SmackBack - Michelle Malkin Throws Herself On Big Box Mart - Again.
January 13th, 2006
For the second time in a week I find myself shaking my head in disappointment over Michelle Malkin.
Earlier this week – when an Improvised Explosive Device was found in a Starbucks in SF - Ms. Michelle threw her body on the hard left leaning predator because she felt that people were beating up a corporation.
“Apparently, they don’t think the left-leaning corporation is guilty enough about its profits or organically pure enough for their caffeine-stained tastebuds.”
Now she’s decided that WalMart is the poster child for the GOP because the Dems and the Unions don’t like them. Sort of a “The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend” philosophy.
She cites a study that – and I’m paraphrasing here of course – actually sort of admits what a “rough” competitor is – and how “hard they are on the environment” but holds out as it’s entire justification the idea that Big Box Mart is great because their prices go easy on poor people. I kid you not. It actually does. Read it.
I’d like to ask Michelle Malkin something. I’d like to ask her when we on the Right stopped being the party of the individual – and the individual’s rights – and became the party of the corporation – and corporatism? When did we become the party of corporate greed?
I’m really blown away because when you analyze the situation carefully it makes absolutely no sense at all.
She knows that the first thing Big Box Mart does when it enters a community is set to work shuttering every small and independent business on Mainstreet. From the pharmacist that’s been there for 60 years – to the hardware store that’s been there for often as much as a century. Is this how she wants conservatives to be seen?
The second thing on their agenda is apparently setting about trying to find ways to keep from actually paying people for the hours they work or providing them with health insurance.
After they’ve successfully destroyed all of the small independent businesses in the area – there is no place else to work or buy your products. Except from them. Do you REALLY think having a single employer in a community that just happens to be the only place you can spend those wages – is a healthy and “Conservative” idea? Upon examination don’t you think it smacks of socialism itself?
The study she cited says Big Box Mart helps poor people – but what about the fact that it helped to make them poor in the first place?
Can we on the Right really afford to be seen as the party of the Big Box?
Another thing that blows me away is that she has to be aware of the way Big Box Mart exacerbates the illegal immigration problems in this country. She’s written a BOOK on the illegal immigration problem. You can buy it HERE.
This issue is near and dear to her heart. And yet she throws herself on these people?
Conservatives typically care about foreign policy as well. She has to realize what’s going on between Big Box Mart and governments that aren’t particularly friendly to the United States?
I just don’t get it.
This year is a mid-term election cycle. Republicans and those on the Right are being tarred and feathered with the Abramoff debacle. We’re being painted as being “owned and operated” by corporations and lobbyists – and it’s only going to get worse.
Dick Morris, one of the most shrewd and connected insiders on the Right just posted this piece about the nations shift to the left on these issues. It’s a sobering read.
Lou Dobbs, a Harvard educated economist and REPUBLICAN rants about these issues on his program on CNN almost every night.
And still you get this reflexive reaction from voices that claim to speak for us on the Right.
When will those voices on the Right return to caring more about the individual – and less about the hard left leaning corporations that donate so much time and effort and money to causes that hurt Republicans and Conservatives and individuals?
I love Michelle Malkin – and I’m going to keep reading her – I’ll just wish that she’d take a moment to think about these things – before she lets her knee start jerking.
Entry Filed under: Healthcare, Big Box Monster, The Right Has It Wrong, SmackBack
6 Comments Add your own
1. Wulf | January 14th, 2006 at 7:22 am
She knows that the first thing Big Box Mart does when it enters a community is set to work shuttering every small and independent business on Mainstreet.
They would be arrested if they did that. You are not allowed to just walk up to somebody else’s private property and nail shutters over the doors and windows.
Oh, wait - did you mean that they immediately set to work having such a wide selection and such low prices that mom and pop can’t compete? I agree, they do that - and that’s capitalism. THE CONSUMER then has to make the decision: What is more important? Wide selection and low prices at one stop? Or supporting mom and pop?
Why should I choose to go to 7 different mom and pop stores for my shopping needs, pay more money than I would at WalMart at each one? Oil change, groceries, clothes, electronics, I can get it all!
