#mrblock

Part Three

I wanted to point out two more things Mike Rowe has (com)passionately exclaimed. As part of his response to sean-one of our friendly detractors-Rowe characterizes Sean and other detractors as presenting a reductive and dangerous view of a world where workers are struggling against bosses. He enlightens us and says, “The world is bigger than “Workers vs. Bosses,” and so is this campaign.” And, I think he is correct. There are all sorts of other ways that power relations manifest themselves, however, workers verses bosses is one of them. But before going deeper into that (w)hole, I wonder Who is Mike Rowe in favor of? Don’t worry this is a Rhetorical question that gets results. 

In his Feburary 12th Facebook post “Clean-up In Aisle Four!”, Rowe gives a recap of the controversy that overtook him in the previous few days. He mentions some of the stories written, the interviews he did and then offers a couple of thoughts on different aspects of the ‘controversy.’ He again, dismisses detractors as having ‘cognitive dissonance’, and not being able to see past their own deeply held bias. In particular, he singles out Marc Lamont as having the narrow view that pins workers vs bosses and cannot admit that Wal-Mart is doing something ‘good’, or important. Again, I think generally we should be charitable and listen to what Rowe is saying.

So, I opened up the CNN link Rowe provided and actually the first thing Lamont states is, “No one’s rooting against the initiative…they are saying, you can’t be a champion of the everyday guy, the ever day women and then work with Wal-Mart.” Lamont proceeds to make the issue more complex, which is something that Mike Rowe keeps gesturing at yet reduces his detractors to a 2-d image, by addressing the greater concerns with Walmart in general. He states, “They should do the intuitive…it doesn’t let them off the hook. They are not above critique.” Later in Rowe’s post, he seems to address Lamont directly and it is worth quoting at length for funzies and to further illustrate a worldview that should be coming into view:

People are asking how the ‘champion of the working man,’ (their words, not mine,) can support a big company like Walmart? This goes straight to the heart of the problem. Because it’s a question designed to insight a fight. We’ve become adept at putting people into boxes and assigning labels that reduce individuals to a single dimension. Thus, Democrats must behave like Democrats. Republicans like Republicans. It's expected. If you wander too far afield, you’re labelled a “sell-out.” A “Rino." A “Scab.” And so forth. Consequently, if the “champion of the working man” fails to burst into a chorus of “Look For the Union Label,” the country is suddenly confused. They shouldn’t be. Because the truth is, I’m a big fan of the American Worker. I’m just a bigger fan of America.

In one way, this summarizes nicely what I’ve been trying to show, that is, what seems to be Rowe’s general worldview. In another way, this seems to reach a conclusion that is pretty indistinguishable. So, what Rowe is saying here, as said above over and over without any real evidence for his view, is that people essentialize themselves. Democrats and Republicans alike reify their view and party as if it is the view, the party; any straying off the beaten path will lead to public condemnation. Rowe sees himself as not adhering strictly to either party line, so all the responses that he receives from his detractors are simply failing to step out of their own partisan, biased views to see the objective truth of the situation. Wal-Mart is doing something good, now deal with it. Of course, Rowe doesn’t provide much evidence for his view, nor does he offer any meaningful rebuttal to any actual concerns that ‘detractors’ raise. Also he is guilty of essentializing all his opposition and offers a similarly reductive, simple argument that ignores a lot of the nuances-such as the bigger picture and Wal-Mart’s other dirty practices, which he accuse his opponents has adhering, too.

Again, Rowe is not writing a treatise, so we cannot hold him under great scrutiny for his lack of argument, evidence, etc., and to some extent, that is not the point. Those things are easy to point out and simultaneously easy to grapple with if you just look up other information on Wal-Mart you can get a more sophisticated analysis (for and against) from other sources. So, what is important for my purposes in this particular controversy is the worldview that seems to appear. Look at Rowe’s last two sentences: “Because the truth is, I’m a big fan of the American Worker. I’m just a bigger fan of America.” I couldn’t help, but be completely dumbstruck by this. This whole time the ‘American worker’ seemed to be at the center of his attention. I thought, the ad was about bringing manufacturing jobs (back?) to America, presumably to employ American workers. But this seems to call that into doubt; the focus is not on the American worker, but on America.

