Black Agenda Report
Black Agenda Report
News, commentary and analysis from the black left.

  • Home
  • Africa
  • African America
  • Education
  • Environment
  • International
  • Media and Culture
  • Political Economy
  • Radio
  • US Politics
  • War and Empire

Always Low Wages, More Pollution: Why Barack & Michelle Obama Relentlessly Shill For Wal-Mart
Bruce A. Dixon, BAR managing editor
21 May 2014
🖨️ Print Article

By BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

Democrats in labor unions and figures like former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and others were justly outraged at Barack Obama's latest wet kiss to Wal-Mart earlier this month. But First Lady Michelle Obama has been in bed with the giant retailer for years. Is this a nasty bug in the Obama presidency, or a corrupt core feature?

By BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

Low Wages, Always: Barack and Michelle Obama Bestow More Wet Kisses on Wal-Mart

“...the willingness of the Obama Administration to do the bidding of Wal-Mart shows just how hollow has become the pretense of elected black Democrats to representing the poor and oppressed...”

Earlier this month President Obama visited a Bay Area Wal-Mart to praise the world's largest and most anti-union retailer for its supposed environmental responsibility. The fact is that Wal-Mart's maintenance of diesel-fueled supply chains between its stores and wherever on the planet wages are lowest and environmental restrictions are totally absent make it a major ongoing contributor to runaway climate change. The president's appearance therefore, was simply a hypocritical exercise in greenwashing for Wal-Mart.

Though it was an insult to working people and to many of his abject and fervent supporters, it should have been no surprise. It wasn't President Obama's first wet kiss to Wal-Mart and with almost three more years in office to go it won't be his last. Still the willingness of the Obama Administration to do the bidding of Wal-Mart shows just how hollow has become the pretense of elected black Democrats to representing the poor and oppressed.

There was a time when Democrats in the White House did not dare openly shill for the giant retailer. Hillary Clinton served on Wal-Mart's board of directors through most of the 1980s, while her husband Bill was governor of Arkansas. Even then, Wal-Mart was notorious for overworking and underpaying its workers, violating labor laws to thwart unions, and sopping up prodigious amounts of corporate welfare in the forms of tax breaks and subsidies of all kinds. Being in bed with those crooks wasn't just an embarrassment, it was a hypocritical affront to Democratic voters, so somewhere on the 1992 road to the White House, Hillary resigned from Wal-Mart's board. Similarly in 2007 with her husband on the way to the White House, Michelle Obama felt compelled to resign from the board of TreeHouse Foods, a major Wal-Mart vendor. “I won't shop there,” said presidential candidate Barack Obama when questioned about Wal-Mart at an AFL-CIO labor forum.

Of course labor audiences in 2007 and 2008 were where Obama pledged to renegotiate NAFTA, and immediately raise the minimum wage as soon as he took office. The president never mentioned raising the minimum wage again till about 2012 when Republicans were safely in control of the House of Representatives, and instead of renegotiating NAFTA, President Obama is engaged in secret negotiations to extend it across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Evidently the Obama that promises is a different guy, and far less powerful, than the Obama that acts.

“...The first lady allowed the unscrupulous retailer to leverage her personal image ...”

Safely in office, Michelle and Barack Obama have enthusiastically embraced Wal-Mart. The first lady allowed the unscrupulous retailer to leverage her personal image as an advocate of exercise and healthy eating in her “Let's Move” initiative, and spouting the company line that the best solution to urban “food deserts” is opening more Wal-Mart neighborhood grocery stores. Michelle Obama's many appearances at and pronouncements around Wal-Mart have done the retailer more good than she and Hillary could ever have done in another decade or two apiece on its board of directors.