Incidentally, I do choose to support some mom and pop stores over WalMart, but I am curious to see if you know why I would do that. It isn’t because I hate them, or because they allegedly bully their employees into working off the clock, or any of that other stuff. And it certainly isn’t because of Michelle Malkin.
2. Mac | January 17th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
It’s all about greed.
Your greed.
Your greed to save a few pennies and a little time drives you to shop at a place that will send virtually every cent you give them to an out of town headquarters and impoverish your own neighborhood.
You are absolutely free to shop anywhere you like for any reason you like, and you can tell yourself that your being “frugal” or are taking your finances “seriously” - but when you actively choose to give your money to an out of town corporation who is actively working to destroy locally owned and independent businesses in your community - many of which are owned by people who live in and contribute to your community - you are contributing to the destruction of your own community.
It’s good that you don’t feel guilty about that. Many people don’t.
But there is a growing contingent of people who do (yes, even Republicans), and who are working to make sure that local, independent businesses get their business - even if it costs a few pennies more here and there - because they are wise enough to understand that there is no “value” in destroying your own community.
And every penny you give to a large corporate Big Box store instead of your local or independently owned retailer leaves your community instead of enriching it - and it’s a penny you’re taking away from retailers and their employees who live and work and contribute directly to your community.
I understand that it’s hard to face that you’re contributing to the destruction of your own community and your friends and neighbors’ livelihoods - but - the truth is the truth.
“Capitalism” implies competition - and when there is only one source for goods and jobs you no longer have a “free market” you have what’s called a MONOPOLY.
Here are a couple of links to help you on your way
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/capitalism
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/monopoly
A quick aside - many of America’s Founding Fathers thought the idea of monopolistic corporations so odious that they originally tried to include wordage in the Bill of Rights banning them outright.
3. Wulf | January 18th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
It’s all about greed. Your greed.
When I choose to shop at WalMart, it is about my greed, yes. I can buy the same products for less. In fewer stops. I save time and money - frugality, greed, I don’t find either term dirty.
I understand that it’s hard to face that you’re contributing to the destruction of your own community and your friends and neighbors’ livelihoods - but - the truth is the truth.
Wow, that’s quite some hubris you’ve got there. The need to talk down to readers/commenters comes from where, exactly? Thanks for the pointless links and the unnecessary insults - I am well aware of what capitalism is (and why it is good), and what a monopoly is (tip: WalMart is not one). Since you seem to appreciate links, try this one:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/archives/2005/12/monopolies_and.php
Also, I think you have misunderstood my question to you. I will try once more - I choose to support some mom and pop stores over WalMart. Do you know why?
4. Mac | January 18th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
I apologize if you felt “talked down to”.
I perceive your original post to be more than a little antagonistic - so… you reap what you sow.
“frugality, greed, I don’t find either term dirty.”
You do realize that Gordon Gekko’s speech was meant as a satire, don’t you??
At least your honest about your motivations - or lack thereof.
In many rural communities WalMart is most certainly a virtual monopoly.
And as for the nice article (very well written by the way) that tries to make that case that greed begets innovation… well… you don’t have to be Fellini to see though that old canard.
The idea that corporate greed drives innovation is what I call a “Rush Limbaugh” argument. Long on rhetoric - and extraordinarily short on substance. It does no such thing - and my exact point in all this is that it’s because of ideas like this that Right is losing ideological strength with it’s core Conservative base - and allowing us to be painted as the Party of Corporate Greed instead of the Party of the Individual - and Individual Rights.
From where I sit you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.
At once ranting on about how proud you are of your patronization of an institution that hurts your community and quite proud of your greed - and at the same time trying to explain to me why you “support some mom and pop stores” over WalMart.
Please… feel free to enlighten me as to your reasons…
5. Wulf | January 19th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
In many rural communities WalMart is most certainly a virtual monopoly.
I don’t agree.
Incidentally, I grew up in a rural town where mom and pop were more of a virtual monopoly than WalMart is today. The mom and pop grocery store is struggling, because they charged a lot of money. WalMart is in the next town over and people have increased their standard of living because of it. Family and friends from these rural towns buy things at WalMart that simply were not available within an hour’s drive previously. This makes WalMart good, as far as those rural towns are concerned. And my aunt makes more as the bakery manager at that WalMart than she did as the only baker at mom and pop grocery. Good, or bad, for her?
