Today, I want to consider Wal-Mart as a "What's the Matter With Kansas?" problem in the mode of Thomas Frank. One of my best friends, who is actually a very reasonable Republican, sent me
this article by Nathan Gonzales from RealClear Politics in order to bait me (as we both like to argue). It's called, "The War on Wal-Mart: Waking a Sleeping Giant," and I offer it here in the spirit of fairness. Gonzales writes:
A new documentary by Robert Greenwald entitled "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price," is in part supposed to be an effort to appeal to a Red state audience. Greenwald's resume includes "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" and "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War." "I think the economic issues that we're talking about absolutely are in sync with [social conservatives]," Greenwald told The New York Times.
But Greenwald's comments are more indicative of a portion of the Democratic Party that is out of sync with much of America where shopping at Wal-Mart is part of daily life. It's a similar conundrum described by Thomas Frank in his book What's the Matter With Kansas. Democrats and liberals often express frustration and disbelief that conservatives consistently "vote against their economic interest," not considering that people's economic interest also includes a desire for low prices.
Later on Gonzales writes:
With all of the coverage of the anti-Wal-Mart campaign so far, it's surprising that nobody has mentioned the potential for a backlash. Wal-Mart's opponents maintain they simply want to make Wal-Mart a "better corporation" and not get rid of it, but it's foolish to believe that the efforts will not affect Wal-Mart financially and consequently have an affect on its employees, shoppers, and communities.
The war on Wal-Mart could create a problem for Democratic strategists, who are trying to reposition their party to appeal to Red state voters. "That's their problem," responded one Wal-Mart critic about the potential backlash. For some people, it's truly about a cause and not a party.
I've seen the same sentiments expressed on Wal-Mart threads here at Kos by concerned Democrats.
This is my response:
If you actually read Frank's book, you'll see that his solution isn't to replace class with culture, but to bring class back into the center of American political debate. I think the same goes with Wal-Mart. Most Wal-Mart shoppers don't shop at Wal-Mart as a political act, they shop at Wal-Mart because they think they're saving money. The more Wal-Mart is politicized, the more the company will suffer, as most people are not pro-sweatshop or pro-poverty level wages. This will be especially true in the Blue States into which Wal-Mart is trying to expand.
Besides, there are plenty of Conservatives who hate Wal-Mart too. Here is a nice comment from one of my Wal-Mart posts at BuyBlue:
AS a dyed in the wool conservative, i never thought I'd see anything on buyblue that I agree with! I have always wondered how long it would take for the "left" to realize that WalMart is a cut-throat retailer that does much more harm than good to communities they enter. As Home Depot closed all the good hardware stores, WalMart closes all the good Mom and Pop stores, the real backbone of America....I never shop at Wal Mart! Ever!
I can't prove it, but I get the impression that the only people who defend Wal-Mart these days are people who don't shop there. Seriously, I'd like to see a link to just one story that says something like, "I love Wal-Mart. I shop there every day. My entire house is decorated head-to-toe in Wal-Mart merchandise." Not even Kevin at "Always Low Prices" can say that.
Can anyone, liberal or conservative, honestly say that shopping at Wal-Mart is a pleasant experience? Don't conservatives have a sense of aesthetics? Can't they see that nearly everything at Wal-Mart is cheap and disposable from the diapers right up through the ugly eventually-to-be-abandoned building? Does anything available at Wal-Mart bring people joy?
Hoping for a good discussion,
JR