Party of 1

Some months ago I blogged on a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Whole Foods Market CEO John Mackey, whose libertarian views on the health-care reform issue provoked some efforts at a consumer boycott. At the time, I mentioned that the WSJ editorial board was happy to embrace Mackey — for the moment.  From a “macro” perspective, however, I observed that the very existence of Mackey’s company was problematical from a libertarian perspective. Setting aside the health-care issue, the attitude of the free-market crowd toward the natural-foods phenomenon generally is one of at least mild belittlement, I argued.

Sure enough, Tuesday’s WSJ brings a review of a new offering by Canadian journalist Andrew Potter, entitled The Authenticity Hoax. We learn that “the ever-narrowing search for just the right kind of food has less to do with saving the environment or pursuing a healthy lifestyle than with achieving a certain self-image…. the search for authenticity often ends up as a status-seeking game…. By competing against one another to see who is more authentic, he says, we just become bigger phonies than we were before.” Affluent consumers have fallen prey to a new form of status-seeking in the form of “conspicuous authenticity.” Reviewer Paul Beston of the Manhattan Institute concludes that “Mr. Potter is here to tell us what should be obvious: that there is no paradise back there, that we moderns have never had it so good and that authenticity in the way we’ve defined it is a sham,” although he does allow as that “while much of the authenticity search is absurd, not all of it is so easily separable from the self-criticism that has been foundational to Western success.”

In my opinion, the article reflects not so much on the author or the reviewer as on the editorial board that solicited the review.  The rhetorical pressure exerted by the review is anything but “traditionalist” — no matter that it serves the purposes of this editorial board to pose at times as defenders of “traditional values.” Indeed, the pressure is all in the direction of “hyper-modernism” — you’ve never had it so good, so don’t give a second thought to what might be going on behind the scenes.  As I mentioned some months ago, you might think this would prompt John Mackey to have a second thought or two about his libertarianism. The very existence of his company suggests that there is something wrong with the superabundance of foodstuffs to be found in the supermarkets and supercenters that the market economy has supplied so lavishly. Generally, free-market enthusiasts are unwilling to take the organic-food movement sitting down.

Only the most affluent are able to take much of their time seeking out organic or locally-produced food – and their enthusiasms leave them open to caricature.  Still, our economic system, with its chain stores and mass production, while it confers considerable benefits, also prompts unease.  Some people may alter their purchasing habits out of a consumerist search for “authenticity,” but others may be concerned that, while human biology hasn’t changed radically in the past century or so, what we eat and the way it is produced has changed radically.

In some senses, a more localized agricultural economy with organic methods of production might be better. However, I don’t see how it can come about until and unless the economy as a whole moves in the same direction — which probably will require much higher energy prices. That might be better on the whole, although the transition to it might be wrenching in the extreme….

The “tea party” activists think they are getting a raw deal from the media these days.  Fair enough: one, two or a dozen instances of incendiary rhetoric do not necessarily make for a trend.

A more serious vein of criticism is suggested by remarks contained in a Washington Post article from this past Thursday. The piece focused upon Tennessee farmer and Republican Congressional hopeful Stephen Fincher, who “could be a perfect ‘tea party’ candidate: a gospel-singing cotton farmer … seeking to right the listing ship of Washington with a commitment to lower taxes and smaller government.”

There’s just one problem: “Fincher accepts roughly $200,000 in farm subsidies each year.”

One supporter of Fincher sees no problem. “He is for getting the budget balanced. He does not want this health care. He is right in line with the views we are holding true to.” Another says: “I don’t see the agricultural subsidy thing as an issue at all … If it were an issue, then we would never elect a farmer to Congress at all. Because basically, most farmers get agriculture subsidies. If they didn’t, they’d be broke, and we’d be buying our food from China.” In his own defense, the candidate says: “People are quick to say with their mouth full, ‘Well, the American farmer is on the dole.’… But a loaf of bread is two bucks when it could be 10 bucks. I know what it is with the government in my business. We would be all for not having government in our business, but we need a fair system.”

These people represent themselves as tribunes of the oppressed masses, but what they really are, are affulent voters who haven’t thought through the implications of their own libertarianism. They’re not being oppressed. Their opposition to the health-care reform legislation borders on the hysterical. In their own detached and disinterested opinion, they’re overtaxed.

Somewhere in a trailer park, there’s a family with a kid on a respirator, and no health insurance. They’d like a “fair system” in health care, just as Mr. Fincher wants a “fair system” in agriculture.  I wonder whether he is aware that libertarians will belittle the invocation of “fairness” in either case.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander….

Among anti-corporate activists, few organizations attract as much hostility as agribusiness and biochemical firm Monsanto — not even Wal-Mart or ExxonMobil.  Now, Peter Whoriskey reports for the Washington Post that U. S. antitrust investigators are looking into the possibility of a case against the firm.

