Wal-Mart Boycott

On some aspects of the Wal-Mart controversy, I claim expertise. This issue--whether ANA should call for a boycott of Wal-Mart--I do not.

My area of scholarship is really public deliberation. That is, I work on productive (and unproductive) models of community deliberation. But, a boycott is not about deliberation; it's about bargaining. And I've read only a few things on bargaining, and only a few things on political action. So, what I say is worth nothing more than what anyone else has to say--I'm talking through my hat, and I don't have a better hat than anyone else does on this.

The next part is the pedantic part. Some folks like it when I give mini-lectures on rhetoric, and some people feel their boot itch. So, skip to the next section if you're in the latter category.


Pedantic Blather on Deliberation v. Bargaining


Political theorists distinguish between a "deliberative" situation and a "bargaining" one. (Mediation is yet another category, but that isn't what we're talking about, so I won't say anything about it.)

Deliberation is characterized by the giving of reasons. If someone doesn't grant that the given reason is relevant, then the giver has to "redeem" it, or the discourse has to move to something else.

In other words, if I say, "Wal-Mart is great because I like it," and you say, "Thanks for sharing, Trish--do you have any other reasons?", I am obligated to provide other reasons. If we're both operating in good faith, then I do. (And, if we're both operating in good faith, then you don't ask for unreasonable evidence.)

So, one of the problems with deliberation is that it relies on participants having good faith.

(I've partially talked about good faith argumentation in an earlier post, but I keep promising to write a longer one with more. I'm still promising.)

If, however, people aren't willing to engage in good faith argumentation, then the deliberative model falls apart.

Bargaining doesn't depend on good faith, and it doesn't depend on reasons. It depends on threats. That is, if we're bargaining, we're talking about finding some place between what you want and what I want, and where we end up will depend on who can threaten worse consequences. (A union threatens to strike; a company threatens to fire everyone.) For a threat to work, it has to be credible, and it has to be consequential. My threatening to think really bad things about you probably won't get me very far, but neither will my threatening to have wild dogs attack you. I don't control any wild dogs (I don't even control any domesticated dogs). You don't care if I think bad things; you care about being attacked by wild dogs, but that threat isn't credible.


So, is a boycott a good idea?


Here are the arguments as I see them:

Is it a credible threat? Well, surprisingly, yes. I didn't think that when RG4N called for it at their meeting in January, as I thought we aren't their target market anyway. But, the whole point of this new kind of Wal-Mart is that we are their target market. (This is explained, with sources, in the post called "Email from a lurker.") So, yes, a boycott from people like us would bother them.

Is this a wise action?I'm a sucker for experts, so, personally, I intend to defer to the attorney. The other person to whom I would defer on this matter would be Al Norman, of Sprawlbusters, as he's someone who's been successful at stopping Wal-Mart.

Should people boycott Wal-Mart? Yes. Absolutely. Without a doubt. And they should let Wal-Mart know that they are. But, that doesn't mean that ANA should call for a boycott. If it does, the motion should be very carefully worded, and approved by the attorney.

Well, that's my hat.

Wal-Mart Compromises (or maybe not)

The recent meeting among Wal-Mart, Lincoln, RG4N, and various neighborhood associations was represented as a significant step in the right direction, as willingness on the part of Wal-Mart/Lincoln to compromise. And, initially, I accepted that.

It was reported that:

[1]Lincoln increased the traffic counts closer to what they found at the WalMart on Ben White and I-35 and found them to come out at an acceptable level with the execption of the Burnet Rd and Anderson Ln intersection. As a result, they have agreed to add more turning capacity at that intersection.

[2]Lincoln will explore modifying Foster from Shoal Creek so that it's not a straight shot into the development.

[3]Add a turn lane into the development from Northcross drive.

[4]Wal-Mart would route Wal-mart truck traffic up 183 to Burnet and down Burnet to enter at Northcross Drive. Anticipate 89 deliveries a week, 1/2 of which would be Wal-Mart 18 wheelers.

[5]They will reduce the square footage of the Wal-Mart form 224,000 to 219,000 sq feet.

[6]Wal-Mart is willing to consider closing from 1:00 to 5:00 a.m.

