Re Farm Bureau Positions
Charles Benbrook (benbrook@hillnet.com)
Wed, 6 Dec 1995 08:26:25 -0500 (EST)
Some may find it surprising that a national farm organization has taken
clear and strong policy stands on issues like gay rights, gun control,
equal opportunity, prayer in schools, etc, but Farm Bureau has and does.
Each year hriough a democratic, bottoms-up process, FB passes ploicy
positions from counties to state conventions, and then state's bring new
policy proposals to the national meeting, and if adopted, they become a
part of the very explicit annual American Farm Bureau statement of
official policies. Actions by FB staff at national level are then shaped
and constrained by national policy; in all my experiences with FB staff,
they have stuck to the precepts/principles in their national policy,
moreso than almost any group I know. Over the years many people have
wondered about some of the almost paranoid far-right wing policies in the
FB national policy statement; the explanation is simple, those active in
the FB (people who invest the time in leadership roles in the
organaization at all levels) tend to be well-off farmers, committed to ag
agenda, conservative and Republican, and social-conservative activists.
Don't forget that most FB positions deal with government's role in
shaping agricultural income, land use, and rights to pollute and degrade
natural resources (or use resources for personal gain, as a private
property holder sees fit); hence, it is not surprisingly that in the area
of social policy, FB would also continance a degree of gove't involvement
that others might find intrusive, regardless of your positions on a y of
the issues.
Another commentor offered an important insight -- FB is the most
powerful, conservative, and effective defender of ag and agribusiness
interests, and plays hardball in the political arena with the best of
'em. But it also sometiomes takes independent stands on issues that
surprise people. Case in point -- at June, 1995 Seante ag conservation
hearing, a state Farm Bureau President, testifying on behalf of his state
and the American (National) FB, called for a pilot program to provide tax
credits to farmers who increase the organic matter content of their
fields, plus sopme special cost-share/technical assistance.
Kurt Davies is right about FB on a macro-political level, in that
state and the Amer. FB Federation oppose strongly and effectively many of
the policy changes advocated by sus. ag propenents; plus, FB is among the
suppporters, and in some cases leaders, of political campaigns to roll
back environmental, food safety, and conservation laws that most in
conservation and envir. communities believe are important to achieving
the objectives they hold dear. I have dealt with FB and many of its key
staff people for almost 20 years; I respect them; they play to win and
usually do. I wish their organization would change faster within; some
state FB's have taken enlightened policy positions to the national
meeting, only to get voted down by other regional blocks of votes (Farm
Bureau works like the Senate; it is controlled to a large extent by
southern states, who vote/work as an effective block). Iowa FB brought
to the national a controversial plan to allow haying and grazing on CRP
land a few years back, a position that Nat. Cattlemen's association and
others worked with allies in FB to kill.
This discussion gets at an underlyiong reality. Conv. ag and
agribusiness is represented in Washington and state capitals by groups
with long-standing political bases, and in current climate, rising
political influence; sus ag and environmental/food safety concerns
typically are not. For awhile it looked as if national environmental
groups would engage ag issues as they have clean air and water, but they
did so fleetingly and now most are only tangentially involved, at least
realtively to the focus and effort they invest in their top priority
issues. Plus, national envir. orgs. as a group face declining
memberships, budgets, and badly need infusion of new ideas/approaches,
because the public has lost faith in big gov't regulatory approaches and
strategies -- but the public still cares about the environmental. There
is a vacuum building for new ideas/approaches. I doubt FB will move or
change fast enough to substantially contribute to new directions, but
rest assured, when someone else does, they will stand in the way of
change they do not feel is in their members' best interests, as set forth
in their policy statements.