Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney often joked during the primaries: “Being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention.” Try that joke the other way around, and it doesn’t work, does it?
Meat-eating is right-wing, everybody knows that! We even describe a rip-roaring conservative speech as “red-meat.” Crunchy granola is correspondingly left-wing. Whole Foods is liberal fascist, according to Jonah Goldberg, while Wal-Mart is bad for America, according to PBS’s Frontline.
These stereotypes have a basis in reality, for sure. There are more Whole Foods stores in Massachusetts’ 617 area code than in both Carolinas; more in Chicago and Evanston than in all of Georgia. Meanwhile, the state of Alabama supports only one Whole Foods store, but three Ruth’s Chris steakhouses. Mississippi: 0 Whole Foods, 3 Ruth’s Chris.
Yet the stereotype equally bumps up against certain contradictions. I happened into my nearest Whole Foods on Saturday. Among other things, I bought a half gallon of milk for $3.79 – almost double the price I could have paid at Walmart. For my money, I got organic milk from cows raised on grass rather than corn.
I prefer that my children drink milk free from pesticides, herbicides and artificial hormones. I am relieved not to contribute to the promiscuous overuse of antibiotics in cattle, hastening the development of anti-biotic resistant superbugs. If the extra tariff secures more humane treatment for the dairy cows on which we depend, that’s welcome news too.
As I bicycled the groceries home in my “I used to be a plastic bottle” recycled Whole Foods bag, I must have looked the image of a northwest Washington progressive. Yet it is very easy for me to imagine how the cultural polarities on food might have been reversed.
I can imagine a cultural left that fumed: The local family farm is as obsolete as the two-parent family! If you have an extra buck and three quarters burning a hole in your pocket, David Frum, why not give it to the panhandler on the corner rather than an overpriced dairy? Before getting exercised about the welfare of milk cows, how about some concern for the child prostitutes of the Third World or the underprivileged here at home?
Likewise, I can imagine a cultural right that championed premium milk in exactly the same way that it now champions luxury cars and $20 cigars. Or that worried as much about its own health and nutrition as it did about the strength and fitness of professional athletes.
No, it didn’t work out that way. But it easily could have – and could still again.
From the time of Teddy Roosevelt until the day before yesterday, it was the American right that worried more about the fitness and strength of the American population. (While the left tended to dismiss such concerns as imports from militaristic Prussia – as indeed they were.) It was President Eisenhower who founded the President’s Council on Physical Fitness, President Nixon who empowered the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor pesticides, and President Reagan who allowed himself to be photographed lifting weights. (He looked good at it too.)
This history was much on my mind as I recently read Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma. (More exactly: as I listened to it on long bike rides with my wife through the farm country of Prince Edward County, Ontario.)
The Omnivore’s Dilemma has been a blue-state bestseller over the past three years, summoning educated Americans to a closer engagement with the origins of the food they eat. Pollan wittily marches readers up and down the food chains that lead to four finished meals: a McDonald’s family feast consumed in a car on a California freeway, an organic dinner made from ingredients purchased at Whole Foods, a dinner whose ingredients come from a single farm, and a dinner that the author hunted and foraged for himself.
Along the way, Pollan introduces readers to the vast American system of industrial agriculture: to the effects of farm subsidies and the operations of agribusiness – to the health and wellness effects of processed foods and excess fats and sugars – to the moral and economic tradeoffs embedded in all our eating, including the eating that goes by the name of “organic.”
Pollan lives in Berkeley, teaches journalism, and used to edit Harper’s. That’s a biography demarked with with red flags for the conservative reader. Pollan cannot resist the occasional grand pronouncement about “capitalism” and its machinations. That’s an irritatingly unconsidered remark. Pollan’s hopes for a different kind of agriculture rests exactly and wholly upon the wealth generated by free markets. It demands a very high level of per-capita income to afford milk at $3.79 per half gallon.
Unconsidered remarks aside, however, Pollan’s work ought to appeal to the market-minded reader. Pollan does some of his best work identifying the wasteful externalities concealed by agricultural subsidies. The corn that feeds Walmart’s cows may be genuinely cheaper than the grass that nourishes the cows yielding my expensive milk. But it’s not quite so much cheaper as the Walmart shopper thinks. The price of a bushel of corn averaged $2.74 between 2002 and 2007. But the federal government guarantees a price closer to $4. The difference comes in the form of a check from the federal Treasury.
There are other externalities too in American agriculture. The one that worries me most is the as yet unexacted cost of the overuse of antibiotics in animal feed. As antibiotics are used more, bacteria mutate to defeat them. By some estimates, 18,000 Americans died last year from drug-resistant infections. The routine use of antibiotics to defeat the infections that arise in overcrowded and under-sanitary feedlots is an important accelerant to the evolution of drug-resistant superbugs. If milk at $3.79 saves you from untreatable illness, you might think it a more economical purchase than it looks at first.
Preventable suffering of animals could also be regarded as an externality. Americans care about the animals they know: It’s estimated that Americans spend some $40 billion a year on the care of their pets. Yet the cow or pig you eat is as intimate a part of your life as the dog or cat with which you live. If Americans understood what the lives of those cows or pigs looked like, I wonder whether they would begrudge the extra cents per pound it would cost to ameliorate these animals’ living conditions. As wealth increases and living standards improve, that price becomes easier to pay – and harder to justify not paying.
One of my favorite passages in Matt Scully’s Dominion makes the point that more advanced societies can afford to abandon practices that were once essential. Eskimos might have no choice but to harpoon whales. We do. In the same way, food practices that can be justified in a poorer era that struggled to make meat accessible to the poor at all may cease to be justified in an era when the average American eats a pound and a quarter of beef per week – and when poorer Americans eat more beef than richer Americans do.