Much of the hostility to Monsanto through the years has involved its activity in the “developing world,” i. e. the impoverished countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Whoriskey, however, reports that U. S. farmers feel the firm is charging monopoly prices for its “Roundup-ready” seed.

Much of the impetus for the antitrust inquiry, reports Whoriskey, is coming from Monsanto’s competitor DuPont….

In his latest column, Rod Dreher has offered an appreciation of Kentucky farmer-philosopher Wendell Berry.

“Most Republicans don’t care for him because he is a harsh critic of industrialism, consumerism and the unfettered free market as a destroyer of land, community and healthy traditions. Most Democrats regard him as out of touch because he is a religious man who holds autonomous individualism, especially the sexual freedom it licenses, to be similarly destructive of families, communities and the sacredness of love….

“Mr. Berry is no agrarian ideologue and does not propose that everyone must farm or leave the city for the country. Rather, he argues that ‘everybody has agrarian responsibilities’ – meaning that wherever one lives, one is obliged to do so according to an ethic that places paramount importance on the cultivation of love and care for one’s particular place, its people and its traditions – and to resist all things that separate one from that responsibility, which is not chosen, yet required of all.”

The November Harper’s includes a symposium about rescuing capitalism in the wake of the finance and credit crisis (subscription and registration required).   Contributors include a number of worthies, but I am most fascinated by the contribution of Bill McKibben with regard to the localization of agriculture.   I have already indicated my interest in this, along with my reservations, in a separate post that discussed the thinking of Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma.   Reform of agriculture at the behest of “city folk” is problematical at the outset. Nevertheless, there might be something in it for rural communities, and reform eventually maybe forced upon us by rising energy prices — although these have crashed for the time being in  anticipation of a global recession. In any case, some of McKibben’s recommendations and reflections make for fascinating reading.

“It sounds quaint, but farmers’ markets may be the fastest-growing part of the American food economy. Sales are rising by double digits every year, and the number of such markets  has doubled and doubled again in the past decade….   For the moment, some foods are more expensive at farmers’ markets — noticeably meet, because we’ve gotten rid of all the small-scale slaughter houses around the country.  But it’s easy to imagine redirecting government subsidies …  toward mobile butchering  units.

“But already the food at the farmers’ market is fresher and tastes better than the stuff at the supermarket; already it’s better for your body….  And already there’s a key comparative advantage  that’s related not to the product  but to the process: the farmers’ market is fun to visit. A couple of years ago, a pair of sociologists followed shoppers, first around a supermarket and then around a farmers’ market.   They found that at the latter, shoppers had ten times more conversations than at the Piggly-Wiggly. Which brings us to the other defect of the cheap-oil economy  we’ve built: it has made us the first people on earth who have no need of one another. Everything we buy comes from an anonymous distance. We eat far fewer meals with family and neighbors than we did fifty years ago; we have on average far fewer close friends.   The basic premise of the American economy — that the goal was a bigger house farther apart from other people — turns out to be mistaken, both ecologically and psychologically.”

We have always tended to look upon the supermarket as a symbol of our abundance. If people are to quit getting their food from the supermarket, I am afraid that is going to require an epochal change in the whole economy, not just the agricultural sector, significant though that may be. Few of us would want to abandon affluent society, although at the same time we may harbor a gnawing feeling in the pit of our stomachs that there is something unwholesome about it.   If affluent society went away all of a sudden, we surely would miss it — especially indoorsy, bookish people like me who might not fare especially well under the alternative. If you are apprehensive about what might result from agricultural reform driven by “city folk,” my advice would be not to worry — if affluent society declines and economy because more local, that is something that probably will unfold over a course of a couple of centuries, rather than all at once. On the other hand, we may be sure that in one or two centuries, or a thousand  years, things will not be exactly the same as they are today.

Yahoo! News brings us an article by way of  U.S. News & World Report — “10 Things the Food Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know.” It’s a reflection of the situation that I am sure will confront  this site and its readership over and over again — the intervention of interested money into politics, to an extent that often it is difficult for us to determine what the basic facts of a matter are without distortion.

The article discusses the activities of the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) — an advocacy group that has produced some of the most vulgar market-ideology I have ever seen, funded by food processors and big agribusiness.   One of their targets is nutritionist Marion Nestle, whose advice is summarized by U. S. News as follows: “Kids need to eat less, include more fruits and vegetables, and limit the junk food.”   Gentle reader, perhaps that is the advice you want to give to your children — and so why should government get involved with it? The problem is that you are being undermined without realizing it. Should the availability of junk food in your child’s schools be limited?  Lobbies are at work that would refuse to permit it.  What about the advice you rely upon to determine whether or not a particular product is wholesome for your children?   According to a pediatrician  cited by U. S. News: “If a study is funded by the industry, it may be closer to advertising than science.”   If you seek to rely on the advice provided by the  U. S. Department of Agriculture, the lobbies are at work to have that watered down.   If you think a nutritionist like Marion Nestle provides wholesome advice, here is what the Center for Consumer Freedom  will tell you: “[Our strategy] is to shoot the messenger. We’ve got to attack [activists'] credibility as spokespersons.”

