Snootycrats. Anti-Wal-Mart populism.

Democrats are fleshing out their domestic agenda with attacks on the company that brings you everyday low prices. The party is divided about how to address the threat of the insurgents and militias bedeviling us in Iraq, but is united by its response to the threat represented by extremely affordable retail goods and groceries. Appearing at Wal-Mart-bashing rallies has become practically mandatory for Democratic presidential aspirants, according to the New York Times.

The Democrats call their broadsides against the super-retailer “populist,” but it’s an odd populism that attacks a company that attracts more than 100 million customers a week with no-frills convenience and rock-bottom prices for everyday consumer goods. If Wal-Mart specialized in selling high-end wind-surfing gear, yes, it might be a juicy populist target. But detergent and toilet paper? Huey Long himself would be mystified at this choice of demagogy.

Attacking oil companies for allegedly price-gouging is unquestionably good (if grossly opportunistic) politics. What Wal-Mart perpetrates, however, is price-gouging in reverse. It sweats every inefficiency out of itself and its suppliers so it can pass those savings on to consumers. Attacking the company for that isn’t populist, it’s perverse. A mom struggling to make ends meet might be angry at spending another $2-a-gallon to fill up at the pump. She’s not going to be so exercised by getting a great deal on diapers.

Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware declared at a recent anti-Wal-Mart rally in Iowa, “I don’t see any indication that they care about the fate of middle-class people.” Who does Biden think is strolling the long aisles of the nation’s Wal-Marts? It’s not the malefactors of great wealth. Wal-Mart prices make the most difference for exactly those families spending the greatest portion of their budgets on the basics. One estimate is that Wal-Mart saves the average household as much as $2,300 a year. That’s nothing to big donors to the “Biden for President” campaign, but for most families, it’s real money.

Wal-Mart’s attackers say that its low prices come at the expense of its 1.3 million wage slaves who are denied decent pay and health benefits. But the wages and benefits offered by Wal-Mart are comparable to those of other retailers. The stumbling automaker General Motors has, in contrast, engaged in a long experiment in paying wages and benefits that are unsustainably high in its industry, and it hasn’t been a happy one. If retail-level wages and benefits are unconscionable in America, perhaps we should shutter the entire sector and ship it overseas. Then, of course, Democrats would complain about the loss of jobs.

Wal-Mart shouldn’t be romanticized. It doesn’t deliver low prices from the goodness of its heart, but because it’s a way to thrive in a competitive economy (nor does it pay relatively low wages out of malice). Its ruthless efficiency drives competitors out of business. This is painful, but there is no reason to believe that America was a better place when it bought retail products from Ames or Caldor, extinct discount chains that never developed a business model successful enough to be pilloried by politicians.

Why do Democrats target Wal-Mart? As in so much else in Democratic politics, from trade issues to the minimum wage, part of the answer is to follow the unions. When Wal-Mart began to sell groceries, it ran afoul of the unions that dominate supermarkets, and they have made Wal-Mart a hate-brand on the left. Something deeper is at work, as well. In Democratic politicians’ contempt for Wal-Mart, there is an element of snobbery. They have a distaste for such a down-market, lumpen-bourgeois operation where few of their voters shop (one poll found that 76 percent of weekly Wal-Mart shoppers are Bush voters), let alone anyone they socialize with.

The Democrats’ anti-Wal-Mart campaign ultimately represents a politically unappealing snooty-populism. Their rhetoric is with the common man, but their noses are in the air.

I am anti-Wallmart not because of their low prices, low wages or lack of real health benefits but for the following reason that you can reject or consider:

I feel they represent a eventual threat to US security due to their Pro-China policies consider the following facts:

Sam Walton started the company with the Motto - Shop at Walmart and Buy American !! Sam's kids motto is shop at Walmart and buy Chineese and help close down USA manufacturing plants!!