That last point raises the issue in the American diet that deserves greatest concern: its effect not on the eaten, but on the eaters.
Half of adult Americans are obese. (Two-thirds are overweight.) Among under-19s, about one in three is overweight and one in six obese.
Americans are much fatter than they were a generation ago. While obesity is a gathering problem through the developed world, America is home to a greater proportion of dangerously fat people than any other country.
Obesity and its common health consequence diabetes account for about one health dollar in nine spent in the United States. While the obese live about as long as everybody else, they suffer many more health problems through life, from bad knees to depression to cardiovascular disease.
Behind this trend are many causes. The spread of fast food is one obvious one. Teenagers now eat typically between 3 and 4 fast-food meals a week, with each additional fast food meal being associated with weight gains of between 0.9 and 1.7 pounds, depending on the length of time the eater has been consuming fast food.
Federal subsidies to corn, federal tariffs against sugar, and genuine improvements in the efficiency of corn production have together created a new market in super-cheap corn sweeteners. They show up in everything from sodas to toothpaste. These new sweeteners have not displaced sugar – Americans simply added corn. In 1967, the average American consumed an already excessive 114 pounds of sweeteners, per year, almost all of it in the form of cane sugar. By 2003, the sweetener ration had jumped past 140 pounds, more than 60 pounds of it in the form of corn sweeteners. Soda pop seems to be the prime culprit: the average American now drinks nearly a gallon of soda per week.
When I wrote about this problem in my book Comeback and proposed that conservatives ought to take it seriously as a public health issue, an offended National Review reviewer was led to question whether I still had any conservative instincts at all.
And yet obesity – and especially child obesity – is at least as proper a subject of government concern from a conservative point of view as single parenthood. Conservatives correctly realize that a society with a lot of single parents will require a bigger welfare state. Since conservatives prefer a smaller welfare state, conservatives have a stake in sustainable family patterns. Yet obesity also creates a demand for government programs, even more directly and expensive than the costs of single parenthood. Here’s a paper from the Texas Department of Human Services that estimates that Type 2 diabetes accounts for 9% of the state’s Medicaid budget, about $192 million per year. If diabetes continues to increase at the current trend line, by 2030 the disease will consume somewhere between 13% and 20% of the state’s Medicaid budget. Since that budget is likely to grow substantially (DHS hypothesizes by between 6 and 8 times), the paper projects that type 2 diabetes will cost the state more than $1.5 billion per year by 2030. If that’s not a public health crisis, what is?
The policy response to this crisis is not obvious. And yet there are some immediate steps that make sense. State governments should ban soda machines from schools. Local governments should adopt zoning ordinances that prevent the siting of fast-food restaurants within 1000 yards of schools. (Research suggests that the near presence of a fast-food restaurant causes a 5% increase in student obesity.) Impose a steep excise tax on high-fructose corn syrup.
Over the medium term, Congress should work to shift federal aid to agriculture away from supports for specific crops – corn, soy etc. - to subsidies for the use of land for farming of any kind.
In the end, however, the impact of public policy will likely prove modest. Conversely, the more responsible approach to food and nature recommended by Michael Pollan and his admirers is the very epitome of conservative individualism and personal responsibility.
I sometimes get invitations to conservative “smokers” – evenings where money is raised for a conservative cause over martinis, thick corn-fed steaks, and three courses of cigars. Think for a minute of the message embedded in such evenings: “Come support a politics that will kill you!”
We live at a time when it is becoming possible for human beings to live well and strong for longer than ever imagined – when children can enjoy the company of parents, grandchildren of grandparents for decades of activity and joy. Industrial agriculture offered abundance at an environmental and health price. The advance of technology now permits us to transform an agriculture of quantity into one of quality with greater health as the surprising prize. Conservatives celebrate the total quality revolution in manufactures as a great American achievement. Why not in food too?
Drop the fried nuggets, and put on the walking shoes; push away the super-sized burger and rediscover the taste of real beef. Of course conservatives respect the freedom to make bad choices. But why celebrate bad choices? Why accept obesity and coronary disease as “conservative”? Why dismiss health and wellbeing as liberal? Don’t conservatives champion the “culture of life”? Then what on earth are we doing with cigars in our mouths and colas in our cupholders?
71 responses so far
1 Chekote // Aug 11, 2009 at 4:01 pm
The accompanying picture is disturbing. Can you please remove it? Thanks.
2 WildWillie // Aug 11, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Great piece David. You touched on a topic that bothers me. The word conservative is based on the concept of conservation of all things that have value. It would appear that out of anger or fear, many of our group have ignored the fact that many things of value are being ignored in a mistaken blind rush to crush the opposition.
Since when did our fellow Americans become the enemy? If we wish to lead America we must develop REAL policies and effective programs that will conserve our most valuable resource, our fellow citizens. History is full of civilizations that are no longer with us. If we continue to act as if our pet priorities are all that is important, either our party or our country will join them on the trash heap of history.
What is so wrong with meaningful health care, education, job opportunities and community action to make life better for our people?
3 barker13 // Aug 11, 2009 at 4:46 pm
“I bought a half gallon of milk for $3.79 – almost double the price I could have paid at Walmart. For my money, I got organic milk from cows raised on grass rather than corn.”
Umm… David…??? You DO know that WalMart sells organic milk too – right? (Me… I buy good old fashioned 2% homogenized for aroud $2.50/gal. To each his own, though!)
