Last week, when watching TV news footage of people protesting a Walmart being built in LA’s Chinatown, I caught sight of a sign which seemed to define contemporary American liberalism, “Good Jobs/not Walmart jobs.”
Given all the empty storefronts in neighborhoods across Los Angeles, you’d wonder why people are protesting a company willing to invest its own money into a new job-creating enterprise in the Southland. This jobs project would not require higher taxes, indeed, would increase the state’s tax base without taking money from Sacramento’s (or Washington’s) depleted treasury.
These protestors, however, prefer these abstract “good jobs” to the very real “Walmart Jobs.” They favor, that is, something that exists in the abstract, in theory, to something very real — and well, like most real things, (at least) slightly imperfect.
Does seem that that notion, preferring the abstract, untried “better” to the flawed “good” defines contemporary liberalism — as we have seen in their various fixes (over the years) proposed for (and applied to) our health care system.
The incumbent Secretary of the Treasury (at 1:40 below) provides another illustration of this phenomenon, acknowledging that the Democratic administration doesn’t have a definitive solution to the debt problem, but, well, they just don’t like the one that Republicans have put on the table.
The Geithner/Obama solution to our nation’s debt problem exists entirely in the abstract.
Today’s liberals, it seems, like real-world solutions. Like the “good jobs” for which the anti-Walmart protestors militate, their answers exist only in the realm of theory, in the hopes of idealists.
FROM THE COMMENTS: V the K offers a related point on Walmart and liberals:
This illustrates a big difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives say, “If you don’t like Wal-Mart, don’t shop there.” Liberals say, “We don’t like Wal-Mart, so no one must be allowed to shop there.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.