Wal-Mart In The Democrat Party's Crosshairs

This morning, on CNBC, the co-anchors discussed yesterday's attacks by Democratic Senator Obama (Ill), and former Democratic Senator Edwards (NC), upon Wal-Mart.

It has taken less than two weeks for the Democrats to begin to feel their oats over the prospect of the slimmest of majorities possible in the US Senate, come January.

Both Democrats, heard via recorded statements, excoriated the retailer for its wage levels and structures, and its health care policies. Edwards nebulously referred to "billionaire" senior executives of Wal-Mart, offering no evidence of his assertions, contrasting the alleged wealth to further assertions that low-level employees of the firm must apply for food stamps, school lunch programs, and other governmental transfer payments.

To his lasting credit, co-anchor Joe Kernan, apparently the only sensible, moderate voice on the panel, noted that Edwards offered no proof of his sweeping assertions, and that many individuals and institutions are the actual owners of Wal-Mart, via shareholding positions. Senior executives of the firm, whatever their compensations, are unlikely to hold any significant voting interest in their employer.

As readers of this blog may know, I am no fan of Wal-Mart. In many prior posts, which you may find by searching on the company's name at the top of the page, I have opined that Wal-Mart's executives have made some fairly spectacular blunders in the past year. Additionally, I simply believe that their current business model has run out of room for growth.

However, that does not merit these attacks from liberal Democrats who are prospective candidates for President in 2008. It would seem that, despite their single-seat Senate majority, the Democrats are beginning to behave as if they have veto-proof clout. By Obama's, and Edward's, demagogery, they are already revealing their true intentions, which were carefully hidden during the recent election campaign.

If memory serves me, Wal-Mart's lowest-level employees are now more likely to be part-time. Thus, they would probably not qualify for benefits such as health care. Whether this is a wise strategy or not, time will tell. If it proves to be a lightning rod for this type of publicity and, in time, legislation aimed at Wal-Mart, then it probably will not have been wise. But, this is the nature of free market enterprise. Companies experiment with their business models, within the context of the society and legal environments in which they exist.

My personal opinion is that Wal-Mart is suffering an unusual amount of self-inflicted damage from its various personnel, compensation and marketing strategies. However, the consequence for that should, and may be, a loss of business. It shouldn't be to become the corporate whipping boy of national office-seeking politicians.

Sometimes, the law of unintended consequences acts in exceptionally circuitous ways. It would be ironic indeed if, as a result of their recent victories in both Houses of Congress, the Democrats engaged in such virulent attacks upon the engines of economic wealth creation in America, such as Wal-Mart, so quickly, that they assured their own loss of control in the next cycle of elections.

For more on that theme, see this post.