The importance of sticking up for farmers

[IrateCitizen]

Yesterday, I started a thread based on a recent article by John Nichols in The Nation, Needed: A Rural Strategy, that was based on the need for the Democrats to come up with a coherent strategy to court rural voters, who are actually ripe for the picking -- it we're willing to stick up for them.

The thread was rather contentious, and a few posters seemed to express the stereotypes exhibited by urban and suburban democrats, portraying rural voters as a bunch of right wing troglodytes on whom we should not waste our time. You can read the entire thread HERE.

This morning, I read another article from this same issue on the train by Barbara Kingsolver, A Good Farmer. The article, I believe, makes an excellent case of WHY it is important for us to stick up for rural farmers and voters, and also elaborates on some of the prejudices exhibited by educated urban liberals toward rural farmers. Kingsolver draws upon her own experiences in buying and starting a farm in rural Kentucky, and her cycle of fleeing her rural roots only to be drawn back to them after close to 40 years of life.

Here's some choice excerpts:

I found myself that day in the jaws of an impossible argument, and I find I am there still. In my professional life I've learned that as long as I write novels and nonfiction books about strictly human conventions and constructions, I'm taken seriously. But when my writing strays into that muddy territory where humans are forced to own up to our dependency on the land, I'm apt to be declared quaintly irrelevant by the small, acutely urban clique that decides in this country what will be called worthy literature. (That clique does not, fortunately, hold much sway over what people actually read.) I understand their purview, I think. I realize I'm beholden to people working in urban centers for many things I love: They publish books, invent theater, produce films and music. But if I had not been raised such a polite Southern girl, I'd offer these critics a blunt proposition: I'll go a week without attending a movie or concert, you go a week without eating food, and at the end of it we'll sit down together and renegotiate "quaintly irrelevant."

SNIP

Better yet, skip the whole idea. Recall that in many of those red states, just a razor's edge under half the voters likely pulled the blue lever, and vice versa--not to mention the greater numbers everywhere who didn't even show up at the polls, so far did they feel from affectionate toward any of the available options. Recall that farmers and hunters, historically, are more active environmentalists than many progressive, city-dwelling vegetarians. (And conversely, that some of the strongest land-conservation movements on the planet were born in the midst of cities.) Recall that we all have the same requirements for oxygen and drinking water, and that we all like them clean but relentlessly pollute them. Recall that whatever lofty things you might accomplish today, you will do them only because you first ate something that grew out of dirt.

We don't much care to think of ourselves that way--as creatures whose cleanest aspirations depend ultimately on the health of our dirt. But our survival as a species depends on our coming to grips with that, along with some other corollary notions, and when I entered a comfortable midlife I began to see that my kids would get to do the same someday, or not, depending on how well our species could start owning up to its habitat and its food chain. As we faced one environmental crisis after another, did our species seem to be making this connection? As we say back home, Not so's you'd notice.

If a middle-aged woman studying agriculture seems strange, try this on for bizarre: Most of our populace and all our leaders are participating in a mass hallucinatory fantasy in which the megatons of waste we dump in our rivers and bays are not poisoning the water, the hydrocarbons we pump into the air are not changing the climate, overfishing is not depleting the oceans, fossil fuels will never run out, wars that kill masses of civilians are an appropriate way to keep our hands on what's left, we are not desperately overdrawn at the environmental bank and, really, the kids are all right.

There's much, much more -- and I'd urge you to take some time to at least print it out and read it. Snips don't really do it justice, as it is more of a literary reflection than a news article of any sort.

I have to admit -- I'm about 10 years ahead of her on that scale. I grew up in a rural area of Western PA, couldn't wait to leave when I turned 18, and now at 30 feel myself being drawn back to many aspects of the rural way of life. And through my time living in urban and suburban environments, I have become extremely disturbed about how much we have ignored the reality that we are not separate from the earth -- we are a PART of the earth, and whatever we do to it, we do to ourselves. Perhaps nowhere should this be more evident than when it comes to growing the very food we require for sustenance and life. And perhaps there is no better steward of this than the independent, local farmer in rural America.