[7]The new elevations showed sidewalks and greenspace along the eastern side of the Wal-Mart structure

[8]They said revised site design comes closer to complying with the City's recent design standards,

[9]Willing to modify the design to allow for small stores at the ground floor of the WalMart parking garage,

[10]have a rainwater capture and water quality system for runoff

[11]will not have gas or tire & lube operations as part of the development

[12]no RV parking

[13]24-hour security camera

[14]Lincoln and Wal-Mart showed the revised elevations - it did not look like a typical WalMart

Okay, looks great, right? I certainly thought so. Then I started looking at it more closely. Now, one of the things they teach you in Rhetoric classes is: look out for empty comparisons. Any time someone starts using "more" or "er" and doesn't finish that clause (more than WHAT), you put your hand on your wallet and back away.

So, my question is: how many of these "more" and "er" statements are real comparisons, and how many are empty? Is this a compromise?

And here it gets interesting. If you go back through and label them, and keep a hand on your wallet, what you find is:

1. Even Wal-Mart and Lincoln admit that the Anderson/Burnet intersection will have unacceptable traffic.
So, will a turn lane make any difference? I don't see how it will; that's no compromise--that's called admitting the major argument and then throwing a bone.

2. This is a lesson I learned multiple times. An oral argument isn't worth the paper it isn't written on. Agreeing "to explore" something is rhetorically brilliant because it looks good but actually doesn't obligate you to anything. I can "explore" an option by spending three seconds thinking about it while I'm stuck in traffic--that's like a boss saying s/he'll "think about" a raise.

3. That's something that benefits the project--that's like my saying, "Hey, as a special deal, I'll take my normal commission on this sale!"

4. How would they route traffic? They would tell their 45 trucks a week to pleeeeeeze stick to Burnet. The other 45 that they "anticipate" (note no obligation incurred there either) would....um...what? Get really dirty looks if they drive down Woodrow or Shoal Creek? Have people think very bad thoughts about them?

This one looks good, but, if you push on it, you notice, once again, Wal-Mart has done nothing other than said they'll try to be nice. They "anticipate" a certain number of trucks, but haven't agreed to be limited in that regard, so, oops!, they might be wrong! And they've said they'll tell people to do things a certain way, but haven't said what they'll do if those people fail to listen.

5. Okay, this one walks, quacks, and smells like what is called "bad faith argumentation." From the beginning the plan was for a 219k site. So, to me it looks as though they did the classic (bad faith) bargaining strategy: when they started getting pressure, they moved the plan up in size, so that they could "compromise" back to what they wanted all along. Look here for the size of the project (check the date):

6. See 2 (and 4). They'll "consider" it. Yep, and I'll "consider" letting my son stay up till ten. Just did. He can't.

7-14. True comparisons? False comparisons? Another classic strategy is to put forward an intentionally bad plan, then you reveal the real one (this is the basis of many "Dilbert" jokes). Do we have a site plan that is different in any of these regards?

For instance, would someone like to persuade me that they ever had a plan that didn't involve a 24 hour security camera? And notice that they have not promised to have that camera manned. So, great, a camera--because everyone knows that, when a camera sees someone committing a crime, it leaps off the wall and arrests them...or maybe not.

14 is especially savvy, because this was never planned as a traditional Wal-Mart--that's the whole point (see my earlier post on that). This isn't a traditional Wal-Mart (at least not right now, more on that later), so it wouldn't look like one. So, this is presenting something as a compromise that was part of the initial plan.

Okay, I was a fool of the first order. This wasn't a compromise. This was a very cunning move on the part of Wal-Mart/Lincoln, and I, for one, am backing away with my hand on my wallet.

(I swear--the more I look into pro-Wal-Mart rhetoric, the more rabidly anti-Wal-Mart I get.)

Wal-Mart, RG4N, and Defensive Projection

People like stories, and they especially like stories that pit a good guy against a bad guy. This story is such an important part about how we understand the world that we try to make all sorts of situations fit into it, and, when there is a conflict, one of the first things we try to understand is: who is the good guy, and who is the bad guy?

Because this story has two (and only two) parts, one thing the bad guy can do is to point out something bad the good guy has done, and then people flip the characters: because the good guy looks bad, what had been the bad guy must be good.

[It was pointed out to me that this is a leetle abstract. So, I'll make it clearer. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Or, if that doesn't work, how about this? "Stop! Thief!" (One of my favorite Goebbels' quotes--he was pointing out how effective it is when a thief distracts someone from his having picked a pocket by accusing someone else of having picked pockets.)]

One way to get that to happen is what's called "defensive projection." You defend yourself from an accusation by accusing the other side. It works.

One reason it works is that very few people are saints, so you can always find something bad about them, and goodness/badness exists on a continuum (not as two categories). The "he's bad, so I'm good" argument works because people tend to think in terms of good and bad rather than better and worse.

