GUEST WRITER: Hobson Asks, “Do you love the American farm?”

November 24, 2009

Hobson Asks, “Do you love the American farm?”

By Joseph Dougherty

Thomas Hobson

At the turn of the 16th a century a livery stable owner in Cambridge, England began a practice of offering each of his customers a choice; they could either ride the horse in the stall closest to the door, or they could ride no horse at all. The asperity in this new policy stemmed from the owner’s frustration over the customers habit of cherry picking only the best horses, a practice that resulted in the favored horses being ridden too often and breaking down from exhaustion. This innovative “take it or leave it” policy reversed this practice and distributed the riding equally, and the success gave birth to the term Hobson’s choice (named after the owner, Thomas Hobson).

Today the term is used today to describe any free choice in which only one option is truly offered. And for me, this is a perfect description how agricultural policy is currently framed for the American public. The reasoning behind this is that in nearly every other political debate the proponents proffer the classic “false choice” – describe two options and say you can only do one, when, in fact, it is actually possible to do both (example: “we can either focus on executive compensation or focus on reviving our economy”). But in the debate over agricultural policy, the lack of both complexity and variance in the public discourse creates a situation in which proponents rarely need to even mention a second option. You’re just for American farms…period.

The problem with this stance is that being “for American farms” eventually becomes synonymous with being in favor of American agricultural policy as it is currently structured. More importantly, it imbeds a level of cognitive dissonance that results in supporters of farm policy viewing nearly every other domestic policy issue as inimical to their interests. Carl Taylor, in his classic article for the American Sociological Review, scoured decades of polling in rural communities and found that this trend placed both farmers and their supporters in a position of reflexive, unified opposition to a platform of issues regardless of their relationship to agriculture. Many of these policies, particularly the ones related to social or urban policy, had no discernible impact on agriculture at all.

One of the many limitations, and significant ironies, in this is that a number of the policies classically opposed by agriculture supporters actually help farmers. As an example, let’s look at the field of environmental policy. Many environmentalists like to start a discussion of farms and the environment by referencing global climate change (the future of arable land in the Midwest, introducing carbon into soil, etc.), but since climate change legislation is not currently in place I’d prefer to focus on something more concrete. For example – the relationship between farmers and federal regulators is widely understood to be contentious. This is primarily a result of the Environmental Protection Agency’s role in regulating solid waste and pesticides in farms as well as the farm community’s reflexive opprobrium for federal regulation (as cited by Taylor above). But underneath the emotion begs the question…is this opposition to the EPA necessarily helpful to agriculture?

Consider this – the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants that are considered harmful to public health and the environment. These standards are, at first glance, something the farm community would reflexively oppose (the regulations impact energy producers, primarily coal and oil, which could raise energy costs on farms). But why are they in place? The first reason is to set a primary standard to protect the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. But the second reason is to protect livestock, vegetation and crops from air pollution. Why is that necessary? Air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, ozone, and particulate matter can have a corrosive effect on crops, especially ones downwind from coal fired plants. Absent national regulation these pollutants could significantly impair crop production and reduce the productivity of American farms.

U.S. Senator Grassley (R-IA)

It’s just one example, but the point is that there is far more syncretism between the pro-agriculture and pro-environment worldviews then many people recognize. Last summer Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) invited EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson down to Iowa to see how “real family farms” operate under the onerous impact of EPA regulations. It was an unremarkable stunt, primarily because the farm policy debate is so stilted to begin with, but it belies the unnecessary tension between agriculture supporters and the rest of the policy arena. With time, and with great understanding of the collaborative role other stakeholders play in farm policy, I hope supporters like Grassley can move the debate from a Hobson’s choice to a real choice over what is best for American farms.

Editor’s Note:  I hope you enjoyed our guest writer and a good friend of mine, Joe Dougherty.  Please take a minute to submit a comment or question for him below.

Advertisements