OK. That FYI aside… (*SMILE*)… I’m actually with you far more than not.
I’m a Trader Joe’s kinda guy as opposed to Whole Foods, but “tomatO tomATo,” right? (*WINK*)
I’m against farm subsidies. (I’m against subsidies!)
I’m in favor of treating livestock humanly – prior to killing it and eating it.
I’m against loading our food supply chain up with antibiotics and going overboard on preservatives.
I believe in healthy eating – to an extent. (*WINK*)
I’m against obesity. (Though I’m a big, big guy myself…)
I’m a huge fan of HIGH QUALITY food and my idea of fast food is heading to a good deli.
I’m a support of the “Fresh Local” movement and largely patronize restaurants where “fresh and local” and “imported but today” is the rule of thumb.
Thanks for the head’s up concerning Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Sounds like a good read!
BILL
4 ottovbvs // Aug 11, 2009 at 5:08 pm
…….I’m a Trader’s and Whole Foods devotee…..Traders is really a poor man’s whole foods….but even more I’m a devotee of my local mainstreet market that sells great home butchered meats, smoked kiebasa, locally caught haddock and scallops, etc etc…….having visited a plant where they make millions of Mickey D patties every day, chicken farms with a million chickens (yes a million) the chicken shit was unbelievable, beef feed lots with 120,000 cattle, dairy farms with probably 50,000 cows, hog farms bigger than willow run, the American public would be horrified if they knew how the sausage was made….but out of sight out of mind……and I like a big Mac myself
5 liv&win // Aug 11, 2009 at 5:58 pm
As a spiritual exersize, I try to “thank” the labor and resources in the food chain of my particular meal before woofing it down. With processed foods, it just took too long to get from the the 50 ingredients to the store. Eating locally grown fruits and vegies and low processed foods makes my prayers much shorter and more impactful.
Where I live, there is a lot of unused land which can sustain crops and livestock, but we “save” that as open natural space. the land use issue is integral to this topic. In my city, we are not allowed to raise chickens, which I would like to do for the organic eggs and when she outlives that purpose, the lovely roasted chicken with garlic and olives my wife makes. But I am forbidden from keeping even one chicken.
My wife grew up on a small “farm” where she raised lambs and chickens. Between them and the fishing her dad did, they had all the sustainable protein they needed. They traded with others in the area who grew fruits and veggies. Lots of hard work, not exactly cheap, but they were connected in ways I can only imagine. I think there are a lot of us outside big cities who would like more sustainable food sources. For now, its the farmers market and TJ.
Good job David.
6 The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Politics Won't Save Us From Bad Food // Aug 11, 2009 at 6:01 pm
[...] a review of Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, David Frum gets a little crunchy and wonders why [...]
7 balconesfault // Aug 11, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Otto: “the American public would be horrified if they knew how the sausage was made”
Thus, the old Otto von Bismarck quote: “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.”
The reflexive pushback from the right is a discomfort among some with anything that has to do with statism … and a cynical willingness among others to exploit that discomfort for partisan advantage.
BTW – we don’t need a steep surcharge on high fructose corn syrup. Get rid of domestic marketing allotments and tariff-rate quotas for cane sugar, and corn syrup would get blown out of the marketplace overnight.
8 nwahs // Aug 11, 2009 at 7:19 pm
If Obamacare would extend Medicare to cover dental expenses, it would be an entirely new ballgame.
9 nwahs // Aug 11, 2009 at 7:40 pm
sorry for above post – wrong article
10 sinz54 // Aug 11, 2009 at 8:09 pm
David,
did you HAVE to put that horrific photo there? I’m trying to eat my dinner!
11 Spartacus // Aug 11, 2009 at 8:29 pm
“From the time of Teddy Roosevelt until the day before yesterday, it was the American right that worried more about the fitness and strength of the American population . . . It was President Eisenhower who founded the President’s Council on Physical Fitness, President Nixon who empowered the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor pesticides, and President Reagan who allowed himself to be photographed lifting weights. (He looked good at it too.)”
This was a very good and timely article, but is it really necessary to cheapen its import by making a completely irrelevant and false claim about political support for fitness? If the American right was so concerned about the fitness of the American people they wouldn’t be content to simply engage in nothing more than the public tokens of concern cited above. Instead, they would support environmental protections and higher (much higher) taxes on smoking and HFCS. And, Red states would do much more to control their ridiculous obesity rates!
Nevertheless, all of the recommendations in the article should be implemented. Unfortunately, conservatism has morphed into a religion that views government intervention in personal lives and tax increases of any kind as absolute heresy. This, along with the Right’s current opposition to cuts in the Medicare budget, is the ultimate result of Rovian politics, which was tolerated (promoted, actually) by lay conservatives/GOPers. The Right now opposes all ideas from Dems not on the basis of the pros/cons of those ideas, but on ideology and the fact that those ideas come from Dems or the Left.
Like Frum’s other recent concessions that tax cuts are not an economic panacea, that the Right has endorsed anti-intellectualism (a.k.a. Palinism) and that hyperbolic inflammatory rhetoric is bad politics, these new recommendations for government intervention and tax increases is better late than never, I guess. Although, you can’t help but wonder whether Frum is just now discovering these things or if he knew them all along but was fine with them since they produced electoral success.
12 Moderate // Aug 11, 2009 at 8:42 pm
The impulse to control others’ diets isn’t conservative, but so what? No one is 100% conservative. I’m on the liberals’ side of this issue; the government should be able to dictate what people can or cannot eat, since the government will have to subsidize the resultant health care costs of poor decisions.