So, in an attempt to continue this dialogue, I'm posting this long piece, hoping that it will serve to restimulate the discussion. Any takers?

[Padraig18]

1. I posted some positive comments.

I absolutely agree that we must appeal to rural Americans, epsecially farmers. I live in 'the great American Heartland' in a small, agricultural community. Family farmer's are desparate for someone to hear them and to help them.

You are also correct about the stereotypical view so many here hold of farmers: ignorant, backward, conservative, sh*t clinging to their work boots, etc. . In fact, most farmers under 50 that I know are college-educated and rather astute businessmen, and are quite as well-informed about state, national and international issues as are their urban and suburban counterparts, sometimes even moreso (agribusiness, NAFTA, etc.).

We CAN reach out to rural America, and we should, if for no other reason than that it's the right thing to do.

[IrateCitizen]

2. I saw your comments on that last thread, Padraig18

And I completely agreed with them. I didn't reply only because I didn't feel it was necessary at that point in the discussion to post a "right on!" in response. Your post pretty much said it all, from a first-person perspective.

[Padraig18]

3. It's one of my 'issues'

it's one that hits close to home, for me, and it directly affects many, many people I know, love and admire. :)

[Padraig18]

4. 'Anti-burial' kick

[Le Taz Hot]

5. Oh, baby!

You are preaching to the choir here! Living in California's San Joaquin Valley I've seen and heard incredibly stupid statements from urbanites and suburbanites about this and other rural areas and their residents. Had a poster yesterday bitch that he/she moved to the San Joaquin Valley and complained it smells like cow dung. Um, yyyyyeeeaaaahhhh! There are dairy farms all around you and, btw, enjoy that steak. :eyes:

But I digress. During the recall we had teams of people who went out to the rural areas. Bustamante particularly courted the rural communities and we got a GREAT response and were able to register hundreds of new Democrats. You're right, they're out there to be mined IF we can stop the insulting rhetoric.

Another thing to consider. Conventional wisdom says it's a waste of time to go to rural areas because of the cost/outcome imbalance. I.e., Traveling to 50 rural communities with populations of less than 500 people does not yield enough results in voters or dollars to render it cost effective. However, small towns have their own networks; (locally) people in Dinuba talk with people in Selma who talk to people in Del Rey, etc., and it's amazing what a little positive outreach can do. Additionally, rural residents are used to traveling so holding a rally in one small community will bring attendants from several surrounding communities.

And consider (again, locally), if you add up all the rural residents in Madera, Merced, Fresno, Kern & Tulare counties there are over a million potential voters and they are by no means all right-wing whackos.

Here's hoping we can change a few DU minds with this thread and perhaps begin looking at rural dwellers in a more positive light.

[IrateCitizen]

9. That cow dung smell...

Growing up in rural Western PA, that was a VERY familiar smell to me. Now, when I travel with my wife from NY back to visit my family, we pass through the middle of PA that is nothing but mountains and farms. She'll complain about the smell, but it makes me want to wind down the windows and breathe in deep. Amazingly, I've come to LOVE that smell after being away from it for so long!

[Padraig18]

11. 'That' smell...

Our county chairman is a farmer, and he always tells people who ask that "That's the smell of money." :P

[NicoleM]

6. As I said yesterday,

I grew up in western North Dakota. There are few places in this country more rural than that. I have had "city people" ask me if we have electricity, if we have cars, if we chase Indians around on horseback. There are a lot of people who don't have the first clue what life is like in rural America, and don't care to know.

As to the "stupid farmer" stereotype, I've known a few of those. However, there are a whole lot of farmers who are really brilliant people who have chosen a lifestyle (and that's what farming is) that suits them but also benefits all of us. My grandfather farmed for fifty-plus years, and he was literally a genius. He could have done anything he wanted to in his life, and he chose farming. My husband is also pretty brilliant. He grew up a farm kid. He doesn't farm, but his dad and brothers and uncles and grandpa do, and they are all really smart people.

While I'm ranting, I am SO TIRED of hearing that farmers are polluters. Some of them are, no doubt. But most of them realize that their land is their livelihood, and they want to keep it in as good a condition as possible.

