the evil system represented by Wal-Mart you so confidently cite is not anything I've heard from anybody in any of the places I know about--not from a single person, ever.
I'll say this one more time: of course we should promote awareness of the inter-connection of economic injustice, corporate privilege, mistreatment of workers, denial of benefits, and so on. But we have to make the case, and make it generally, not in terms of one company, and pretending otherwise is political folly. And what bothers me most about your comment is that you actually seem to believe the case has already been made.
Ed Kilgore
December 1, 2005 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know what you are talking about. That family can afford the best lawyers and accountants and has everything set up in trusts so the estate tax doesn't apply. Families with large holdings like that laugh at the estate tax. Ask Ted Kennedy - do you think he has paid an estate tax on anything he has inherited?
No, I think -- once again -- it's you who don't know what you're talking about. This article explains it to you. If you find the words it uses to be too big, let me know, and I'll translate it into the baby talk with which you're doubtless more comfortable, poor boy.
December 1, 2005 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say, the anti-Wal-Mart thing is something that I don't understand on the Left, and not just because being anti-Wal-Mart doesn't play in the Red States. Look, it is absolutely the case that Wal-Mart drives out competition with lower prices. It is also the case that their wages are low and they discourage unionization. However, this is how they keep prices low. Because of Wal-Mart's low prices, poor people can afford more things than they would otherwise. The alternative, the ideal scenario, as espoused by the anti-Wal-Mart people, is that such service employees are paid higher wages, right? Higher wages become a base cost of doing business and get moved right along to prices. So, everyone pays higher prices. Congrats, instead of making $6 an hour and paying $2 for a gallon of milk. you make $12 an hour and pay $4 for a gallon of milk. Is this better? The other anti-Wal-Mart arguments I see are based purely on a Pat Buchanan style nationalism. That is, Americans are more deserving of jobs than are, say, Chinese or Mexicans. How does THIS idea get any traction among so-called progressives?
There is one anti-Wal-Mart argument I buy, and that is that such chains as this are making our country boring. The uniqueness of places is being lost and being replaced by a uniform coat of Wal-Mart's, Pizza Hut's, Applebys', etc. I agree that this is unfortunate. I do not think that it can be stopped without a major change in what people in this country view as important. Being unique just isn't that significant to most people.
I'm finished. Bring on the brickbats.
December 1, 2005 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
<i>The point is this: in the southern small-town, rural and exurban communities I know best, and among the low-to-moderate income "working family" voters Democrats most need to re-attract, Wal-Mart is considered pretty damn near sancrosanct. And if Democrats decide to tell these voters they can't be good progressives and shop at Wal-Mart, we will lose these people for a long, long time. </i>
Huh?
You're so damn offbase I don't even know where to start. What small town communities do you know best? Where do you get off in propositioning such a claim?
Sacrosanct? Holy shit!
Ask just about any semi-educated person in the red states if they shop at Wal-Mart, and why.
Answer?
"I hate that place. I hate the parking lot. Thank god I don't work there yet. I go there about once a month for things like toiletries and frozen stuff. And school supplies. And underwear. And shotgun shells. I hate the fact that I shop there on a regular basis. All that cheap ass plastic shit made in China! God do I hate Wal-Mart!"
The fact of the matter is, small town communities are in a conundrum. They really dislike the place, yet shop there because, for many lower class individuals (I'm talking hard working folks trying to put food on their families all across the redstates) their bottom line depends on it, AND the fact that Wal-Mart has forced all the local shops out of business.
Let me tell you something Ed, because its quite obvious to me that you don't live in a rural community, much less shop at Wal-Mart. I'd even wager that you know jack shit about attracting rural Democratic voters, solely based on your ignorant insinuation.
We've watched this behemoth methodically come into our small towns and obliterate our local economies. I watched it happen in the 1980's in my hometown in NE Missouri. Our downtown used to have shops. In my hometown, we used to have two pharmacies, a shoestore, a gift shop selling everything from candies to picture frames to parakeets, two hardware stores, a jewelry store, three clothing stores, an office supply shop, a theater, a furniture store, a carpet store and restaurants that weren't Hardee's.
