Snootycrats. Anti-Wal-Mart populism.

NRO ^ | August 25, 2006 6:51 AM | By Rich Lowry

[.cnI redruM]

Attention Wal-Mart shoppers: Democrats disapprove of your buying habits.

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.

[CSM]

Sorry about that. I mistook your response to me as being from the original poster. You are right, you did not make the assertion and I am still waiting for the person making the claim to come back to the thread.

Have a nice weekend.

[stands2reason]

Don't you looove the Freepers who refuse to shop at Wal-mart because "their stores are full of disgusting ugly fat poor people."

But they're not elitist, nooo.

[Jacquerie]

Have a nice weekend.

You too.

[mozarky2]

Yeah-and that's just the associates!

[pollyannaish]

That's all well and good. But most "mom and pop" stores often actually carry higher percentages of Chinese products than that of WalMart.

I think it is totally fair to worry about China. It's ridiculous, however, to saddle them with the entire weight of imports. They are often actually BETTER than many other outlets. That they get the blame is simply a tool of those upset about Unionization. Seriously.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"...extinct discount chains that never developed a business model successful enough to be pilloried by politicians."

Can't wait until my business is this big! When the Dems start slamming me, I know I'll have truly arrived. ;)

[Diana in Wisconsin]

And I spent $39.00 at Wal-Mart today. Every item I purchased was Made in America, as usual, with the exception of some socks that I needed...they were made in SOUTH Korea, which is not a member of 'The Axis of Evil' to my knowledge. :)

[GOP_Raider]

Attention Wal-Mart shoppers: Democrats disapprove of your buying habits.

Attention Democrats: Wal-Mart shoppers disapprove of your socialist thieving habits.

[mo]

The Dems percieve Walmart is denying them a constituency...introducing the benefits of capitalism to both customers and employees, who otherwise might well be reliable Democratic voters in a dependency situation.

[Gabz]

You lost me after your crapola on your point #1.

I spent $100 in WM today.......the only items that state "made in Chia" are 2 packs of Mead (an Ohio based company) index cards.

[Gabz]

And I spent $39.00 at Wal-Mart today. Every item I purchased was Made in America, as usual, with the exception of some socks that I needed...they were made in SOUTH Korea, which is not a member of 'The Axis of Evil' to my knowledge. :)

You did better than me - I spent $100 and horrors of horrors $1 of that was stuff made in China........Don't blame me, or WalMart for the fact Mead (an Ohio based company) has their index cards made in China.

[NYpeanut]

I would like to know where Biden's very expensive teensy-tiny little loafers are made.

[.cnI redruM]

Seriously. But Democrats, as you probably know well, are far too arrogant to understand that fact.

[.cnI redruM]

Interestingly enough, I was in a Walmart today. Bought 3 fairly cheap items, spent about $5. When I got to the car I checked the labels. One was made by an outfit in NC, another in Iowa and a third from Texas.

I was totally unaware that any of those three were provinces of China.I guess 99% of Walmart's merchandise isn't manufactured by Chinese Concentration Camp prisoners.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>Recent Freep pro-walmrt article states - as of 2005 Walmart buys 70% of ALL of it goods from China


Let's see. Today I was in a Walmart and selected three relatively inexpensive products w/o any attention paid to where they come from. When I got home and looked at the label, all three were made in the USA.

Let's examine the mathematical likelihood that a consumer could go into a store, select three items and pay no attention to where they were made, and go 0 for 3 on made in China if 70% of Walmart's items are made in China.

If an item is picked at random, it should have a 70% likelihood of being Chinese. This leaves a 30% likelihood of it not being Chinese. If I select two such items, i have a 49% chance that both come from China, a 42% chance that either one comes from China and a 9% chance that neither originates from China.


If we do this experiment thrice, like I did today when I went to Wallymart, the chance all of the items comes from China is 70%^3 or 34.3%. The chance that 2/3 came from China equals 44.1%, the likelihood that 1/3 came from China is 18.9% and the likelihood all three are not Chinese is 30% ^3 or almost, but not quite 3%.

Judging from this elementary exercise in probability, either a) you've accidentally misquoted this article or b) the article has erred on a matter of fact. You wouldn't happen to have a link to this article you speak of, would you?

[dangus]

Hey, glad to hear it... but that doesn't change the fact that Walmart is, essentially, the factory outlet for Chinese Forced Labor, Inc.

[dangus]

Your purchases, even if they seemed unrelated to you, were likely linked statistically. And if they were of such low value, but were sold at Walmart and not a Dollar Store, they were probably cheaper to make here than to make overseas and ship them here.

[Kaylee Frye]

Yeah, there's a lot of snooty Freepers. Same ones pitch a huge hairy fit if they have to sit next to someone wearing sandals on the plane. Whatever. People need to get a life and stop caring so much about other people's lives.

[Balding_Eagle]

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!

I call Horse Puckey on that.

70%?

Got any stats to back that up?

[BamaGirl]

What a great post! By the way your line:

"BUT, having more money and shopping at more exclusive stores and eating in fine restaurants and clubs does NOT mean that one is a better person or somehow "lower". It is a free choice of millions of Americans to shop at Wal-Mart or eat at Wendy's"

makes me LOL -- my husband's dream is to go to McDonald's (his favorite restaurant) in a big Bentley sedan!