But you know who are polluters and who don't care about the land? Corporate farms. They don't give a damn about the land or the water or the long-term effects of the frankenfood they want to grow. If we don't wake up ASAP and start doing something about that, we are going to be so screwed in not that many years. They only people who can save us from that are family farmers. I think it's time America starts giving them the respect they deserve, instead of writing them off as ignorant bumpkins.

I think my rant is over now. :)

[IrateCitizen]

8. Hey NicoleM, rant away!!!

You said a lot of very important things in your rant. As someone who grew up in a rural area (though not as rural as you) and married a "city girl", I too am sick of rural people being written off as "ignorant bumpkins" by people who have no idea how ingenious and cooperative they really are.

[NicoleM]

10. Every single year

there is a farmer somewhere who has a heart attack or breaks his leg or something and can't get the crop in. And every year, his neighbors come over and harvest for him. That's just the way it is out here. Somebody's kid gets cancer and somebody else puts on a pancake supper to raise money. Somebody's house burns down and the town rounds up some clothes and housewares and toys.

There are some flaws in the sense of community in rural America, one of them being resistance to outsiders or those who are different. But when it comes down to it, rural communities stick together. Most of them could make it without help, but they all know things are a lot easier to deal with when you have good neighbors.

[IrateCitizen]

12. That's because it's still a place where "community" means something

But at the same time, their communities are being ripped apart due to agribusiness, corporate-driven "free trade" policies, and the rest of the country turning their collective backs on them.

It's not sad. It's completely inexcusable. And it's time that we all push for something meaningful to be done about it.

[Padraig18]

13. Hear, hear!

The very BEST that is America is still alive in rural America, but it is under attack by corporate America, with the willing assistance of the RW Repuks. :puke::grr:

[MuseRider]

14. Glad to see another rural thread!

I just got back from the farm myself, fed the critters and noticed some harvesting going on in my area. There are far more Democrats, or would be Democrats out here in rural America than anyone would imagine. It is time for the candidates to address their issues, not through policy statements but by speaking to them in person. I realize it is a trip that is not worth many electoral votes but it is important, especially as I see fewer family farms, more fallow land, farms being sold to make "little neighborhoods in the country" and agribusiness. I love Barbara Kingsolver and am now leaving the thread to go read her article. Thanks for posting this.

[Le Taz Hot]

7. Kick

:kick:

[DinahMoeHum]

15. IC, have you ever read Hope's Edge??

by Frances Moore Lappe, the 30th anniversary edition of Diet For a Small Planet.

Great chapter on Wisconsin farmers, the ones whose products are marketed by themselves under the Organic Valley brand, sold in Whole Foods Market and Mrs. Green's.

Other great chapters in there as well.

Highly recommended.

:bounce:

[IrateCitizen]

18. No, not yet... but I'll add it to my list.

Hopefully the local library has it. Thanks for the recommendation!

[Wapsie B]

16. Somehow

we've got to get the message out there that relying on these big korporations to save the family farm is only going to hasten their demise.

[IrateCitizen]

17. Most rural farmers realized this a long time ago...

The problem was that most of the politicians and leaders within the Democratic Party didn't do enough to stop it. Rather, the Democratic Party has been quite complicit in enabling agribusiness and large corporations that have destroyed the fabric of life in these rural communities that were so dependent on the fate of their independent farmers.

So, why on earth would they figure to vote for people who do absolutely nothing to help them. In their desperation, they are then taken in by the rhetoric of RWers who convince them to blame their plight on the immorality of liberalism.

[Art_from_Ark]

28. One thing that is often overlooked regarding farming

Much ado was made about the estate tax, which doesn't affect too many farm families. But I haven't heard anything about property taxes, which can eat a farmer up. For example, farmland in some counties in Arkansas (maybe all?) that is adjacent to growing cities is taxed based on its value as "development property", not on its value as a producer of food! This kind of system is stupid.