Analogously, state governments can mandate seat-belts because it’s really expensive to care for accident victims who weren’t wearing seat belts.
No more piecemeal steps. Outlaw cigarettes entirely. Tax the bejeezus out of soda. It might be fascism, but it’s going to save taxpayers a lot of money.
13 dacookson // Aug 11, 2009 at 9:09 pm
bugger me, having read all this, I think somewhere angels must be singing and nuns weeping with joy…
14 anniemargret // Aug 11, 2009 at 9:19 pm
The photo is abhorrent; please remove.
15 Good Read « Mosaic // Aug 11, 2009 at 9:43 pm
[...] Uncategorized | Tags: health, Recommended read Recommended read from David Frum at New Majority: A Politics That Will Kill Us [...]
16 barker13 // Aug 11, 2009 at 9:54 pm
HEY DAVID,
You know what… I personally don’t find the photo disturbing, but since both Chekote and Anniemargret have politely requested you remove it, I say remove it too.
Heck… it’s a small and reasonable request. And it’s not like anyone is responding, “no, I demand you keep it posted.”
BILL
17 anniemargret // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Well, I suppose David Frum calls the shots here, but yes, it is very disturbing image. I have three children, one of whom is a young woman, and this photo is unnecessary to the discussion. Thanks.
18 nwahs // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Well the image is gross, and another example how violence is more acceptable than sexual innuendo.
19 Ploni Almoni // Aug 12, 2009 at 6:07 am
A well-argued but ultimately unconvincing article. The most interesting claim: “No, it didn’t work out that way. But it easily could have – and could still again.” Could the left and right really have had the reverse positions on this issue in 2009? I don’t think so. If the left were to take the position described by Frum (worry about poor children instead of cows, etc.), then it would be a different left, not the left that’s existed since about the 1970s. The left now is about faddish gestures, not economic class-struggle substance. Starving people are boring.
Even if Frum were correct, though, it doesn’t follow that the right could compete with the left on this subject. Whether the left’s position is contingent or not, it’s currently the left’s position, and any attempt by the right to steal it would be seen as a weak attempt to out-left the left. How could Frum’s recommended actions at the state and local level compete with a hypothetical leftist zillion-dollar National Anti-Obesity Crusade? And rhetoric aside, it seems repugnant to adopt the left’s reasoning that if government foots the bill for X, it has the right/duty to modify behavior that would increase the cost of X.
I wish Frum’s argument would be debated on the right, but of course it won’t. Paleos (with whom I myself sympathize) will either ignore his argument or distort it beyond recognition. That is, they’ll do the same that they accuse mainstream figures like Frum of doing to them. Frum’s is an incorrect argument which needs to be heard.
20 Cforchange // Aug 12, 2009 at 6:50 am
I too say take the pic away.
In addition to buying what I can locally, I at all costs avoid mass distributed food especially meats and poultry. This could be a very fast and easy way to terrorize alot of people all at one time.
All of David’s article here calls for common sense, something that the media, education and the pols are training American’s not to have. We probably are at a tipping point for the general population even knowing how to cook. From scratch – forget it!
21 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 8:04 am
anniemargret // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:07 pm
‘Well, I suppose David Frum calls the shots here, but yes, it is very disturbing image.”
……….Now you mention it that was rather my reaction too…..I immediately thought….. female victim of violent crime in body bag, what’s all this about?…….otherwise it’s a pretty good piece by David…..at the end of the day it’s a cultural thing and that means education with perhaps the odd nudge of public policy……there are an increasing number of books appearing on this subject and once it enters the national bloodstream as an issue it tends to assume a life of its own
22 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 8:33 am
Michael wrote:
“And yet obesity – and especially child obesity – is at least as proper a subject of government concern from a conservative point of view as single parenthood. Conservatives correctly realize that a society with a lot of single parents will require a bigger welfare state. Since conservatives prefer a smaller welfare state, conservatives have a stake in sustainable family patterns. Yet obesity also creates a demand for government programs, even more directly and expensive than the costs of single parenthood.”
You have the cart before the horse here, Michael. Single-parent families are a government concern to conservatives only in the sense that the welfare state has significantly contributed to the single-parent family becoming much more easily manageable, and even building up disincentives for responsible fatherhood, and thereby contributing to the rapid proliferation of single motherhood. In other words, it is not fostering two-parent families, but removing the government crutch from single-parent families, that is the appropriate focus. The same goes for food. It is not the actual diet that reflects conservative values, but the individual’s freedom to make his own dietary choices, and his responsibility to accept the consequences thereof. It is these consequences that are subsidized and socialized by the state in the form of undifferentiated costs, or no cost, for medical insurance. Obesity is much more prevalent among the less wealthy — Medicaid recipients included. If it costs a person more to maintain that extra 50 pounds, in the form of actuarially rated health insurance, he is much more likely to manage his own diet and weight. Safeway’s successful self-insurance program demonstrates that this is not just wishful thinking. On the other hand, if the cost of those extra 50 pounds is borne by the welfare state by way of mandated community rating, or government provided health insurance, the obese person has less incentive to get in shape.
The last thing we need to start doing is advocating an active role of government in dietary decisions. Start telling conservatives you want them to get rid of their cigars and colas, and you are liable to witness a not insignificant increase in their consumption by conservatives who don’t consume them now.
23 Stewardship // Aug 12, 2009 at 8:38 am
Pollan’s book is an excellent read. He also highlights some entrepreneurial souls who’ve created small businesses in response to the demand for healthy foods. I’m fortunate…where I live, I’m able to put venison in the freezer each fall, and we have scores of produce stands in the front yards of Amish farms where we can buy everything from chickens to eggs to eggplant. The trade off is the dearth of creative chefs in the area…unless you count the guy at Applebee’s who wears the tie-dyed apron.