So, Mike Rowe unabashedly loves America-more than the American worker. Ok…what the hell does he love then, what is this ‘America’? Is it not American workers, because I thought that is what the ad was about? I thought that Rowe was pretending to be a factory that is soon to be revitalized, which will then employ American’s. I didn’t think it was meant to be literal; I didn’t think the ad was actually a factory speaking. Is the commercial literally about factories being reborn?

Part Two

Mike Rowe was bombarded with responses about the ad, both positive and negative. On his Facebook, some of the positive revolved around the fact that Wal-Mart is going to put 250 billion dollars into US manufacturing over the next ten years. This is obviously a plus for American workers – there will be more jobs, which may lower unemployment and put Americans back to work. Others said things like, ‘jobs a job…at least its honest.’ Those defending Wal-Mart and Rowe said to their detractors things like, ‘Wal-Mart doesn’t owe you anything,’ ‘if you don’t like Wal-Mart, don’t shop there or shop somewhere else,’ and others admit that Wal-Mart may not offer ‘top-notch jobs…but at least its honest work.’ Before commenting on this I want to look at Mike Rowe’s responses to individual ‘detractors’ and then ‘detractors’ in general so as to paint a picture (or, perhaps, draw a cartoon) of a worldview.

Mike Rowe goes down the list in his one Facebook post (Feb. 9th) and responds to individual critics. One detractor said that Wal-Mart has helped to make American factories empty and their “products are all made in China.” Mike corrects them-not all their products are made in China-, but doesn’t mention what percentage of the products are produced elsewhere and what percentage is produced in the US. But he insists that if this is the case, don’t you-the detractor-want to see that change and wouldn’t that be good for Wal-Mart to invest in US manufacturing?

Mike’s position here seems to be that Wal-Mart approached him to do this ad and because he sees this particular intuitive as a good thing, he was willing to do it. If Wal-Mart does this initiative it may encourage others to do this, too. The point for Rowe at this particular juncture is to not focus on these other issues, but focus on this particular initiative to ‘create’ US manufacturing. He states his position in the form of a rhetorical question, “Do you really think America has any hope of reinvigorating our manufacturing base without support from the biggest retailer in the world?”

This is an interesting way to put it, because it problematizes the retort ‘if you don’t like it, shop elsewhere’ – stated differently for a different context, ‘if you don’t like America, leave.’ The problem of course is that Wal-Mart (and America) is a huge player in the global and national economy and political and social issues. When they make decisions it affects everyone. Everyone who works for them, everyone that shops there, all their competitors, and all their detractors are effected by their decisions because they are a global player. This is important that Mike Rowe is making this point because as one scrolls down Rowe’s responses seem to forget that he made this point and shifts responsibility from “the biggest retailer in the world” to the consumer and tv viewers.

So, in one response he makes a very simple argument: a slight majority of Americans shop at Wal-Mart therefore Wal-Mart is successful: “60% of all Americans shop there. That’s why Walmart is so successful.” In another response, he explains that it is the consumer who controls business and decides how things are run; a ‘job’ is not the point of business, but a sort of side effect (?): “Walmart’s first order of business is to serve their customer. Ultimately, the customer calls the shots. Not management. Not labor”; “Walmart does not exist for the purpose of employing people”; “Jobs are just a happy consequence of that success.” This is bizarre, and he extends this analogy (if we are charitable we should call it an analogy, if it is not an analogy then substitute in ‘line of reasoning’) to tv viewers. 

Rowe dismisses one detractor’s, Sean, comment because they copied and pasted parts from the report “Not made in America: top 10 ways Walmart destroys us manufacturing jobs” from Demos.org-a liberal think tank. Rowe justifies his simple dismissal because the site is a, “political site dedicated to destroying Walmart. And also because reactions like yours are the reason our country is paralyzed.” Rowe follows this with his explanation of how commercial tv works. He explains that if you watch tv then YOU are the one who has control. So, these programs have to be paid for by someone and where that money comes from is the person/group that calls the shots. 

“No matter what your job is Sean [i.e. detractor], if you work in commercial television, the money all flows from the same place. And no - it’s not the advertisers or the corporations that pay the bills. It’s you, Sean. The viewer. Just like the customer in a Walmart, the viewer on the sofa programs the airwaves by deciding what to watch and what to buy. In other words, you’re the boss.”