If you want to know what a political party really stands for, follow the money.
That is the first line of
today's New York Times column by Paul Krugman. He notes that among the major contributors to the Democrats are the party of "Big Labor (or what’s left of it)" and lawyers (and while he does not say so, we should remember that much of law is related to regulation which Democrats favor and Republicans oppose). On the other hand,
Republicans are the party of Big Energy and Big Food: they dominate contributions from extractive industries and agribusiness. And they are, in particular, the party of Big Pizza.
He notes that Pizza Hut gave 99% of its contributions to Republicans. Those paying attention on the health care debate surely know where Papa John's CEO came down on that issue.
While other companies may give more to Democrats,
over all, the politics of pizza these days resemble those of, say, coal or tobacco. And pizza partisanship tells you a lot about what is happening to American politics as a whole.
Krugman goes on to use that as the basis of his examination of the pizza industry.
The issue is of course one of regulation, in this case, in the context of what Krugman calls "the nutrition wars." Some parts of the food industry have responded to the pressures from the government, but others have not, notably pizza:
As Bloomberg notes, some parts of the food industry have responded to pressure from government agencies and food activists by trying to offer healthier options, but the pizza sector has chosen instead to take a stand for the right to add extra cheese.
The industry frames its argument in terms of personal choice and personal responsibility. But, as Krugman notes, no one is proposing to ban pizza entirely. Nor are government efforts directed at restricting adults who are capable of deciding for themselves.
Instead, the fights involve things like labeling requirements — giving consumers the information to make informed choices — and the nutritional content of school lunches, that is, food decisions that aren’t made by responsible adults but are instead made on behalf of children.
Here allow me to make a digression. When I was a child there were realistically no restrictions on what could be advertised on TV shows aimed at children. Over time, society came to recognize that such advertising had a captive audience not capable of of completely rational decision-making and restrictions were placed on such advertising. Even in the case of adults, you no longer see direct ads for tobacco or alcohol, when both used to dominate advertising connected with sports programs, and even included athletes promoting cigarettes. At one point American society and its politics accepted the ntion that for health reasons we did need to restrict advertising even to adults.
Nutrition labeling is important in decision making - an adult can choose to examine the information or not, and thus personal choice is preserved. Even fast food restaurants and coffee bars (Starbucks) now provide some nutritional information. Yet even were students at school lunches prepared to examine nutritional information and process it, the speed at which school lunches are served makes that impractical: in my lunch duty this year we have to process about 400 students through 4 lines in a lunch period that can be as short as 25 minutes, and remember, they need time to eat after getting their food.
Krugman makes two key additional points. The first is this:
Nutrition, where increased choice can be a bad thing, because it all too often leads to bad choices despite the best of intentions, is one of those areas — like smoking — where there’s a lot to be said for a nanny state.
In the case of smoking, we know that it is addictive. We further know that second-hand smoke is a real health (and allergy) problem for non-smokers. Thus we have allowed and in general accepted rather severe restrictions on tobacco products, by whom they can be purchased, and where they can be used. As a result cigarette consumption has plummeted since such regulations first began.
Krugman also writes
Oh, and diet isn’t purely a personal choice, either; obesity imposes large costs on the economy as a whole.
That link takes you to a piece from Bloomberg showing how obesity has expanded dramatically. In 1960 about 1/8 of Americans were obese. Now it is more than a third, with another third overweight. Allow me to quote the paragraph from the Bloomberg piece most relevant to Krugman's assertion:
Widespread obesity raised medical-care costs by $315.8 billion in 2010, according to John Cawley, an economics professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. That amounted to about $3,508 a year for each obese person, the latest available data showed. The expenses, which include doctors’ appointments, hospital stays, prescription drugs and home health care, were up 48 percent from 2005’s $213 billion after adjusting for inflation, the researchers found.
Here we can note that besides addressing medical issues before they result in emergency room visits as we are doing by providing insurance, addressing nutritional issues not only saves medical costs imposed upon society and upon all of us through insurance, but also allows people to be more productive members of society, thus increasing our economic health.
Krugman notes that heavier states tend to vote Republican (although there is also some correlation with percentage of minority population, something that in Republican states can mean less access for their minorities to nutrition assistance). He also notes that some of the strongest pushback at addressing nutritional issues comes from Southern legislators whose states happen to include the counties with the highest rate of diabetes in the nation.
His final two paragraphs are important. The penultimate reads as follows:
At a still deeper level, health experts may say that we need to change how we eat, pointing to scientific evidence, but the Republican base doesn’t much like experts, science, or evidence. Debates about nutrition policy bring out a kind of venomous anger — much of it now directed at Michelle Obama, who has been championing school lunch reforms — that is all too familiar if you’ve been following the debate over climate change.
Let's stop for a moment and focus on these words:
the Republican base doesn’t much like experts, science, or evidence Even those Republicans who should know better pander to that base: think of Harvard biology major Bobby Jindal seemingly coming out against evolution. On issue after issue, it is Republican politicians who seem obstructionist and want to deny not merely scientific evidence but also the clear statistical data. This includes things like blocking the CDC from collecting data on gun deaths, or the law in Florida that prohibits doctors from discussing the impact of guns upon health. It includes climate change. It includes evolution. It includes the cost savings of health insurance. Now we are seeing pressure on scientists in Oklahoma to silence scientific evidence demonstrating the connection of fracking to increased earthquakes.
Given that Michelle Obama is the face of healthy food especially in schools, the hatred fomented on the right towards the First Family can make this issue even more toxic.
Which brings us to Krugman's conclusion:
Pizza partisanship, then, sounds like a joke, but it isn’t. It is, instead, a case study in the toxic mix of big money, blind ideology, and popular prejudices that is making America ever less governable.
big money - think once again of the impact of Citizens United and its progeny
blind ideology - including attempts to require students to view video by convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza, attempts to prevent teaching of evolution, attempts to suppress discussion of climate change, and so on
popular prejudices - which are used to foment hatred and fear of anything or anyone that can be labeled as other rather than addressing the real needs of American society.
making America ever less governable - we ARE in a dangerous place, although it may not YET be too late to reverse what is happening.
But if we cannot use the power of government to "promote the general welfare" of the American people as the Preamble states as one of the purposes of our forming "a more perfect union," if we are going to "slice and dice" as then Senatorial candidate Obama noted in 1984 into fragments, using "religious exemptions" as a means of continuing to oppress those against whom fear is fomented, then maybe we do not deserve to have the liberal democracy that for so long was a light to all of humanity.
I am old, older than Krugman
I like pizza, in moderation.
I feel as if I have been fighting these battles for my entire life, and at times I am worn down.
There is little left I can do except use whatever limited ability I have with words to provoke and motivate others to fight to ensure we do not lose what our liberal democracy means.
I read the Krugman.
I thought more should read it.
Thus for the first time in several weeks I have posted here.
Make of this what you will.
Peace?