I guess I cannot counter you on whether monopolies innovate, because you haven’t made an argument of any kind. You simply called it a canard, but you seem to have missed the point of the Economist article - that the canard is the idea that it is bad for a single firm to dominate a market.
Also, you keep saying that my patronization of WalMart hurts my community, but you don’t really show it to be true. As I noted, mom and pop are hurt but many of their former employees are better off, as are their customers. In reality, there are no fewer pennies staying in town than there used to be. In fact, the community can gain overall - it is not a zero-sum game, and just because WalMart shareholders made billions of dollars does not mean the rest of us in the world are worse off. It sounds to me like you do believe in zero-sum economics, and do not like capitalism at its core - you want a managed economy, and maybe you would like to call it capitalism for some reason. If that’s the case, we disagree at too deep a level to be solved here, I am sure.
So, why do I choose to support some mom and pop stores over WalMart? Greed. Greed - the Virtue of Selfishness - is not just about money. For some products/services, I want higher quality goods than WalMart carries. For some products/services, I want an atmosphere of greater comfort and leisure. For a few products/services, I just value the friendship of mom and pop enough to shell out a little extra in order to see them and ask about the kids and be happy about the visit. Consumers don’t want low prices - they want more bang for their buck. I don’t pay mom and pop more for a gallon of milk than WalMart charges, but I will pay them more for a haircut, or a pair of pants that don’t just fit, they fit perfectly. The fact is, mom and pop stores are surviving all around the globe, next to WalMart, because they reinvent themselves as higher quality establishments where you can purchase luxury with all of the money you saved.
…at WalMart.
6. Mac | January 19th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
“And my aunt makes more as the bakery manager at that WalMart than she did as the only baker at mom and pop grocery. Good, or bad, for her?”
Apocryphal stories are of little value. Anyone who believes that Big Box stores “increases the standard of living” of anyone with their cheap Chinese made goods and their destruction of communities is well… beyond the reach of reason frankly.
I think your comment pretty much removes all doubt about that.
“I guess I cannot counter you on whether monopolies innovate, because you haven’t made an argument of any kind”
Uhm… dude… it was your argument - and the entire point of the Economist’s article you asked me to read.
He argues (and you support him) in the article that “it is bad for a single firm to dominate a market”. Then you turn around and argue with me for saying basically the same thing here. Seems a little schizophrenic to me.
“Also, you keep saying that my patronization of WalMart hurts my community, but you don’t really show it to be true. As I noted, mom and pop are hurt but…” [QFE]
Both sides of your mouth - Left Side says “you don’t really show it to be true” / Right side admits you know full well that “mom and pop are hurt” then you start with the rationalizations. Sorry… but your guilt is your problem.
“sounds to me like you do believe in zero-sum economics” Oh dear. Regurgitated Rush Limbaugh. /gag. Let me help you here. I’m not for zero sum economics. I think there is plenty of wealth to go around. I’d just prefer to support the individuals (read: mine, my neighbors, my family, and my communities) right to that wealth.
That’s the TRUE Conservative’s bottom line. Individual rights. Not corporate greed.
You even go on to admit in your final paragraph that when you need Quality - you seek out Mom and Pop. Again - that schizophrenic both sides of your mouth thing.
As I said… your post kind of stands as testimony to itself. LOL.
I’d like to finish this entire ‘debate’ with you - since you’ve borrowed your name from an author and philosopher whom I’ve studied at length and who I have a great respect for - by cautioning you that you’ve done her (and yourself) a great disservice.
Ayn Rand’s philosophy of “The Virtue Of Selfishness” and “The Utopia of Greed” was directed at the INDIVIDUAL. Her entire body of work and the entire crux of the Randian hero was his INDIVIDUALITY and his fight against a COLLECTIVE mind set.
There are few more collectivist and anti-capitalist (in the real sense) ideals than that of unbridled corporatism - and their dependence on government handouts and friendly legislation purchased from a greedy and over sized government.
Chew on that for a little bit.
Let me know what you spit out.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed