Liberal Twinkie Dilemma

Let me start with the childhood memory of a favorite lunchbox treat. My mom used to put Twinkies in the freezer, and then they would not only help keep the sandwich cool (before icepacks were invented for lunchboxes, as far as I know), but would thaw enough for eating just about by lunchtime. But they didn’t always totally thaw, so my preferred way—the real right way—of eating a Twinkie was to eat the outer pound cake first, and then the semi-solid creamy filling last. (I also ate Oreos the authentic way, by eating the outer cookie first and saving the creamy inside for last.) Good times.

But suddenly this long-time lunchbox standard is about to become a fading memory only. Hostess, the maker of Twinkies (and Ding-Dongs and Hostess Cupcakes, and other high preservative bakery treats) has gone under—the victim of a combination poor economy overall for too many years and outrageous demands for employees by their labor unions. The labor demands could not be met; the unions refused a reasonable pay cut to protect jobs. So the result is the total loss of 18,500 jobs. Another example of labor unions doing what’s best for employees (seriously, they would describe it that way).

Dipped Twinkies and Ding Dongs
in a chocolate shop on Cannery Row;
We asked how long they could provide these, and they
said only until the ones they have on hand are gone

So the question comes up—and I’m not making this up—about whether the federal government should step in and “bail out” the troubled bakery company. After all, isn’t Hostess too big to fail? Isn’t the public’s need for Twinkies, from the only provider, greater than any principles of economics? And, most important, shouldn’t the government back up union workers whenever it must?

This must be the liberal position, right?

Except that, pretty much simultaneously the First Lady is crusading for the federal government to gain greater control over school lunches. Not only should sweet bakery treats with creamy fillings be banned from school lunch menus and campus vending machines, in some areas school officials monitor foods sent from home. A cupcake (or, Fed forbid, a Twinkie) instead of an apple might be a big no-no, and could be confiscated, with a disciplinary note sent home to the bad parent.

So, in liberal world, there should be cheers for the demise of an evil corporation offering foods that could lead to childhood obesity. But…the way liberal world is supposed to happen is, because of the federal government’s positive influence on our food choices, the public would then pressure the company to discontinue the evil food production and turn toward making delectable veggie burgers, if they plan to continue their existence at all—which they are pretty much required to do, because their purpose is to provide employment, right?

Twinkie memorial found on Facebook

But that isn’t what’s happening. Demand for fattening bakery snacks at low prices is still fairly high—at least judging by the series of memorials I’ve seen on Facebook. Plus, the loss of those union jobs is bad optics in a campaign (oh, wait, the campaign is over—except that among liberals, the campaign is never over).

What is a liberal to do?

May we humbly suggest the full big government assault on all fronts: insisting on federal government bailout and production of a product simply to preserve union jobs—while simultaneously outlawing the product in school or in places where anyone under 18 is allowed to make purchases, while making sure the media tells this story in some relatively surreal way. Yes, that would do it.

Because the free market alternative is totally unacceptable: high demand for this particular product could lead some new enterprise to buy up the company’s assets and begin producing the product elsewhere—maybe even with the same name and packaging—but without the restraints of overpriced union labor. And the product might become even more available as a result. And this is why many of us prefer living in free market world instead of liberal-controlled world.