I'm of the opinion that how to handle Wal-Mart is among the top two or three most important issues facing the country. The conversation hasn't caught up to it, and the arguments being had mostly miss the mark and collapse beneath their own short-sightedness, but the mega-retailer's impact on the economy, ubiquity across the country, and aggressiveness in using its size will eventually force a reckoning proportionate to its power. Which is why it's such a disappointment to see Jonah Goldberg's sneering, superficial treatment of the subject in today's LA Times (particularly considering the brilliant op-eds the LA Times has been publishing this week!).
Goldberg's column decries WMDS -- his acronym for (I'm serious here) "Wal-Mart derangement syndrome," and his argument goes like this: 127 million people (!!!) shop at Wal-Mart every week, so attacking the store is "electoral asininity." In addition, Hillary Clinton was on their board of directors when the company was fighting for survival in the late-80's and Teresa Heinz Kerry owns stock in corporation. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart does indeed have low prices. So, all the liberal whinging over the company's policies make for "horrific politics, silly public policy — but a joy to watch." QED.