[IrateCitizen]

30. Property tax is a highly regressive system...

which makes it a perfect fit for the current political climate. :grr:

You're absolutely correct. Farmers get killed on property taxes, and they absolutely shouldn't. Of course, we'd have to get some kind of code established on this that wouldn't allow the likes of Dubya, Christie Whitman and Charles Schwab to exploit it as a loophole to AVOID paying taxes on their land....

[ewagner]

19. Here, here!

I worked in the Wisconsin Dairy Industry for 10 years and lost more clothing to manure than I care to remember. Our company made manure handling equipment so, indeed, the smell of manure was in fact the smell of money.

The dairy farmers I worked with were not by any means monolithic in their political beliefs. I got pretty tired of hearing Rush on the milking parlor radios but a lot of the farmers were good 'ol Dems in their beliefs. However, they didn't believe that either political party is paying attention to them!

if a candidate from either party comes up with a milk pricing plan that actually makes sense (sort of like the Canadian system) the farmers will flock to that candidate/party. Ag policy isn't exactly a "sexy" issue and its not going to get a lot of play on the national news, but it is important if we are going to convince rural America that we are their party.

Excellent topic....well thought out posts.

[MuseRider]

20. That was a wonderful

article! I got a chainsaw for Valentines day so I can totally relate to this. Thanks, these are the attitudes that need addressing. What can we do? How do we go about telling these things to our candidates? It is one thing to represent someone and talk them up but rural Americans deserve to see them and hear them and shake their hands, actually nothing less will do. Rural folks need the contact and the humanity of an actual face to face "meeting".

[ewagner]

21. An idea

Rural folks need the contact and the humanity of an actual face to face "meeting".

In Wisconsin, one of the biggest farm shows of the year will happen in Oshkosh at the end of March/beginning of April. Our candidates need to be there! We need a booth set up! We need to get our message to the farmers!

[MuseRider]

22. That was my thought

yesterday, farm shows. OK, that is exactly the way to do this. As another poster said, if one group hears it the others will hear it too. How long has it been since the candidates actually did something like this? Oshkosh, I will contact the Kucinich people.

[ewagner]

23. When Ed Garvey ran for Senate

in Wisconsin....

The organizers held a get-together of their neighbors on a farm....

it was great....they even got Garvey to hand-milk a cow...hehehehe

tacky but effective!

[MuseRider]

24. We need the building

of honest relationships. It all now seems like just slick, city folk patronizing. I like the cow idea, I'll bet even if they did not like his positions they always at least considered him a good guy. That can't hurt.

[ewagner]

25. Ed was quite sincere,

and the farmers appreciated that he showed up and LISTENED TO THEM!

I think that's at the heart of the matter....rural folks don't think the politicians actually LISTEN to their concerns.

In the case of the 2004 elections....the first candidate to show concern and LISTEN to them WINS the rural vote!

[Padraig18]

26. One of the main reasons Gov. Blagoevic won in 2002

He was the ONLY Democrat in the primary to focus on rural, downstate IL, and downstate responded. He racked up electoral totals unheard of for a Democrat in downstate IL because he went to farmers, he went to rural communities and small towns and said "Talk to me, and tell me your problems; I want to know how I can help."

We would be wise to learn something from this.

[ewagner]

27. I sure hope

that some of the campaign staff members are listening to this...or, in the alternative, that some of the advocates for various candidates will e-mail this thread to their candidates.....

[Padraig18]

31. Poll after poll...

... reveals that his sipport among rural illinoisans remains rock-solid, too; he not only promised to help them, but he's actually doing it, as best he can with the huge revenue shortfall that state is undergoing! *grin* Rural Americans are not unrealistic; they know it can't and won't change overnight. What we should learn is that they are patient, hopeful people; if we give them our promise top help, and make an honorable attempt to keep that promise, they will stick with us. :)

[ewagner]

29. Repub view

btw...a couple of years ago, while driving through NE Wisconsin and listening to WPR, there was a conservative economist (I think from the Heritage foundation) being interviewed and taking calls. A Wisconsin farmer called in and asked essentially what the guest thought should be done about milk prices....his comment was that the problem with "you" farmers (I'll never forget the condesention) is that there are just too many of you. He said that until enough farmers go out of business, milk prices will stay low...classic supply and demand.