So, if I am a politician, and the major flaw in my record is that I embezzled, the smartest move for me to make is to accuse my major opponent of embezzling. Even if it's totally false, I'll benefit from making that accusation. If I can get a third party to make the accusation, I'll look even better. And it is likely to be completely successful if I can find anything--even something trivial--to support my claim. So, for instance, if you once took some work pens home in your pocket, I characterize that as embezzling, and accuse you of it, and then people will lose track of my embezzling a million dollars.

If you don't believe me, think about the respective records of Bush and Kerry in Vietnam. George Bush had an appalling record in regard to Vietnam, and a record about which lies had been told. So, the Bush campaign raised the issue of Kerry's record, and whether he had been entirely honest about it. Kerry's record may have been less heroic than he presented it (or not--there were supporters of his, but they didn't get the media attention), but he had a record in dangerous places Vietnam, and Bush had gone AWOL from a safe situation in Texas. The Bush campaign's projection of "bad record regarding Vietnam" worked--many people got confused by that ploy, thinking Bush and Kerry had equally bad records, and many people thought Kerry's was the bad guy--the question of better and worse got lost.

Another place one can see this kind of dynamic is in abusive family situations, or in any case involving whistle-blowing. If there is abuse in a family, and a family member calls attention to it, the whole family will jump on that person. If there are bad consequences (e.g., legal problems), the family will accuse the person who objected to the abuse of having caused "the problem." "The problem" just shifted--the real problem is the abuse, and the legal issues are the consequence of that problem, and that problem is caused by the abuser. But, that gets lost when "the" problem gets projected onto the person who objected.

Whistle blowers, similarly, are blamed for having spoken up, as though they caused the problem to which they were just drawing attention.

Finally, people who resist are regularly condemned for resisting, and this, too, is a form of projection. If you threaten to beat me up if I don't give you my wallet, and I refuse to give you my wallet, and you attack me, and I fight back, who "caused" the fight?

You did.

But, that can get lost. There are two ways it can get lost. The most obvious is for you to say, "She caused the fight because she refused to go along with my request. If she had just given me her wallet in the first place, there wouldn't have been a fight." Rhetorically, that's risky, so the second choice is the savvier one: you say, "She fought me." That is, you don't mention what I was fighting against, or why. If the fight caused any damage--a broken window, for instance--then you make a big deal about how much I cost the community. You say, "Look at all the money she is costing the community through her fighting me."

What you do, in other words, is make "the fight" my fault because I resisted. Had you not tried to take my wallet in the first place, of course, there would not have been any need for me to fight, but, you can distract people from that. What a PR person would tell you to do is to make "the fight" (and the consequent costs) my fault.

So, what any decent PR person will tell someone who is costing a community a lot of money is: demonize the people who are fighting, and project your behavior on to them. Claim that *they* are costing the community money. If possible, get those claims made by a third party.

My analysis of this situation is: Wal-Mart has a decent PR person.

What is the problem right now? There are several ways you can describe it:

-Wal-Mart is trying to build a SuperCenter against the wishes of the nearby community;
-the city violated their own procedures for approving this kind of site plan;
-Wal-Mart and Lincoln, having benefited from an irregular approval process, are not willing to make the process right. They are willing to negotiate (to some degree), but not on the most important things.
-they threatened to sue the city if the city tried to undo a bad process.

So, what is the problem? Either the plan or the process whereby it was approved. Neither of those was caused by RG4N.

As I understand it, Wal-Mart and/or Lincoln got a plan approved in ways it should not have been approved. If they wanted to make it better, they could retract that plan, and do it right. They haven't offered that, have they?

As I understand it, Wal-Mart and/or Lincoln has threatened to sue the city if they don't get their way. If they wanted to make it better, they could drop the threat of a suit. They haven't done that, have they?

Either Wal-Mart or Lincoln could make this problem go away instantly.

RG4N is resisting, but Wal-Mart/Lincoln started this fight. Unless there is information I've missed, and they've never threatened a lawsuit, or they've retracted their plan, and are willing to go through the process all over again (without any violations), they are the ones costing the city legal fees.

Does that mean that I think RG4N is the good guy in this story? Not really. I don't like their press release, I think their accusations of fiduciary misconduct are rhetorically (and maybe even legally) unwise, I don't like their hyperbole, and I wish they'd get a decent PR person. But, they're blowing the whistle here, and are at fault only to the degree you think the person who resists handing over a wallet is at fault for a fight.