Crossposted from Dependent Arisings:
Among the most pernicious of bipartisan agreements in contemporary America, few are as widespread in their effect as the massive agricultural subsidies given to farmers–rather, agribusiness. The word "farmers" is itself a rhetorical tool used to legitimate the funding of corporate agribusinesses that actually destroy small farms. Thus, as in some many other cases, rhetoric is antithetical to application (see "Healthy Forests," "Clean Skies," etc.).
But what makes the newest Farm Bill particularly harmful, as a continuation of U.S. policy? Well, let’s take a macro look, first of, which requires of us to look at another rhetorical fallacy that forms the backbone of U.S. identity–that of "free trade." Now, while protectionist Democrats may decry "unfettered, predatory capitalism" while still ostensibly supporting the notion of a somewhat "free market" agricultural sector, those on the Right–the Republican Guard of capitalism–continue to support (gasp!) widespread agricultural subsidies.
Why? Well, without said subsidies, U.S. farmers would be unable to compete with, say, Mexican farmers and corn, or West African farmers and cotton. Our subsidies actually allow us to flood markets in developing economies with goods readily available domestically–actually produced much cheaper domestically–but for sale at a cheaper rate than locally produced goods of equal or higher quality (I take into consideration another rhetorical legerdemain: what economists call externalities, i.e., societal and environmental costs not factored into "social scientific" economic analysis. For example, what are the hidden environmental costs of trucking corn to Mexico, when it is readily available locally? What are the concurrent social costs of depriving communities of longstanding local industries without replacing them with another?).
The NY Times reported yesterday that CARE–one of the largest humanitarian and anti-poverty organizations in the world–is turning down $180 million dollars a year of food aid from the federal government because, among others things, the subsidy regime discourages (and sometimes wipes out) the growth of the very industries and crops that nascent economies need preserved or enlarged in order to not only compete with like imported goods, but also to ensure the day-to-day survival of much of the global South (and the many, many people living in analogous conditions in the global North).
What to do, then? Should we simply cut agricultural subsidies entirely, and let goods flood the U.S. market? Will this really lift developing economies out of the cycle of dependency and abject poverty? An equally important question is: should we allow the narrow electoral concerns of rural representatives on "both sides of the aisle" (how decorous!) help perpetuate an economic regime that is destroying small farms in America, and stultifying economies abroad?
The Farm Bill moves to the Senate soon, where Agriculture Committee chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA), has voiced his desire for substantive agricultural reform, something lacking in the House’s version. But with an upcoming election, and plenty of rural votes up for grabs, I wouldn’t bet on it–even if the only real winner is Monsanto, and the only real free trade is the production of a surplus of despair, both in Nebraska and Niger.