Right now Wal-Mart is approaching 30% of the US retail grocery market, with far lower wages, fewer hours, skimpier benefits, and longer and dirtier supply chains than its major competitors. As I said a couple years ago in an article about Michelle Obama's cynical embrace of Wal-Mart:

Wal-Mart's business model of corrupting public officials, lying about job creation numbers, rampant sex and race discrimination, relentlessly low wage and benefit levels, and aspirations to monopoly control of local markets across the country make it a bad neighbor, a worse boss, an unfair competitor and sometimes a criminal enterprise.

Wal-Mart has been a leader in the corporate practice of weaponizing its charitable giving, turning it into a lever to open new markets in urban America, to neutralize and isolate opposition, and to curry favor with local political figures. Wal-Mart made it rain on selected charities and ministries in areas like Newark and Chicago when it needed to colonize those new markets. President Obama recognized this “achievement” in the corruption of Democratic party politics in March 2014 by nominating Wal-Mart's chief of charitable giving to head up his Office of Management and Budget.

Wal-Mart was even allowed, along with McDonalds and other large, low-wage employers, to shape the drafting of regulations governing Obamacare, in ways that exempted the retailer from having to ensure large numbers of its workers for the first several years.

The fiction that elected Democrats represent poor and working people and stand for safeguarding the environment is just that – a fiction. There is a new neoliberal paradigm that allows Democrats to mumble a few words about raising the minimum wage when the other party controls Congress, that claims the moment they took office was the day the oceans stopped rising. If these were curable bugs in the political system, votes and advocacy would wake enough people up to change them. But what if they're not bugs in the system at all. What if these are its core and immutable features? What then? Isn't it time to step outside their two-party, capitalist box, to dream and begin to build something else?

Bruce A. Dixon is managing editor at Black Agenda Report and a state committee member of the GA Green Party. He lives and works in Marietta GA and can be reached via this site's contact page or at bruce.dixon(at)blackagendareport.com.

Do you need and appreciate Black Agenda Report articles? Please click on the DONATE icon, and help us out, if you can.


More Stories


  • Ujima’s Plan to Transcend Neoliberalism in Maryland
    Phillip Clark
    Ujima’s Plan to Transcend Neoliberalism in Maryland
    23 Nov 2022
    The Ujima People's Progress Party is organizing outside of the duopoly in an effort to gain true political representation for Black working people. 
  • Widespread Panic as Anti-Haitian Decree Goes into Effect in Dominican Republic
    Carlos Edill Berríos Polanco
    Widespread Panic as Anti-Haitian Decree Goes into Effect in Dominican Republic
    23 Nov 2022
    In the Dominican Republic, Haitian migrants or any dark-skinned Black person can be arrested, have their belongings seized, and be deported from that country. Anti-Haitian sentiment and legislation…
  • After Bolsonaro, Can Brazil Move Beyond Neoliberalism and Toward Greater Global Cooperation?
    Richard Matousek
    After Bolsonaro, Can Brazil Move Beyond Neoliberalism and Toward Greater Global Cooperation?
    23 Nov 2022
    Lula da Silva's return to the Brazilian presidency is seen as a victory for the left. But he will have to struggle against forces who want to continue neo-liberal policies.
  • AFRICOM Watch Bulletin #43
    US Out of Africa Network
    AFRICOM Watch Bulletin #43
    23 Nov 2022
    The Black Alliance for Peace AFRICOM Watch Bulletin #43 includes an interview with a representative of the Revolutionary Socialist League of Kenya and as always, the latest analysis and reporting on…
  • Medical Care as a Political Weapon: Reflections on Frantz Fanon’s Treatment and Death from Cancer in Amerika
    Kevin ‘Rashid’ Johnson
    Medical Care as a Political Weapon: Reflections on Frantz Fanon’s Treatment and Death from Cancer in Amerika
    23 Nov 2022
    Frantz Fanon was a fierce critic of the U.S., but he spent the last weeks of his life in Washington DC, where he hoped to be treated for leukemia. Medical care can be used as a political weapon. 
  • Load More
Subscribe
connect with us
about us
contact us