You might at one time have heard a late-night  TV comedian  joking — “Regulate cigarettes?  Thing you know, they’ll want to regulate junk food!” There is an individual of my acquaintance who is so paranoid — not without reason, it must be added — that he believes such lines were planted by interested money  handed under the table to the entertainers and television executives to soften us up.

Lurking behind the details is the larger issue — which is that some people absolutely seethe at the thought of any limitation being placed upon them.   Any such thing is simply terrific, it is tantamount to totalitarians killing millions of people. Here is some advice from Party of 1:  Such people are not to be trusted, nor should they be allowed to get control of government.   They won’t permit any expert advice or specialized knowledge to serve as a basis for limiting their prerogative — so they have to spew out misinformation. As I once heard it put: If the epidemiologists claim  that secondhand smoke is a health hazard, they belittle the epidemiologists; if the climatologists point to evidence of climate change, they slander the  climatologists.

Speaking of climate change — that is a matter that eventually will have to command the attention of this site (although I cannot take on everything at once). The dynamic at work is similar to the one we see with regard to food and nutrition. Climate change is a matter about which the public is disposed to be skeptical, since potentially it portends such a dramatic change in our lifestyles; probably it can only be dealt with by means of research and development into new sources of energy, so that our lifestyles might not have to change too dramatically.  When the issue began to become prominent publicly, it appeared clear to me that the “debate”  was being driven by misinformation fueled by interested money coming from one side  of the question rather than the other. This has all been reported on thoroughgoingly by investigative journalist Ross Gelbspan;  see his website here, and his 1995 article from Harper’s Magazine here.

At the weekend, the home page of the New York Times Magazine offered a link to an exchange between  Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, and interested readers. The exchange was a follow-up to an article by Pollan that had appeared in the Magazine a couple of weeks earlier. Entitled “Farmer in Chief,” the piece was a fanciful letter addressed to the winner of next month’s election, offering Pollan’s advice on food and agriculture issues.

Those acquainted with The Omnivore’s Dilemma will be able to anticipate Pollan’s advice:  a diet closer to what our grandparents might have eaten, and a farm economy less dependent on fossil fuels and far more localized.   A reader inquired as to what ought to be the role of  the land-grant universities in any reforms. Pollan replied, “I couldn’t agree more — the land-grant universities are in fact key to bringing about many of the changes I’m outlining, and the fact is they have been underfinanced to the point where corporations are setting what should be a public agenda for research.”

I suppose someone of a more radical bent might have criticized the land-grant universities for being in bed with the big agribusiness corporations — which brings me to the major reservation I have about the line of argument being pursued by Pollan.   As a matter of fact,  in the online exchange  a reader from New Mexico had occasion to refer to the “classist” overtones  of the whole discussion: “The people who cannot afford it can now afford the unsustainable animal based food. Under your plan, this would not be available (which I agree with entirely, but I am one of those who can, or rather choose to budget for sustainable animal products). Or maybe they could afford them once a week. So then is it that only the wealthy can eat grass-fed beef whenever they want?”  Indeed, if farm-belt voters see their own interests as being in line with corporate agriculture, undoubtedly the reason is that they do not want to be told what to do by city folk who know nothing about farming. I am fairly confident that Michael Pollan has done his homework and is aware of the problem (although a farmer from Saskatchewan took him to task about this in the online exchange).

Here is an example  that perhaps represents the tip of an iceberg in the form of a much larger issue — the sort of thing that readers will find recurring regularly on this blog, due to the extent to which I have been steeped in the thought of Christopher Lasch.  Until recently, I taught government courses at a small branch campus of a major land-grant university. A point of pride at the place was the school’s intercollegiate rodeo team.   Rodeo competitions, of course, derive from tasks that have been performed on the farm since time out of mind.   A couple of time zones away,  in major metropolitan areas, there are activists  who want to get rid of competitive rodeo  due to animal-cruelty considerations….

If reform of the food supply along the lines that Pollan desires strikes the reader as pie-in-the-sky utopianism, my view would be that  we should not expect more than a marginal change in this direction during our lifetimes. Anything more thoroughgoing would require something like a collapse of the whole economic system of affluent society, a bona fide epochal change.  It’s the kind of thing that might happen over the course of a couple of centuries, rather than being brought about by a new administration that would rewrite next year’s farm bill.

In the meantime, small producers are under pressure and could use some help, I’m sure.  When consumer interest in organic means of production began to take off, I suppose some of us hoped that this would help the small producer — but now the supermarkets are full of organic products produced on factory farms.   The ideas of the “city folks”  like Pollan may nevertheless have something to offer  to the agriculture sector. If agriculture were indeed to become more local, and more labor-intensive rather than energy-intensive, it might lead to the repopulation of those stretches of the Great Plains that have come to be dotted with ghost towns….