You wanna know what's in my hometown now Ed? A Wal-Mart and a bunch of tired, boarded-up buildings. You wanna know whats not in my hometown now Ed? Those fine people and their families who used to run those bankrupt shops. Fine people who were the backbone of our community and its economy.
Quit talking out of your ass Ed. Rural folks, if they haven't already figured it out, know that Wal-Mart isn't in their best interests, even though their shitty economical situations mandates them to be customers.
Blah. Sacrosanct my ass.
December 1, 2005 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Offering you a quarter to buy a clue is hardly ad hominem. But I can see how you would be sensitive to the Buckhead comment, so I do apologize.
Nice to see you can offer up your litany of where you have lived, close by me it seems, but the proof is in what you learned along the way that stuck. If you haven’t heard people in small rural towns talk poorly about Wal Mart I suggest you talk to more people or listen better when they speak. In case you care to do the former, here are some phone numbers for you to call to enlighten you on the what local people, small business owners think about Wal Mart: the local feed store in Jefferson, Maddox Feed and Seed 706-367-9207, Mitchell Hardware 706-367-5720, , Jefferson Drug Co, 706-367-5221, call them, and ask them about Wal Mart and what it is doing to their business and community or venture to the local supermarkets, Food Lion or Bell’s and talk to the older fulltime workers many who will tell you their own horror stories about their experiences working at Wal Marts.
Further, when you do and begin to delve below their surface comments you will find that these people will tell you that “Wal Mart” is just a symptom for something larger, but as a catch-all it works quite well for the way large corporations run everything and the working person gets further left behind. They will mention “globalization” but not in such sophisticated lingo, and these people don’t see a dime’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans because both parties are in bed with the moneyed interests who do not care about them or their communities at large.
So you can take negative aspects of “Wal-Mart” and by inductive logic build the case for more economic democracy in a general sense when talking to these people without fear of a sacrosanct “Wal Mart ” being blasphemed. These people know what the “Wal Mart” price means; they can buy 15 dollar blue jeans, but that drive to the bottom wrecks their own business and causes them to close down.
But, you have stated that it would be wrong to attack such a “sacrosanct” sacred cow as Wal Mart as indicative of the problems we have in the pursuit of greater economic democracy, and I tell you that you are wrong, and you are not talking to those in small towns who are saying it to me.
Finally, you seem not to understand what you are talking about when you call Wal-Mart sacrosanct with lower middle class and working class folk. I stated clearly they shop there because they have limited funds. Wal-Mart has the lowest prices (at least initially to drive out the competition) thus they have nowhere else to shop. If they had more money they would seek out stores that provided better quality items. That is not a working definition of a sacrosanct relationship. It is merely one between a buyer and seller. Its pure economic utility and there is no sacredness about it. The only thing sacrosanct to them is saving their money, and they would go elsewhere if Wal Mart's prices were not the lowest around.
Ed, if you want, pop by the Jefferson area sometime. We can drink a couple of beers and I'll take you around to see those folks I have been listening to who lead me to believe you are wrong.
December 1, 2005 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hooh boy that just deserved an atta-boy.
Good stuff.
December 2, 2005 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I make under 30k a year and I won't shop at WalMart. My boss makes at least 5 times as much as me, and he and his wife shop there all the time. Just to point out that it isn't only the poor who shop at WalMart.
December 2, 2005 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure what it means in all of this, but I was watching the business news this morning (ahem) and they cited a recent poll/study that said (I think) 56% of Americans think Walmart, despite the low prices, is bad for America. Last I knew, latte was popular with only 10%.
dc
December 2, 2005 4:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I live in a small town in Western New York, and never in my life have I found such a universal bipartisan issue as the hate of Wal-Mart. This town I'm living in is a rather conservative one, and it spend over 5 years fighting back Wal-Mart from destroying the historical Main Street and all the local businesses (like it did to a beautiful town not 20 miles away), with townspeople using their own money to pay for lawyers. Now the town has zoning laws that are regarded as the model for how towns should win the war against the big box stores. Wal-Mart destroys a valuable "natural" American resource - the small town, and they don't give a rat's a** about it. They come in, build a store, destroy the local businesses, then decide a few years later they need to build a SUPERSTORE a few miles away, so they CLOSE that one and build another, leaving people in the lurch. This is their PLAN. They PLAN to overbuild then shut down stores. They are predatory, and people don't like it. Now, having said that, I have a cousin who lives in Pahrump, NV, and she's been working at Wal-Mart for years and loves it. There is nothing else around there and people seem to really appreciate it. So it depends. This is a smart growth thing. Wal-Mart for a lot if not most of places is NOT smart growth. It destroys community. But for others it can be a good option. But Wal-Mart doesn't give a crap who wants them and who doesn't.
