A certainty of any election is how pundits chew over the politics of losing rather than discuss the policy implications of winning.
That is especially so for United States farm policy after the muddled results of its recent general election.
The Democrats hold a weak majority in the House of Representatives despite the stern whipping they took Nov. 3. One of the most prominent Democratic losers was long-time House ag committee chair Collin Peterson.
Meanwhile, Republicans hold a slim two-vote majority in the Senate.
Read Also
Genetic resistance for anthracnose is on the way
anthracnose resistant lentil varieites are on the way according to Ana Vargas, University of Saskatchewan lentil and chickpea breeder. She also shared some management methods for the anthracnose in lentils.
The race to chair the House ag committee is already underway for Democrats. The three frontrunners —Georgian David Scott, Californian Jim Costa, and Ohioan Marcia Fudge — each represent a direction farm and food policy might go. Scott and Fudge are stronger advocates for supplemental nutrition programs than traditional farm programs; Costa is the status-quo candidate favoured by big ag.
Scott leads the race: he is the committee’s most senior Democrat, has committee support, and received Peterson’s blessing Nov. 10. Fudge, an attorney by training and former small city mayor by choice, is a long shot but is whispered to be a candidate for President-elect Joe Biden’s secretary of agriculture.
That leaves Costa, a self-described “third generation farmer.” While he is a bona fide farm boy, Costa has spent most of his 40-year career in public office, first in the California legislature, then in Congress.
Interestingly, none of the three have deep ties to today’s long-running federal farm programs like crop insurance, ethanol, or sugar — all key constituencies of the soon-to-depart Peterson.
In fact, when the Big Ag groups realized Peterson was sinking in his re-election race, ag campaign money — almost always reserved for Republicans — poured in to help Democrat Peterson fight off his Republican challenger. It was a poor investment; Peterson got smoked.
Which should raise some uncomfortable questions in farm and ranch circles. Specifically, just how politically powerful is the so-called Big Ag today if it can’t pull a 30-year, rural incumbent congressman over the finish line in one of their costliest, organized, most important campaign efforts ever?
The best explanation is the most likely one: rural America isn’t politically red because of farmers and ranchers; it’s red despite farmers and ranchers. They don’t carry the vote; they tag along.
If accurate, then Big Ag badly needs to find a more urban champion — like David Scott or Marcia Fudge — because that old rural-urban farm bill coalition, like the rest of the country, just moved to the city.
And, just as likely, it’s not coming back.
Alan Guebert is an agricultural commentator from Illinois.