24 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 8:47 am
Correction of my comment, no 22: the cost of mandated community health insurance rating is, of course, borne not by the state but by insurance companies, then passed on to their insureds.
25 DFL // Aug 12, 2009 at 8:58 am
If you have a nice patch of land, growing your own garden vegetables is an alternative. I have had a garden on my two acres for 18 years. My wife and homeschooled children intensified the garden this past spring and their work has been rewarding.
An alternative to the supermarket are Community Supportive Agriculture. My family has had share in one SGA farm for the past three or four years. You pay the farmer up front and get a share of the bounty when the vegetables are harvested. Anyone who has access to the internet can find an SGA farmer somewhere close to you. Not only do you get better food with an SGA farmer, you are strengthening the local bonds by doing business with your local, independent farmer-businessman rather than with a big corporate enterprise.
26 sinz54 // Aug 12, 2009 at 9:37 am
Stewardship sez: “the demand for healthy foods”.
There is a common misconception that “organically grown” fruits and vegetables are somehow more nutritious than their agribusiness counterparts. Scientifically, this is false. Controlled experiments have failed to find any significant difference in nutritive content of ordinary produce vs. organic produce. (Which is one reason why scientific tables of the nutritive content of produce, such as those from FDA, do not distinguish between a tomato and an “organically grown tomato.”)
The reason is this: A plant needs certain nutrients from the soil in order to grow. It doesn’t matter where that soil is, in a giant agribusiness farm or in your back yard. If those nutrients aren’t present, the plant cannot grow. Period. And those nutrients, plus those manufactured by the plant from those nutrients through photosynthesis, are the nutrients we get out of fruits and vegetables.
There is no evidence that the minute amounts of pesticides on agribusiness produce are unsafe for humans either.
There is an awful lot of pseudo-scientific quackery underlying the “organic foods” movement, and a lot of popular ignorance.
Having your own garden is certainly a fun hobby. And if it makes you feel proud to be eating the foods you produced by your own hand, go ahead. But you’re not getting any healthier that way–except by the exercise you’re getting from gardening.
27 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 9:52 am
Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 8:33 am
“Start telling conservatives you want them to get rid of their cigars and colas, and you are liable to witness a not insignificant increase in their consumption by conservatives who don’t consume them now.”
……….I don’t know…..it could shift the demographic balance in the Dems favor…….sounds like an idea for Plouffe
28 Asteriodboy // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:13 am
Great piece. This is the kind of thinking conservatism I can get behind. I agree there is a fine balance that we in America havent found yet. Industrial agriculture produces an enormous amount of calories that ensures cheap food is widely available. This is a mixed blessing, however, given that many of us now work in seditary jobs that dont require much physical labor. Yet our genes are programmed for scarcity, so many of us lapse into overeating when presented with a cornucopia of cheap, readily-available food. We need to reorient our eating culture to this new reality, and find unobtrustive public policy solutions that address real concerns like the growing prevalence of childhood obesity and diabetes.
29 Cforchange // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:55 am
Sinz – I don’t think nutrient value is the issue. Typical grocery store produce doesn’t satisfy, often it doesn’t taste like anything. It doesn’t even create appeal. Local grown fruit and produce is far superior and if more available children would crave a sweet juicy peach instead of a fruit rollup. We have several generations who do consider fruit a treat.
The same goes for meat – local butcher meat and chicken is much tastier than mass produced. Also, with poultry it has significantly less sodium which they use to protect product that is frozen.
One could argue if you were satisfied, you would eat more slowly and possibly less. One should also read labels – high fructose corn syrup rears it’s head in many unsuspecting items – like applesauce. Please tell me why?
30 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:31 am
moderate (comment 12) said:
“the government should be able to dictate what people can or cannot eat, since the government will have to subsidize the resultant health care costs of poor decisions.”
This is not an argument for the government dictating our diet. It is an argument against the government providing health insurance, and a darned good one.
31 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:33 am
Spartacus
Your characterization of ‘the right’ or conservatives is nothing more than caricature. It reflects poorly on your own argumentation rather than on us conservatives.
32 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:40 am
cforchange;
“high fructose corn syrup rears it’s head in many unsuspecting items – like applesauce. Please tell me why?”
Easy – because it sells.
I get great food from any of three local grocery stores. Even juicy peaches.
33 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:43 am
Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:33 am
Spartacus
“Your characterization of ‘the right’ or conservatives is nothing more than caricature.”
……..Not a caricature really……conservatives and Republicans have long resisted regulation of the food industry and healthy practices (er….smoking?)….and even when during the Bush admin numerous food scares blew up like mad cow disease they blocked federal agencies from moving against the industries involved…………it’s well known in the beef feed lot business that sick animals are fed into the food chain
34 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:46 am
Otto:
I don’t want to be associated with such an idea, as nice a guy as Plouffe may be. You can understand, I’m sure.
35 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:49 am
otto:
I am not suggesting that there are not legitimate issues to be raised against conservatives and/or Republicans. I was merely pointing out that Spartacus’ descriptions demonstrate zero respect for the thinking of conservatives, and as such the shallowness and laziness of his own argumentation.
36 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Otto:
Spartacus and I have jousted on this problem before: If my side takes a position, it is thoroughly reasoned, principled, and backed by logic and facts; if the other side takes a position, it is reflexive, ideological, dishonest and contrary to all reason. Such is the mindset from which Spartacus approaches conservatives. I just want to point out that name-calling does not advance the debate, and tends to shut it down. There is a very broad spectrum of thought and policy ideas on both sides. Reasoned debate ought to be about finding both understanding and agreement, but at least understanding.
The fact that I might take a position that is anchored in a firm conservative principle, such as minimal government intervention, does not lead to the conclusion that my position is ‘reflexive.’ The principle may very well be thoroughly reasoned, and its application may be absolutely appropriate. I know that is always the case when I take a position. And why does ‘ideology’ need to be a dirty word. It is part of politics.
37 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 11:46 am
Otto:
“I don’t want to be associated with such an idea, as nice a guy as Plouffe may be. You can understand, I’m sure.”
………I like to bring a little whimsicality to the proceedings……it’s not always appreciated……pleased to see you’re an exception…….and I read your 36…….yes kneejerk is bad…..even the devil has some good tunes as the founder of the Salvation Army pointed out
38 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 12:00 pm
“And why does ‘ideology’ need to be a dirty word. It is part of politics.”
………The problem is not ideology per se but extreme adherence to it……the consequences are mass famines in Russia or the near collapse of the world financial system
39 eheath // Aug 12, 2009 at 12:28 pm
This is one of those issues that perhaps should be pulled away from “liberal” or “conservative” frames. This strikes me as an issue where the government can do things that are smart (instead of stupid) to help citizens. But the problem is lobbyists. Agribusiness has a strong interest in the subsidy checks from the government, and will produce counter advertisements for any government public service announcements. Agribusiness and the fast food industry want us to consume as much as possible. And of course we are, and becoming super-sized.
The key is information. We need to have nutrition and exercise information built into public school curriculums from grade one on. It would help to include information about antibiotic use and the effect of creating super bugs. We need the government to resist (with our help) big agribusiness and even big organic, and create meaningful yet easy to understand standards for organic food. If we become smart consumers and exercisers, we will slim down, and maybe need a bit less of either private or public healthcare.
40 Cforchange // Aug 12, 2009 at 12:39 pm
eheath to this ” We need to have nutrition and exercise information built into public school curriculums from grade one on” add financial management.
41 sinz54 // Aug 12, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Cforchange: I was speaking about produce (fresh fruits and vegetables), not processed foods.
I always avoided processed foods and junk foods when possible.
The reason why your locally grown produce seems to taste fresher than the supermarket variety, is not due to how it’s grown, but how rapidly it’s consumed after picking. Supermarkets get their foods from all over the Western Hemisphere (and beyond), and they lose flavor due to loss of freshness in transportation and storage.
Ditto for meat. In the supermarket, I see packaged chicken sitting in the counter for days and days, until it’s one day left till its sell-by date. Then they reduce the price and call it a “Manager’s Special.” I wouldn’t buy that even to feed it to a pet animal.
So I do agree with you about flavor.
42 sinz54 // Aug 12, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Spartacus: It was President Nixon who pushed the Environmental Protection Act through Congress. That’s the law that created the Environmental Protection Agency. And it was President Teddy Roosevelt who created the National Park Service. He was a conservationist long before it was fashionable to talk about conservation.
Till the late 1970s, Republicans were not averse to environmental protection.
What changed was the polarization about economic growth. A lot of the post-Vietnam environmentalists were, frankly, hostile to economic growth. They had already been radicalized by the Vietnam War. And they were, frankly, not very admiring of America.
They kept talking about a “sustainable” society of zero GDP growth–which is impossible without severely limiting population growth, something they don’t like to talk about. Back then, their slogan was “Growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” I heard that slogan repeated over and over, each Earth Day, and from the GreenPeace types.
The GOP saw an opening here, and started advocating economic growth as an alternative to the no-growth Luddism we saw coming from the Left.
Only very recently has the Left realized that a no-growth agenda isn’t selling, and is trying to pitch “green jobs.” That sure wasn’t their tune 20 years ago.
43 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 1:17 pm
sinz54 // Aug 12, 2009 at 1:02 pm
“They kept talking about a “sustainable” society of zero GDP growth–which is impossible without severely limiting population growth, something they don’t like to talk about. …….
Only very recently has the Left realized that a no-growth agenda isn’t selling, and is trying to pitch “green jobs.” That sure wasn’t their tune 20 years ago.”
…………20 years ago so this would be 1999……..so how do you explain that one of the two greatest periods of postwar growth occurred 1992 to 2000 when a Democratic president was in office (I actually think it was THE largest job creation in absolute numbers at 22 million)……I’ll need to check the stats but I think the sixties were also a huge period of growth too (Dems 2001-08)……Sinz I know your propensity for taking ideas that were/are essentially fringe preoccupations and magically transforming them into orthodox Democratic opinion but this a stretch for even someone as fact challenged as you
44 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Dems 2001-08)…….ooops 1961-68 of course.
45 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 1:20 pm
20 years ago so this would be 1999….oops again 1989….time for my medication
46 ottovbvs // Aug 12, 2009 at 2:07 pm
ireign // Aug 12, 2009 at 1:35 pm
“Moreover, some of your stats are clearly exaggerated or false”
……..Not by much……over the last two weeks they’ve published a large survey showing 34% of Americans are clinically obese and another 30% merely overweight…..unhealthy eating is fairly endemic and there’s an entire agri-industrial complex dedicated to providing the raw material…..ultimately the national zeitgeist has to change and then the agri-industrial complex will adjust but they are never going to lead, anymore than the insurance companies are going to lead healthcare reform……you can’t blame them but that’s how it is.
47 annab // Aug 12, 2009 at 2:34 pm
An obesity tax is another excuse to create a nanny state and a way for the government to grow unchecked. Rather than taxing twinkies and french fries, why not advocate for healthier lifestyles and personal responsibility when it comes to eating. The government shouldn’t be in the business of coercing healthy behavior through taxes on products it deems ‘unhealthy’.
48 sricher // Aug 12, 2009 at 3:11 pm
David:
Surely this marks a victory for Sarah Palin. After all, she is an avid runner, and she prefers getting her meat straight from the source–none of this corn-fed nonsense!
I bet her personal healthcare costs are pretty low…
49 mchenise // Aug 12, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Yes, obesity is a problem in this country, but are zoning ordinances on fast food restaurants and excise taxes on HFCS really going to make that big of a difference? Sure, maybe a little, but the stats show the obesity nightmare in this country runs much deeper than processed fast food. It is personal irresponsibility and gluttony that has lead us down this path. I agree with annab , the only cure to this problem is through healthy eating and exercising, not imposing taxes, expanding government and taking away the opportunity to choose responsibly.
50 Spartacus // Aug 12, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Sinz: “Till the late 1970s, Republicans were not averse to environmental protection.”
You’re right, however, my critisim on this issue is of conservatism (and really only modern conservatism)- not necessarily Republicans. Since Reagan, conservatism has started to look more and more like libertarianism, which condemns practically all intervention and taxes by the government.
You referenced Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, but the domestic policies of either would hardly fit within the GOP of the last 30 years. Likewise, Frum’s recommendations above do not fit within the current GOP because they involve tax increases and government intervention.
51 Spartacus // Aug 12, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Jim Pier,
I’m not sure what characterizations of the Right you’re referring to because you did not provide quotes. However, if you’re speaking of the notion that tax cuts are not an economic panacea, that the Right has endorsed anti-intellectualism (a.k.a. Palinism) and that hyperbolic inflammatory rhetoric is bad politics, these are positions that Frum has expressed on NM, which I agree with and, more importantly, appear to be borne out by the facts. If you believe these positions are not characteristic of the Right, then you should provide a convincing argument to the contrary.
As for reasoned arguments and ideology, we all have an ideology that shapes the way we view things. But when real-world facts show that our view is wrong, most intelligent and reasonable people will question whether their ideological assumptions and theories are correct, and they will change their view. But most modern conservatives seem immune to this kind of introspection.
Lastly, I don’t have zero respect for all conservative thinking, but even if I did I don’t see how that necessarily means my thinking is shallow. It is possible that all conservative thought with which I am familiar is very poor.
52 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Sinz54 said
“The reason why your locally grown produce seems to taste fresher than the supermarket variety, is not due to how it’s grown”
I disagree in some cases. Various types of produce have been bred to increase their hardiness and to resist damage during harvesting and transport. Take, for instance, a standard grocery store tomato – thicker outer wall and firmer so it will hold up as it gets across country. Ditto for apples and no doubt some others. In those cases home grown is better from the get. There is no comparison between a home-grown tomato and the average store-bought one, even if they are equally fresh.
53 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 9:22 pm
“annab // Aug 12, 2009 at 2:34 pm
An obesity tax is another excuse to create a nanny state and a way for the government to grow unchecked. Rather than taxing twinkies and french fries, why not advocate for healthier lifestyles and personal responsibility when it comes to eating. The government shouldn’t be in the business of coercing healthy behavior through taxes on products it deems ‘unhealthy’.”
Amen. We need to take that line of reasoning to the next step, which is that the government needs to stop subsidizing unhealthy behavior. By socializing the cost of unhealthy lifestyles through our quasi-socialized health insurance system, soon to be totally socialized it would appear, the obese are getting a free ride on the backs of the healthy.
54 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 9:28 pm
spartacus said;
“Since Reagan, conservatism has started to look more and more like libertarianism, which condemns practically all intervention and taxes by the government.”
Sir, those have always been conservative principles, going back to when conservatives were called Liberal in the 17th and 18th centuries. Where libertarians differ significantly is primarily on foreign policy and national security, and on social conservatism. May I indulge in a quotation of Thomas Jefferson:
“Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”
55 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 9:31 pm
spartacus said:
“the Right has endorsed anti-intellectualism (a.k.a. Palinism) . . . . ” and on and on ad nauseum.
My objection to your boring litany, besides its banality, is its monolithic treatment of “the Right.” Maybe someone else gets my gist and can explain it to you.
56 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 9:39 pm
spartacus said:
“But when real-world facts show that our view is wrong, most intelligent and reasonable people will question whether their ideological assumptions and theories are correct, and they will change their view. But most modern conservatives seem immune to this kind of introspection.”
Ah, yes, the old ‘If my opponent would only think rightly — that is to say, as I do — then he would recognize the error of his position, drop it forthwith, and immediately adopt mine, which is without a doubt the correct one, as supported by all the facts’ line of argument. This approach can quickly devolve into a pointless exchange between opponents who never hear what the other says. It is an exquisite expression of your intellectual arrogance. You have not demonstrated conclusively that your ideas are supported unequivocally by the facts, as you have convinced yourself you have done. Politics does not lend itself to such definitive resolution of questions. Your contention that you have done so is indicative more of your ignorance and ideological blindness than it is of the validity of your claims or the error of my principles and positions.
57 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 9:41 pm
spartacus said:
“It is possible that all conservative thought with which I am familiar is very poor.”
How generous of you! You have gone ahead and made my point, so there is no need of my elaborating.
58 Jim Pier // Aug 12, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Oops – sorry, the Jefferson quote came from his first inaugural address.