December 2, 2005 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
<span class="Apple-style-span">I am not so sure Walmart is to use your two dollar elitest word-sancrosanct. I too grew up in the South and have lived most of my life in the South. </span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">In the South where I grew up, people actually did understand what economic exploitation was. I grew up middle class in Misssissippi and my mama's people were farmers on a family farm (i.e. non-corporate type). When my mother was a child on that farm, they didn't always have indoor plumbing and TVA actaully made a difference in that they didn't always have electricity either. </span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">I reckon I know as much about the rural South as you do and maybe more. </span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span"> My sister in rural Alabama shops at Wal-Mart because it is convenient and cheap. They are Repbulican of the worst sort and don't give a damn about Walmart's practices. Her husband is a succesful lawyer and they are quite well off. They don't need to shop at Wal-mart but I don't believe they are wedded to it either. Its just cheap and convient. </span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">I have friends from rural Georgia who blame Wal-mart for the loss of the family store. They refused to shop their long before it was "chic". You are right that you cannot turn back the clock on a disappearing way of life- the family owned shops on the old town square- particurally with suburbanization. Those little towns outside of Atlanta have become bedroom communities and the lifestyle there is no longer anchored by the townsquares as I remember them in Oxford MS or Conyers, GA. But that doesn't mean rural Southeners can't understand or won't care about economic exploitation. I think your position is elitist. </span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">Wal-Mart may be all there is in some rural areas, but that doesn't mean people accept Wal-mart's worts. I actually remember segregated schools. Some rural white Southerners thought that was wrong in my memory. I remember our Southern Baptist preacher preaching against the poll tax, because he thought it was wrong. Don't get me wrong, I remember more than a few bigots too. Southerners know right from wrong and can be convinced, if they don't already know, Wal-Mart's labor practices are wrong. </span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">Its a very complicated issue. Part of</span><span class="Apple-style-span">it is rooted in the slavery, Jim Crow and the use of segregation to keep the unions out (see Diane McWhorter's book Carry Me Home). That long history makes labor organizing difficult, it gave rise to "right to work for less" laws and means there is anti-labor bias built into the system, which you seem to be channeling. But I still believe that most Southerners are good people, who believe in the teachings of their churches and can accept criticism of Wal-Mart. </span>
Now on a different note, can some tell me how to stop this <span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">. Or if that's not possible, can some tell JMM how to fix this site so that it doesn't do that. Its fucking annoying!</span>
December 2, 2005 5:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are studies showing that Walmart is not really lower in price for most items.
Just this week there was a news item explaining their policy of matching prices with stores like Target only when the individual store was in a competitive situation. This leads to the situation where Walmart stores in a geographic area will have different prices for the same item.
If you are passionate about discussing Walmart you might want to visit a blog devoted to the subject. Lots of links to action groups are provided as well. The site would welcome some of the interesting comments being posted here.
The site:
The Writing on the Wal
December 2, 2005 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've never been inside a Wal-Mart (not too many of them in NY or SF, my 'hoods) and I certainly know next to nothing about the rural South. But this debate strikes me as akin to the trade debate in that you can tell too diametrically opposed narratives that are both true. Both Wal-Mart and foreign trade are battles between producers and consumers. The producers, whether they are domestic manufacturers getting hammered by the Chinese or local hardware stores getting hammered by Wal-Mart, are clear losers in this debate. And they deserve our sympathy. But the consumers in both instances are enjoying lower prices and greater choice and the increased welfare that that brings. If you choose to focus only on the producers, you are not telling the whole story, even though there is no doubt that you can point to a lot of painful instances of disruption brought about by increased competition.
The political question, it seems to me, is do people identify more with producers or consumers? Seeing as there are way more consumers than producers, even in small rural towns in the South, that seems like a no-brainer.
This is not to say that Wal-Mart shouldn't be criticized or that the plight of rural America shouldn't concern us. It's just that Ed Kilgore is right that telling people they shouldn't shop at Wal-Mart because of this or that thing they do smacks of the worst kind of latte liberalism, totally oblivous to the benefit people get from the low prices and convenience at Wal-Mart.
December 2, 2005 6:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, people, here's a thought: Arguing about who's down dirtier among the great unwashed is one of the stupidest, phoniest games in American political discourse--and the GOP have out-Goebbeled everyone with this obnoxious meme. So, in general, STFU. Beyond that, I say--criticize Wal-Mart all you want, and use it as a stick to beat better, more progressive legislation out of Congress (labor law, health care issues, minimum wage, immigrant labor, whatever). But don't demonize it or make attitudes about a freaking BRAND a freaking LITMUS TEST. The fact is that Wal-Mart takes legal advantage of our paleolithic social contract in whatever ways it can, which IT HAS EVERY RIGHT TO--and where it does break the law, it should be prosecuted. Period.
December 2, 2005 6:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's an interesting disconnect here. Not at all surprising, since Wal-Mart has not always been completely ruthless and destructive.
I remember shopping in a Wal-Mart store in Arkansas my Grandfather, in the late 60s or early 70s. Wal-Mart grew by providing a need. Those were tougher economic times...anyone remember Nixon's wage & price freeze? The people who shopped at Wal-Mart in those days formed a different impression of what the store stood for.
By the time Sam Walton died, it had already turned into an 800 lb gorilla smashing local businesses. What changed even more was the mostly quiet disappearance of 'Buy American' that madeit possible to excuse the effects of trashing local businesses.
After Sam died, company management focused on price cutting and started carrying foreign-made goods. The journey to the dark side was complete.
As an aside, I am curious to see folks here lamenting the loss of local business owners (who were usually republican and seldom progressive) instead of just the jobs their businesses represented. Maybe it is different in other parts of the country, but local businesses in small-town Arkansas didn't pay well, provide benefits, or treat their workers well. They did support the Little League, but usually to get their names in their neighbors' faces.
The point I take away from this discussion is that unless the discussion remains focused on specific Wal-Mart practices, it will come across very much as elite snobbery whether it is or not. I've heard a number of middle managers sneer at people who shop there (just not to their faces). Folks are aware of that, and will tune out reasonable arguments if they feel patronized.
December 2, 2005 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know what you are talking about. That family can afford the best lawyers and accountants and has everything set up in trusts so the estate tax doesn't apply.
This is not true. Trusts do not protect you from the estate tax. True, you can transfer huge sums of wealth to family members via trusts, but the gift tax still applies. More importantly, there's a reason people avoid transactions like this: they're dangerous. Would you transfer a billion dollars to your wife, no strings attached? How about your son? Puns aside, do you really trust them that much? If they run off to Bermuda, you'll never see the money again. And a judge ain't gonna help you when you explain you only gave them the cash to dodge the estate tax.
The estate tax remains a huge impediment to rich families, since dodging taxes forces them into risky financial transactions that funnel wealth into the hands of trustees and family members who can spend the money as they see fit. The Bush Administration may be bought and paid for by rich folks, but the IRS notices when billionaires die. And if the dead billionaire didn't create substantial distance between his estate and the final resting place of his assets, the feds will come calling.
December 2, 2005 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the post Ed. You echo the same points I have tried to make at some other blog sites. I would not defend Wal-mart's practices, but I do not think it should be part of the Dem's political agenda. I grew up in an area within a few hours of ground zero (Bentonville). I too do not see a wide-spread opposition to Wal-Mart. It's pretty much a fact of life and in the big picture there are both pluses and minuses, with the truth somewhere in between. What I want to know is what all these anti-Wal-marters want the politicians to do exactly? Pass a law to make them stop building stores? Let's prop up independent businesses because they can't compete in a free market society? I haven't really seen much along those lines , mostly just a bunch of bitchin'. Any laws you make, you have to apply to all companies, not just Wal-mart , so why focus just on them? Someone earlier mentioned a survey regarding Wal-mart. I would like to see more on that. A breakdown by region (Rural vs Metro) would be helpful to see to settle this argument. I don't believe that kuvasz speaks for all the rural folks anymore then I do , I just believe, as Ed does, based on observation, that this is an issue that won't necessarily play well in rural communities, which, from the maps I saw, the place where Dems are the weakest. But, hey, if someone got some real evidence besides flashing who's got the best rural creds to speak out, I am willing to listen.
December 2, 2005 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, you hit the nail right on the head.
December 2, 2005 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Walmart is "sacrosanct" anywhere. Rather, Walmart inspires mixed feelings. If you live in a small town and a Walmart arrives, it's generally a good sign. It means a large corporation believes your region is on the rise. It means there will be more jobs. Your property value will probably rise, as long as you're not next door. And it means there will be an easy and convenient place to shop. All that said, even folks in the deep south understand that Walmart is a mega-corporation that doesn't give a damn about them. It's hard to believe anyone believes all criticism of Walmart is out bounds.
Still, it's easy for Republican to parody liberal criticisms of Walmart into cartoonish rantings of northeast elites, whose real gripe is that "shopping there at Walmart is beneath me." Avoiding this smear means that liberals need to stay away from attacking the idea of Walmart. Ultra cheap goods, generally low wages, and so-so health coverage is a reality many Americans accept. So criticizing Walmart's basic business model of relying on cheap Chinese products while paying modest wages isn't going to get you that far. Most Americans need to buy whatever's cheapest. That said, I'm pretty sure that pounding away at Walmart's corporate policies and responsibilities as "America's largest employer" is fair game just about everywhere.
Like it or not, Walmart is this generation's General Motors. Moreover, Walmart wants to take that mantle and run with it, so long as record profits keep streaming in. For liberals, the challenge is figuring out ways to criticize Walmart without attacking the idea of Walmart. Liberals must face the fact that Americans need the cheap crap and so-so jobs Walmart provides, and will accept warts with those benefits over no benefits at all. As the working person's party, however, it is Democrats' jobs to attack the warts and demand improvements.
December 2, 2005 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Campaign for America's Future is doing a Wal-Mart slogan campaign at the moment. You can vote on one of ten slogans and the winner will be put on a billboard in bentonville: vote here
December 2, 2005 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I want to know is what all these anti-Wal-marters want the politicians to do exactly? Pass a law to make them stop building stores? Let's prop up independent businesses because they can't compete in a free market society?
I don't think the idea is to pressure politicians, but to pressure, directly, Wal-Mart via the public. Force Wal-Mart to add (even more than it already has) public opinion into its otherwise mechanistic approach to making money. And maybe enough Wal-Mart workers will get sick of things to the point where they unionize, which would put an end to many of these issues.
December 2, 2005 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the idea is to pressure politicians, but to pressure, directly, Wal-Mart via the public.
Thats pretty much what I thought, so there is no purpose, from my perspective, to involve this issue as a political issue for Democratics. I have seen much from politicians on this case either way because of that , I suppose.
December 2, 2005 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the "Wal Mart is evil" rhetoric is useful or adequate. It's a business and they should try to maximize their profits. The left loses because they criticize corporate America outright. Most people--rich and poor--see obvious benefits to corporations. But corporations, given their explicit goal of maximizing profit, needs to be held in check. Again, this is something that most people understand and care about.
What the labor movement is doing extremely well--as opposed to any ineffective "progressive" rhetoric--is to put the debate in terms of what's important: human rights, unlivable wages, and health care. There are studies that suggest Wal Mart extracts a lot from states and communities because of it's low wages, high turnover and lack of health care--someone has to pay for the health care of poor children of workers.
December 2, 2005 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here in the heart of republican Amish land (Lancaster County PA) it was the local repub businessmen what led the antiWal-Mart crusade. It was an enjoyable time for this Liberal because I pointed out how republican policy paved the way for Wal-Mart to become the giant it is.
I don't shop at Wal-Mart, if I can help it, I look at the extra I pay at other retailers the same way as contributions to charity or my political party.
December 2, 2005 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they said that about Home Depot before it opened in Manhattan and prior to that about Target before it opened all over the City and even before that about Starbucks which is now never a block away.
I am sorry, but there is a very peculiar view of business and how it works among many on the Left.
December 2, 2005 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink