Dems Vs. Ronald Reagan and Walmart

Even a political junkie like myself long ago lost interest in the debates. I will catch one once in a while but certainly it won't be from the other party, the Democrats. That is apparently too bad because as it turns out the last Dem debate in South Carolina was awfully juicy. The two rivals, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, traded some serious jabs. Obama went after Hillary and vice versa. For instance, disgraced and indicted former fundraiser, power player, and former business partner of Barack Obama, Tony Rezko was mentioned. Obama countered by mentioning Hillary's connection to Walmart. Hillary nailed Obama with his unusually high number of present votes. From the small snippets that I saw, it sounded as though it was quite the slugfest.

Much of it was no doubt typical heat of the moment primary mudslinging. It is unclear what sort of long term effect it will have however there were two specific lines of attacks that I found interesting. Each used Ronald Reagan and Walmart as an attack vehicle. The Dems have taken the dual positions that both Walmart and Ronald Reagan are collectively bad for America.

This, frankly, appears to me to be political suicide. Ronald Reagan isn't merely a Conservative icon but frankly an American icon. He appealed to conservatives, moderates, and to moderate Democrats (forever known as Reagan Democrats). It all started when Obama said this about Reagan,

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

This didn't sit well with most of the primary voters and it opened an opportunity for Hillary. Their surrogate, Barney Frank, said this...

I would like to know what Republican ideas he thinks are great ideas,” Brown said of Obama, before ticking off GOP-led plans to privatize Social Security and abolish the National Education Association as well as provide “tax breaks to the rich.”

It was on and now each Democrat took their turns getting as far away from Reagan as they could and attacking him as much as possible. Here is how he characterized it.

what I said was is that Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their agenda, an agenda that I objected to. Because while I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.

It appears that in Primary Democrat circles Ronald Reagan ranks right up there with Satan. This is quite a world view, and unfortunately it is quite different from that of the nation at large. Reagan was among the most popular Presidents ever and he ages much like a fine wine. Attacking Reagan maybe an effective primary tactic, but that will haunt the nominee come the general election. Furthermore, turning the Reagan issue into yet another attempt at class warfare by characterizing his tax cuts as "for the rich" is even more foolish. It is this sort of class warfare arguement that Paul Krugman attempted to make, and in my opinion not very effectively. People know Reagan and they remember Reagan and overwhelmingly they like the man, the President, and the time he served as President.

This sort of class warfare arguement can be exploited. By linking Reagan, an icon, to their more broad class warfare arguement, the Dems open themselves up to finally be called on it. Much of their entire domestic policy arguement is nothing more than an attempt at class warfare. Everything the Republicans do it seems, in the mind of Democrats, is an attempt to line the pockets of the rich at the expense of the poor. That may work when you attack George Bush, who is unpopular, or Congress the same, but when it is used at Reagan, I don't see it being nearly as effective. I think it is better political strategy to attack Santa Clause than it is Ronald Reagan. It appears to me to be even worse when that attack is linked to a broader class warfare attack.

Their attacks on Walmart have many of the same political problems. The Democrats have made an enemy of Walmart because it refuses to unionize. It refuses to unionize because Walmart's business model relies on economies of scale, which relies on minimizing costs. Well, unions and cost minimization don't mix. Of course, none of that is important to this debate. The Democrats have to pay homage to their union backers and thus each one needs to attack WalMart. Here is what Obama and John Edwards said late in 2006...

Unlike the manufacturers who are under enormous competitive pressure from global low-cost producers, Wal-Mart is making enormous profits and yet it has chosen to go with low wages and diminished benefits," he said. "The battle to engage Wal-Mart and force them to examine their corporate values and policies is absolutely vital to America today."

Here is how a group of Democrats portrayed Wal Mart.

"We're all together today in wanting to wake up Wal-Mart and say, 'Treat your workers fairly,'" Lieberman told several hundred people gathered outside in stifling heat. He later added, "It is time for the American people to get together to support Democrats who support working people."

...

"This is about waking up Wal-Mart and this is also about waking up corporate America," Lamont said. He did take one jab at Lieberman, a three-term incumbent, saying, "It won't take me 18 years to go down to Washington, D.C., to get that done."

The Democrats even support a group called Wake Up Wal Mart, whose primary goal is to unionize it. Let's set aside for a second the idea that it takes a lot of hubris for a politician to tell a public company how to run its business. Let's look at what is important. Wal Mart employs nearly two million people world wide. More than half of those are in the United States. That means Wal Mart has created more than a million American jobs MORE than any of the politicians currently criticizing it. By offering every product imaginable cheaper than anyone else, Wal Mart also saves millions of people billions if not trillions of dollars yearly as well. The bottom line is that attacking Wal Mart is, much like the Reagan strategy, but will backfire in the general election as this poll from early 2007 indicates.

The unions and the Democratic primary voters may despise Wal Mart but that is opposite of the general feeling from most of the population. The Wal Mart attack is another form of class warfare this time pitting the fat cat employer, Wal Mart, against its workers. It is another attack that would work if the target was disliked. That isn't the case with Wal Mart.

Attacking Reagan and Wal Mart as viciously and clearly as the Democrats have leaves them open to be attacked come the general election. Here we have a clear opening for any astute politician to take advantage of. The Democrats have left themselves wide open to be in the tiny minority come general election time on two important issues, and it is up to their opponent to use it to their advantage. We will see if anyone heeds my advice.