Analysis of various farm bill failures has gone viral!
Sadly, a crucial part of this story, the ways that progressives have been duped by the “divide and conquer” strategies of agribusiness, is missing from this analysis, (even as the problem is fueled by the analysis). The failure of progressives to get good results in the recent Senate and House farm bill proposals needs to be carefully examined on this basis.
Below, and through several links, I provide a simple analysis of some of the biggest aspects of this crisis.
1. I identify the failures that I see.
2. I summarize a longer analysis I’ve written on the recent failures regarding the House farm bill, and link to it.
3. I point to a relatively simple video comparison that dramatically illustrates the magnitude of the failure of food progressives with regards to “divide and conquer,” and the enormous difficulties progressives have in even knowing what the dominant agribusiness interests are doing to their strategies. This leads directly into knowledge of a radically different paradigm that offers the unknown “Democratic” solution to these challenges.
(Feel free to scroll to the bottom and watch the videos first.)
The Failure of Food (and Farm) Progressives (Again) in 2013
Historically, for many years, the Democratic Party led the day with the Democratic Farm Bills that came out of the New Deal, as I’ve explained in other blogs. Starting in 1953, with the Eisenhower administration, these programs were reduced below the traditional “fair trade,” “living wage” standards of “parity,” which had been achieved under Roosevelt and Truman, from 1943 to 1952.
We had no “cheap food” under these policies, because they featured Market Management mechanisms: Price Floors, (minimum prices set at “living wage” levels,) backed up by supply reductions, as needed, to prevent oversupply. We also had protection from price spikes, from Price Ceilings that triggered the release of reserve supplies, which were also occasionally needed. Additionally, the programs were incredibly cheap, even making money for the government on some years.
Over the years the Democratic programs were reduced, more and more and more, and then ended in 1996, resulting in the lowest farm commodity prices in history, repeatedly. Without these nonsubsidy programs, all that was left of the farm bill was government spending.
We find then that, in their recent House and Senate advocacy, progressive strategy on the big issues has been almost exclusively limited to a fight over spending, based on the belief that all a farm bill can be is spending (with 'nonspending' market management long forgotten).
In large part this has been seen by progressives as a fight between the interests of commodity farmers, which are often described as “agribusiness” “industrial agriculture,” or simply “Big Ag,” and other progressive farm bill interests, such as support for good Nutrition and Conservation Titles.
The Problem, from a New Deal Perspective
The major spin and analysis coming out of the recent events has been that it was mostly a loss for progressive causes like sustainable agriculture and hunger, and mostly a big win for “farm” (meaning corporate,) interests.
It’s confusing, however, because first, after cutting SNAP and many other important progressive programs in the House, the whole (House) farm bill failed! That then was mourned by the big commodity groups, Farm Bureau, and farm state Ag Committee members (supposedly “farm” interests,) and was applauded by progressives. But then they passed a farm bill that cut out SNAP entirely. That then was seen in the reverse way.
Perhaps the classic of progressive messaging about this was to heap criticism on farm state leaders like Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-TN), who received a lot of farm subsidies, while helping lead the fight against SNAP funding (Nutrition Title, food stamps). Really though, in this messaging, Fincher and other farm state ag committee members were criticized for winning benefits for their rural districts, benefits said to be shockingly large! Some criticism!
We see, then, at least generally, how progressives have been divided and conquered. The Senate and House farm bill proposals hurt progressive causes, and also hurt authentic farm interests (farm justice). The zero sum strategy, on the other hand, of robbing farmer Peter to fund hungry Paul, missed the mark. In that way, food progressives attacked an important ally in the fight against the status quo.
Meanwhile, technically, (ie. where it matters,) the true agribusiness exploiters and beneficiaries, who are hugely concentrated, huge in size, have no means testing and no pay caps, and who gain enormously from the absence of any Price Floors or Supply Management, escaped any progressive opposition. They materially do NOT care about whether or not farmers get subsidies. They only care about their ability to pay farmers the lowest prices possible (out-put complex, opposition to Price Floors,) or to sell inputs for the maximum number of acres (in-put complex, opposition to supply reductions).
In contrast, the approach of the Democratic New Deal farm bill is to make agribusiness pay instead of subsidies. A major key to that approach is that, in eliminating the need for any farm subsidies, it frees up more money than any other proposal, even as it helps, rather than hurts commodity farmers.
My op-ed in Iowa Farmer Today probably serves as a better explanation:
“Farm-state leaders hurt their states with defeat of farm bill in the House:” http://www.iowafarmertoday.com/...
Divided and Conquered? A Simple VIDEO Comparison
Below I’ve linked two videos about a progressive farm bill. The first, from the Union of Concerned Scientists, is a short, simple video representing the dominant progressive farm bill paradigm (narrative, story) of today. It’s a great concept, a comparison of the costs of bad food with the bad farm bills of today, (but as defined in the subsidy/spending paradigm). It’s what almost all food progressives already “know.” It’s quickly getting much attention. Mark Bittman already has a blog about it, as does Marion Nestle. So far, after a couple of days, it’s been viewed more than 10,000 times. Here it is:
VIDEO: “An Apple a Day....:” http://www.youtube.com/...
Here’s my review and “teachable moment” explanation of why it is that what progressive’s “know” about this topic “just ain’t so.” My analysis is rooted in the latest proposals favoring the ideals of the Democratic New Deal, buttressed by a much larger paradigm of knowledge than what we find for the other paradigm. This larger, more comprehensive paradigm then reverses the concept of justice, for the "farm interest" side of things. We then find solutions to important dilemmas of strategy, including keys to the building of a much more powerful movement, plus utilization of a much more effective strategy. So far, in less than a day, it’s been seen 50 times, and I’ve received several, very positive responses from different kinds of progressive movement leaders.
VIDEO “Review: ‘An Apple a Day:’ Farm Bill Myths in UCS' New Video:” http://www.youtube.com/...
For Further Reading
Brad Wilson, "Fact Sheet: Farm Justice Proposals for the 2012 Farm Bill," ZSpace, 5/11/12, http://www.zcommunications.org/....
Brad Wilson, "Primer: Farm Justice Proposals for the 2012 Farm Bill," ZSpace, 5/11/12, http://www.zcommunications.org/...
Brad Wilson, "Smashing the Illusion 'Farmer Clout:' A White Paper," ZSpace, 1/8/13, http://www.zcommunications.org/....
Brad Wilson, "First Ever? Map of Farm Bill NET Impacts," ZSpace, http://www.zcommunications.org/....
Brad Wilson, (data slides), "Farm Bill Benefits: Big Ag vs Ag Biz," ZSpace, http://www.zcommunications.org/...
Brad Wilson, (data slides), "When Farm Bills Made a Profit!" ZSpace, http://www.zcommunications.org/....
Daryll E. Ray, "It's Price Responsiveness! It's Price Responsiveness!! IT'S PRICE RESPONSIVENESS!!!" APAC, University of Tennessee, 5/6/05, http://agpolicy.org/....
Daryll E. Ray, "Policy premise correct three times a century," APAC, University of Tennessee, 9/23/05, http://www.agpolicy.org/....
Daryll E. Ray, "Free-Market Ag Economists and Agricultural Markets: Premises and Results," APAC, University of Tennessee, 8/25/00, http://agpolicy.org/....
Daryll E. Ray, "Are the five oft-cited reasons for farm programs actually symptoms of a more basic reason," APAC, University of Tennessee, 10/27/06 http://agpolicy.org/....
Daryll E. Ray & Harwood D. Schaffer, "Impacts of a farm policy do-over for historical 1998 to 2010," Policy Pennings, APAC, University of Tennessee, http://agpolicy.org/....
"Market Driven Inventory System (MDIS)," National Farmers Union, http://nfu.org/....
"Food From Family Farms Act," National Family Farm Coalition, http://www.nffc.net/....