59 Spartacus // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Jim Pier: “My objection to your boring litany, besides its banality, is its monolithic treatment of “the Right.”
Your objection is to Frum’s boring litany because he is the one who made the argument that the Right has adopted Palinism, tax cuts as a panacea and hyperbolic inflammatory rhetoric as the GOP playbook. Of course, I agree with him and, apparently, most of America did too that last time it counted.
Your failure to cite any GOP/conservative leaders who eschew these approaches demonstrates you’re inability to disagree on the merits.
60 Spartacus // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Jim Pier: “It is an exquisite expression of your intellectual arrogance. ”
Strangely enough, I only feel arrogant and superior when exchanging posts with you.
61 Spartacus // Aug 12, 2009 at 10:53 pm
mchenise: “Yes, obesity is a problem in this country, but are zoning ordinances on fast food restaurants and excise taxes on HFCS really going to make that big of a difference?”
I don’t know about zoning ordinances, but if the experience with falling rates of smoking is any indication, tax increases will certainly have a substantial impact. At least that’s been the experience of California.
62 Jim Pier // Aug 13, 2009 at 12:08 am
Spartacus;
One more time, dragging Mr. Frum into your corner is not helping you. I suggest you either defend yourself on the merits or not at all.
“Your failure to cite any GOP/conservative leaders who eschew these approaches demonstrates you’re inability to disagree on the merits.”
Is that the case? Why don’t we begin with you providing me with support for your claim, as that is what is in dispute? As far as I’m concerned, there are no prominent conservatives who demonstrate the characteristics listed by you. (And don’t tell me ‘Frum says so’ please.) Since you began with the pejorative characterizations, give me specific people on ‘the Right’ who embody them. I will then either have to agree, or try to refute your case.
Spartacus said: “Strangely enough, I only feel arrogant and superior when exchanging posts with you.”
I suppose I was a bit too aggressive there. Sorry.
63 Jim Pier // Aug 13, 2009 at 12:22 am
spartacus:
“Of course, I agree with him and, apparently, most of America did too that last time it counted.”
Congratulations on the election. Yawwnn. Old news. Having won an election is not evidence of having been right. It is evidence of having somehow managed to tally more votes than the opponent. This could as easily be done by dishonesty, charisma, or bribery as by advocating good policy or showing leadership. What have the victors done with the power with which they have been entrusted so far?
64 greg_barton // Aug 13, 2009 at 1:41 am
Jim, did you say that when Bush was elected?
65 Spartacus // Aug 13, 2009 at 2:23 am
Jim Pier: “Why don’t we begin with you providing me with support for your claim, as that is what is in dispute? As far as I’m concerned, there are no prominent conservatives who demonstrate the characteristics listed by you.”
Tax cuts as an economic panacea: George Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al.
Anti-intellectualism (a.k.a. Palinism): George Bush, Sara Palin, Fred Thompson, Joe the Plumber, Sean Hannity, et al.
Hyperbolic, Inflammatory Rhetoric: Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, Joe the Plumber, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, et al.
66 Spartacus // Aug 13, 2009 at 2:34 am
Jim Pier: “Having won an election is not evidence of having been right. It is evidence of having somehow managed to tally more votes than the opponent.”
It is evidence that most people agree with the assessment that the GOP/conservatives are stuck on tax cuts, anti-intellectualism and hyperbolic, inflammatory rhetoric. It is not dispositive evidence, but it is strong evidence that, combined with the dispassionate confirmatory assessment of other GOPers such as Frum, Voinovich, Tom Davis et al, is compelling.
67 Spartacus // Aug 13, 2009 at 2:35 am
Jim Pier: “I suppose I was a bit too aggressive there. Sorry.”
Not a problem. Apology gladly accepted.
68 sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 8:29 am
Spartacus & Jim Pier: A political party runs out of steam when its platform ossifies into dogma, in which old policies continue to be invoked in new times without bothering to test their continued relevance. And what once was radical becomes obsolescent dogma eventually.
In the 1970s, the Dems were in that position. The stagflation, worsening balance of power in the world, and newly ignited culture wars were not susceptible to solution by New Deal policies, yet that’s all that the Dems had to offer–continuing homage to FDR.
By 2000, the Repubs were showing signs of that same ossification. The economy had grown substantially in the prior 20 years. Why did Bush need to propose yet more tax cuts? What problem were these tax cuts supposed to solve?
Supply-side economics, including tax cuts for the sake of igniting growth, which had helped jump-start a recovery in the 1980s, were less relevant now that many Americans paid more in SS payroll taxes than they did in income taxes. And the Cold War was over, leaving the GOP’s hawks with a lot less to do. They found their new enemy in Saddam Hussein (NOT so much radical Islam)–with disastrous results for the nation.
What are the major points in today’s GOP economic platform other than cutting taxes? is there ever a time, boom or bust, inflation or recession, when tax cuts are NOT a good idea?
69 DFL // Aug 13, 2009 at 10:15 am
You bring up good points and asked good questions, sinz. The Republicans have ossified. They have no real coherent program for the dire times in which we live.
70 hopitab // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:29 pm
One angle I think you didn’t consider: liberals will tend not to believe so much in the benevolence of agricultural practices, are more in favor of regulating food production and, lacking this, are probably more inclined to choose organic companies. A pro-business outlook tends to be more accepting of letting corporations regulate their pesticides and drugs.
71 Spartacus // Aug 13, 2009 at 5:55 pm
sinz54 // Aug 13, 2009 at 8:29 am – you’re right.
You must log in to post a comment.