WAL-MART -- THE BATTLE ON THE LEFT [Byron York]
The Corner
The most interesting debate going on about Wal-Mart these days is on the Left. Spurred by the release of Robert Greenwald's problematic documentary, Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, there is an argument going on between those true-blue types who believe Wal-Mart bashing is a useful pursuit for Democrats, and those who have a more cautious view. Blogger Matthew Yglesias has poked holes in some of the anti-Wal-Mart rhetoric concerning company employees on public aid, while the Democratic Leadership Council's Ed Kilgore has written a (characteristically) trenchant statement of why, whatever Wal-Mart's problems, Democrats would be foolish to demonize the company:
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 sacrosanct. 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...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.
RE: WAL-MART [Jonah Goldberg]
The Corner
I caught a public radio interview on some show I never heard of the other night (I needed to go to the store. I'm a car and dog-walking listener only).
They had an anti-Wal-Mart guy on who was bemoaning Wal-Mart's real and "stealth" subsidies. The complaints about the real subsidies deserve at most one and a half cheers, since most of the subsidies as I understand it are from localities who are desperate to attract Wal-Mart in order to launch inner-city revitalization projects. I don't like most "public-private partnerships" and I'm sure there are some real stinkers out there in terms of Wal-Mart friendly pork. But it's not the corporate welfare this guy was describing.
But his schtick about "hidden" subsidies was just outrageous. Basically he and his group add-up all of the benefits they think Wal-Mart should provide, from health-care to daycare, and then they claim Wal-Mart's getting a free ride on these costs because "the government" is covering them. In other words, because Wal-Mart isn't sending its employees' kids to private school, they're getting a subsidy because the government is paying for their education.
The perniciousness of this logic should be obvious. If the private sector doesn't provide a benefit offered by the government, the private sector is accused of benefitting from a subsidy.
I may be being a bit unkind to the nuances of his argument, but I was distracted by the spittle-splattered yawps of outrage emanating from the driver of the car as I drove myself home. But that was definitely the gist of it.
corner.nationalreview.com |