There is no recognition that a broad and diverse ag base is more thatn a supply/demand problem. It's absolutely in the national interest to have a broad base and to prevent becoming "sole-sourced" on corporate farms.

That view has to be challenged.

[T_i_B]

32. Here's something for you

I'll be honest here and admit that it did strike me when I last looked up the candidates platforms on their websites how much agricultural policies there where. The Dem candidates did seem to be devoting a fair bit of effort to it on their platforms.

Anyway here is a website for a bunch who have been courting me thanks to my campaign for real ale connections. The campaign for a Local Communities Sustainability bill. Any thoughts?

http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/local_works_top.aspx?page=960&folder=148&

Also, a very interesting article (which I think I've stuck under IrateCitizen's nose before) about Agricultural subsidies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/fairtrade/story/0,12458,1034979,00.html

[IrateCitizen]

33. Reply

As for the sustainabilities bill, I would give it a :thumbsup:. Apparently, over in the UK you have not yet experienced the complete degradation of "Main Street" in favor of corporate conglomerates that we have experienced in the USA. Stop it before it gets as bad as us.

Personally, I try to purchase from local merchants whenever possible -- because I know that my money will be re-invested in the community rather than shipped off to some corporate headquarters thousands of miles away.

As for the subsidy issue, what we're talking about here isn't really the same as cotton. What we're talking about is FOOD, and sustainability. It is obvious to anyone who has spent a good deal of time in the rural US that local, independent farmers are some of the best stewards of the land around. And when it comes to the difference between locally-grown organic produce and mass-produced supermarket produce, there is NO comparison. Local organic is healthier and much tastier, while mass-produced is often nice to look at but sprayed with pesticides and has the flavor of cardboard.

While I definitely support the end of subsidies, I also think that food production agricultural issues need to be looked at in terms of sustainability, not simply for the bottom line. I find it absurd that all the pollution should be created to ship a crop from, say, the United States to Chile (or vice-versa), when Chile is perfectly able to grow that crop at home.

[T_i_B]

34. I'm undecided on the Sustainabilities bill

But we have got corporatization of all this. We also have the insane EU Common Agricultural Policy. But in the town where I live (Chelmsford) there is very little in the way of small business. My town keeps applying to become a city but I will oppose this until we at the very least get decent butchers, bakers, greengrocers etc rather than multiple branches of Tesco. Some of the surrounding town's still have decent local businesses though but no, we do have the cororate food chain in full swing over here, and indeed some claim that the Supermarkets are the biggest lobby group in Britain.

I disagree with you that subsidies do not affect food produce. They most certainly do and indeed there are very few economies which are truly open to the international food trade. The subsidies tend to get creamed off by agribusiness and vast swathes of EU agriculture is in reality quite uncompetitive. This is a daft situation. Whilst I would agree that some Local farmers do tend to produce better quality they need to have the means to get their produce to the widest audience, on a fairly equal relationship with the buyers (who tend to be the supermarkets as I am sure you are aware) To that end I support such ideas as farmers markets (I support that one very strongly, we need more of those) and I would probbably support some form of Local Communities Sustainability bill, albeit not quite the same form as the one the New Economics Foundation are proposing.

[IrateCitizen]

35. Ummm... I don't think we're really in disagreement, TiB

I disagree with you that subsidies do not affect food produce.

That's not what I was implying, and I think you misunderstood. I was stating that the article which you cited did not really deal with food produce -- it was about cotton farming subsidies.

I am also quite aware that agribusiness skims most of the subsidies from the government. Don't forget -- I live in the land of Monsanto, Cargill, ConAgra, Tyson, ADM, et. al. They have, in collusion with the politicians from both parties, almost made the family farmer an extinct species on this side of the Atlantic.

We have our own farmers' cooperatives that have banded together to bargain on a more equal footing with supermarkets. And some are skipping the supermarkets altogether, and just going direct to the consumers through CSA (community supported agriculture) projects. The main hurdle is now to get all of the big agribusiness companies OFF the subsidies so their prices are not artificially lowered.

Of course, care has to be taken to ensure that farm policy is directed in a manner that encourages good stewardship of the land by promoting family farms, while discouraging environmental degradation by slowing down agribusiness. And this would, naturally, have to involve some kind of incentive program.

[ewagner]

36. I think this is the key point:

Of course, care has to be taken to ensure that farm policy is directed in a manner that encourages good stewardship of the land by promoting family farms, while discouraging environmental degradation by slowing down agribusiness. And this would, naturally, have to involve some kind of incentive program.

Incentives or guarantees are part of the equation for certain, but the core of the policy has to be a vision of what is and what is not in the public interest. In other words, it needs to be broader than just the subject of incentives. I find this to be the failing of current ag subsidies programs (Including the "Right to Farm Bill")

Sustainability is most certainly a part of such a broad policy but it should also take into account such things as anti-trust concerns, national interest in self-sufficiency in food production, "down-line" economics (farm equipment manufacturing, chemical fertilizers, etc.,), technology (including desirability/undesireability of genetically modified crops AND livestock, etc.,

[DrWeird]

37. Those lazy subsidy queens need to stop stealing my tax money.

All they do all day is squirt out babies and listen to that degenerate country music. Stop taking my money and go out and get a real job!

[IrateCitizen]

38. Ummm... yeah. Whatever.

:eyes:

[davsand]

39. Protecting those famliy farms may save us all in the long run.

I'm like you guys--I get real tired of being asked if I wear boots and bib overalls when I say I was a farm kid and still live about two miles from where I grew up. It gets OLD.

It also is getting old hearing about farm subsidies and how they are so useless and if farmers can't make it without those then they better go get a different job... When I hear that line start to unravel I can tell this is nobody who has any clue about how our food is produced and processed.

Those farm subsidies are not working right now--because as was stated upthread--the corporate producers are sucking them up. "According to the Environmental Working Group, the top 10 percent of U.S. growers collected an average $278,932 a year. Their share of payments steadily grew from 1995, when the elite group of farmers got 55 percent of government payments." Entire article here: http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/22171/story.htm

Do take time to read it-it names names, and some of them are folks associated with groups like WorldCom...

The subsidies need to be restructured, however because the only thing standing in the way of an absolute monopoly on food commodities for the corporations is that small farmer that the ignorants love to make fun of.

Right now, the pork market is dominated by a handfull of commercial producers. The beef market and poultry markt are in similar straights or else headed that way. On a purely practical level, what happens when a few guys control a market? They control the PRICES set for that product. If it keeps on going this way, we are headed (without fail) to a time when food prices will go thru the roof. Plus, I have to say, I'm not too hep on folks like Monsanto and Ciby Geigy controlling my food...

Now, of you wnat to look at this issue a bit deeper, you can see that the corporate farms are a dead end for the rural areas. some quick points to consider:

1) Big producers displace more jobs than they create!

2) Big corporate livestock operations are less likely to do business locally than are small and medium sized family farmers!

3) Corporate farm profits usually go to outside investors! The real test is whether an increase in livestock production from corporate operations does more or less for a local area than an equivalent increase from independent producers.

A Virginia study (c) examined this issue, comparing the impact of adding 5,000 sows to a local area through corporate farming versus independent producers. It found the independent producer system provided:


10% more permanent jobs

20% larger increase in local retail sales

37% larger increase in local per capita income

Take the time to look over this entire sheet, it has some excellent info: http://www.farmweb.org/b/icrppoints.htm

The final point I want to make before I crawl back into my haystack, is that property taxes in Illinois are primarily comprised of the funding for the local schools. I'm not defending that, but I want to point out that if the Feds were doing what they are supposed to do to support education, we wouldn't need property taxes at the levels we have them now. I'm not gonna smack the state around too much-I know we are broke--but they need to hold up thier end of the bargain and cough up the funding too.

Sorry--I got up on the soapbox, but this is an issue the hits me in the gut. I look out my windows and I see farms and I see family and freinds who aare struggling to break even.

Laura

[IrateCitizen]

40. Thanks for your excellent post on this, Laura

Lots of food for thought here, I'll have to bookmark it and come back to it later.