1) Recent Freep pro-walmrt article states - as of 2005 Walmart buys 70% of ALL of it goods from China - So all you Walmart shoppers are sending aprox 70% of your hard earned money to China!

2) Trade deficit with China hit $202 Billion last year, about half what we spend on defense. Consider these details:
2a) China’s trade surplus with the United States increased by 24.5% in 2005, to $202 billion, the United States’ largest bilateral deficit. This bilateral deficit with China increased $40 billion in 2005, more than accounting for the entire increase in the United States’ non-oil trade deficit. China has prevented any appreciable increase in the value of its currency, which has caused the bilateral trade deficit to balloon for a number of years. China’s intransigence has encouraged other Asian nations to prevent or slow increases in the value of their currencies. U.S. imports from China are six times the value of U.S. exports to China, making it the United States’ most imbalanced trading relationship. U.S. imports from China were $243 billion in 2005 (an increase of 24%), making China the second largest exporter of goods to the United States, behind Canada at $288 billion. At current rates of growth, China will surpass Canada and become the largest supplier of U.S. imports within the next two years.
2b) The U.S. also had a $44 billion trade deficit in “advanced technology products” (ATP) in 2005, an increase of 20% since 2004. The ATP exports declined between 2000 and 2002, and then recovered slowly, as shown in Figure B. While ATP imports also declined during the recession, they recovered sooner and have grown more rapidly. The United States has had a deficit in ATP products since 2002, and the balance in this sector has fallen steadily since 1997, when the United States had a surplus of $33 billion in these sectors. Imports of high-tech goods from China were responsible for the entire U.S. deficit in ATPs. The growth of the ATP deficit was responsible for 16% of the increase in the non-petroleum goods trade deficit.

3) In an article about the Nuke problem with Iran - "Russia and China, also long averse to sanctions as a policy tool, have major energy and investment stakes with Iran and could veto sanctions in the Security Council." "Sinopec signed another contract worth US$19.6 million (HK$152.88 million) in June with Iran's state-owned National Iranian Oil to explore and develop an oil concession area in Semnan province, east of Teheran.
Sinopec has also been negotiating to buy a 51 percent stake in a project to expand the Yadavaran oilfield in southwestern Iran." Where do you think China is geting some of this money to invest in Iran.

4) Hugo Chávez, Venezuela's president, is due to meet China's leaders in Beijing on Thursday as he seeks to divert Venezuelan oil exports from the US to Asia. Venezuela plans to export 500,000 barrels of oil a day to China within five years, Venezuela President Hugo Chavez said Wednesday. President Hugo Chavez offered to share Venezuela's U.S.-made F-16 fighters with Cuba and China.

5) Under contract with Castro, the Chinese government will be drilling for oil and gas in the Florida Straits as well as northwest of Cuba in the Gulf of Mexico.

6) North Korea agrees to supply technology and equipment to aid Iran in upgrading the C802 anti-shipping and cruise missiles it purchased from China in the early 1990s and deployed on French and Chinese-built missile boats in the Persian Gulf and in coastal batteries. China has promised the United States several times to stop deliveries of the C802 to Iran, but U.S. intelligence reports last year documented deliveries by China far in excess of what has publicly been reported. The C802s were assembled in Iran under a co-producing agreement signed with Communist China.

7) I can't find the quote but China is publicly increasing it's Military spening by 15% a year, the Bush Administration says it is even larger than that. It is weel know the that the People Republic Armry owns many of the manufacturing plants in China using chineese slave labour system (prisioners and even children labour).

So tell me Freepers is it really wise to be running $200+ Billion a year trade deficits with China ?

Should we be helping to fund China's investment activities in Iran & Venezuela & Cuba ??

Should we continue to pretend (fooling ourselves) that they are really are our friends and are good trading partners deserving "Most Favored Trade Status" !!!!!!

Do you really want to shop at China's #1 Manufactured Goods Buyer "Walmart" in the world !!!!

p.s. I am not so crazy about the other pro-China companies "target, etc" either.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.