May 28, 2002
His most recent entry links to this piece from the Los Angeles Times, an excellent summing up of the odiousness of the recently-passed farm bill—not just its bipartisan hypocrisy, but also the irrevocable damage it does to the lives of millions of people who are trying to play by the rules we claim to be promoting.
“This farm bill, I think it’s fair to say, will put millions of small farmers out of business in Africa,” said Mark Ritchie, president of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis. “They will have to move to cities and become part of unemployed labor pools.” […]You don’t have to harbor the now-endlessly-discredited notion that terrorism is a value-free “consequence” of Third World poverty to suspect that this kind of short-sightedness is, yes, a threat to our national security. Like Jim Henley, I don’t think the growing Indo-Pak crisis is necessarily a direct result of (for instance) our failure to cut Mushareff some slack on textile tariffs. On the other hand, if several million people in South Asia burn to death in radioactive fire, it’s going to be hard not to wonder if a little less concern for North Carolina’s electoral votes might have helped avert it. Likewise, just how many farm-belt Congressional seats, in both parties, are worth grinding down African farmers for another generation? America is a great country, bursting with high ideals, and governed by a bunch of babies. Grow up. [12:05 PM]Nancy Birdsall, president of the Center for Global Development, a Washington think tank, said the farm bill belies the “Horatio Alger” ethic that the U.S. encourages poor countries to embrace.
“We’re undermining our message about what our values are and what has worked in our country to bring about healthy development,” Birdsall said. “We’re creating another round of frustration.” […]
“It’s as though you have crippled economies, and you’re trying to get them back on their feet so they can enter the race,” she said. “And then, just before the race begins, you whack them back from the starting line.”
You ask:
"Likewise, just how many farm-belt Congressional seats, in both parties, are worth grinding down African farmers for another generation?"
I know the answer to that one:
There was a Tom Toles cartoon in 1991 wherein a pollster asked a Typical American a number of questions about the War for Oil. Paraphrasing from memory:
"How many American soldiers should die to keep gas prices down?"
"Uh..."
"How much should the US spend on a war to support Exxon's stock price?" "Well..."
"How many Arab civilians are you willing to see killed so that you can wear a t-shirt in the winter?"
"All of them."
But you know something? I don't think that's true.
In point of fact, a world in which the Typical American was actually willing to kill "all" Arab civilians in order to secure cheaper oil ... would look a lot different from this one.
I started a longer comment, but it somehow got eaten as I went to look at something else.
Anyway: True. I did feel, quite strongly, that American attitudes towards civilian casualties during the Gulf War tended to cluster around "indifferent" (with scattered outbursts of "well, they shouldn't be civiling when Saddam Hussein is in charge"), which is what fuels the humor of the comment.
I am certain that there are many members of Congress who, when faced with a choice between preventing the death through neglect of 10 million Africans or gaining a 5% lead over their electoral opponent would choose the prevention. But in my Werther de Gothe moments, I feel there are none.
I did notice Maass's weblog, from your blogroll, jumped up and down a bit and then bookmarked it. And Love Thy Neighbour was crucial for me too.
You're right to bring attention to it.
Hard-Hitting Moderator: Teresa Nielsen Hayden.
Comments on And yet: