Base and Superstructure

Sebastian Mallaby observes of conservative/libertarian splits that "It's not just the values of the South that pose a problem. It is the region's appetite for government." In particular, "The most solidly red states in the nation tend also to be the most reliant on federal handouts -- farm subsidies, water projects and sundry other earmarks. It's hard to be the party of small government when you represent the communities that benefit most from big government."

Based on this analysis, Mallaby proposes a kind of Democrat/libertarian combined arms action to "cut senseless spending such as the farm program and oil subsidies to make room for the inevitable expansion in areas such as health." I'd be all for that, though I seriously doubt it would garner tons of libertarian support from Democrats since it seems to me that those libertarians interested in economic issues care more about Social Security and Medicare than they do about farm subsidies (and why not? the retirement entitlements are much bigger) and regard people who support raising the minimum wage as worse than Lysenko and only slightly better than Mengele.

That said, if you're looking for government spending that the GOP will never touch because it goes to "red" regions and to corporations that back Republicans, you should be looking at the Defense Department's budget which, obviously, dwarfs the Department of Agriculture in size.

Comments

Is there really a likelihood that the Democrats in Congress will cut the farm program? I only have a vague memory of these things, but as I recall, when the Republicans tried to eliminate much of the farm program in the mid 90s ("Freedom to Farm"), Democrats didn't like it. Of course, Republicans didn't end up liking it either and the passed several "emergency" farm subsidies before restoring permanent farm subsidies in the '00s. But I certainly don't recall seeing most Democrats on board for the cuts back when. Or am I misremembering?

Posted by Al | December 4, 2006 10:50 AM

I really doubt anything will ever be done to farm subsidies for so long as the Midwest remains the swing region.

Posted by Steve | December 4, 2006 10:55 AM

"Is there really a likelihood that the Democrats in Congress will cut the farm program?"

Obviously not. The way we elect the Senate means neither party can afford to support cutting farm subsidies.

There ought to be a FAQ about this stuff. The only politically viable way farm subsidies will ever be substantially cut is through some type of GATT-like trade treaty which would force farm subsidy cuts in exchange for broader trade liberalization.

Blame Roger Sherman.

Posted by Petey | December 4, 2006 11:06 AM

Hey now, we need those aircraft carriers to protect us from the suitcase bomb.

Posted by JP | December 4, 2006 11:32 AM

Is there really a likelihood that the Democrats in Congress will cut the farm program?

No, there's no way. Farm states are overrepresented in the senate, and the ag committees in both house and senate are totally dominated by farming constituencies.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | December 4, 2006 11:50 AM

That's what I thought. So, of the two specific items that Mallaby lists as items that could be supported by "realistic libertarians" and are a "plausible agenda for the Democratic Party", one is ridiculous. Good column, Mallaby!

Posted by Al | December 4, 2006 12:03 PM

If Democrats become the party of slashing corporate welfare, and Republicans are already the party of slashing welfare for real people (a proposition I find unappealing), who is going to become the party of slashing the bloated Pentagon budget?

At some point a major power has to choose between guns and butter, empire and entitlements (unless you want to re-legalize slavery). We know which the Europeans chose.

I would hope to see the Democrats become the party of tough love in the world, a new republicanism premised on demanding that other governments provide for their own people and security in exchange for favored trading status, investment, and aid.

But that works both ways. It means America and the west can no longer be codependent with the gulf states for our energy needs.

It means Saudi sheiks spending a lot less money on palaces, Porches, and Russian prostitutes, and a lot more on education and economic development. It means the Latin Americans learning how to manage their own damn natural resources so they aren't calling Exxon-Mobil three and a half years after they periodically nationalize everything. It means realizing that America is not going to bail you, your regime, or your country out if you fuck up.

Posted by Linus | December 4, 2006 12:03 PM

Well, to an outsider it seems U.S. liberals and libertarians might be able to collaborate on one thing: reducing the size, cost and power of the federal government -- at the expense of local government... If farm subsidies (and federal taxes!) were cut, rural states would presumably still want to assist their farmers.
---
It would be easier to satisfy the conflicting needs of the various Dem interest groups (to some extent a coalition of minorities), if more issues were resolved at the state level. E.g. gun rights. Montana and Rhode Island would both experience less (federal-) government meddling.
---
The bottom line is the current system (U.S. Senate, Constitution, electoral votes for president etc.) is rigged in favor of culturally conservative rural states, and there are numerous roadblocks against good progressive federal government. I think it would be better for urban progressives, Hispanics, blacks, sexual minorities and (yes-) libertarians to take the fight to the state/city level instead. Why not essentially give up the "big intrusive, expensive federal government" turf to Southern cultural conservatives. If the 2006 elections are any indication, the Dixie Republicans will alienate voters in other parts of the country.

MARCU$

Posted by MARCU$ | December 4, 2006 12:23 PM

I believe Newt Gingrich, in what Brad DeLong described as "One of his brief forays among the children of light" actually tried to tackle the farm subsidy system, but to no avail. Clinton successfully lowered subsidies, but when Bush took office the GOP restored subsidies to their pre Clinton levels and even expanded them further.

Not only are Ag/Farm interests well represented in Congress, they will be an especially powerful voice in the upcoming Democratic congress.

Posted by DRR | December 4, 2006 12:23 PM

Dem's have made efforts over the years to reform the farm subsidy program so that it benefits small farmers rather than the large, corporate farms that currently benefit most from the system. Not sure about the numbers off the top of my head, but I seem to remember that it is something like 80% of the subsidies go to a relatively small percentage of very large corporate farms. The proposal that got shot down last time around was capping subsidies at around $100K a year.

Posted by JDS | December 4, 2006 12:26 PM

I think the entitlement programs are more important to the stability of the U.S. system, though I think farm subsidies are more morally odious, for the reasons Brink cites in the article Mallaby's flogging. But over Tom Harkin's cold dead body.

The law of demand denialists are clearly worse than Mengele.

Posted by Will Wilkinson | December 4, 2006 12:29 PM

Is there really a likelihood that the Democrats in Congress will cut the farm program?

No, but the program could be reformed to target subsidies to smaller farmers rather than large absentee landowners and Archer Daniels Midland. For instance, upstate New York has a sizable number of small farms, and some degree of crop diversity, yet doesn't seem able to swing the subsidies that the large-scale corn monoculture in Iowa does. Perhaps there's a chance of reform now that Senator Grassley, one such large absentee landlord, is in the minority party. I'm sure neither incoming Chairman Harkin nor Senator Ben Nelson, for instance, would object to revisting the funding of massive overgrowing of corn in the Midwest. (Perhaps Leahy can smack some sense into them.)

And I'm sure Democrats could get Libertarians on board for another "peace dividend," since many Libertarians apparently think that national defense is all the federal government should do. Remember, even Henley argued that "big government" is by definition a threat to civil liberties, as opposed to a government that merely controls a titanic military.

Posted by mds | December 4, 2006 12:55 PM

Matt -- THANK YOU for the last sentence in the writeup. Farm subsidies, like "free trade", are one of the old "pro-market" warhorses that WashPo editorialists and other "centrists" drag out to co-opt the left. I mean, ag subsidies as currently structured are a bad idea in many ways, but as an issue they pale in comparison to an entire semi-socialist military economy taking up 5+% of GDP. Not to mention that a chunk of farm subsidies are simply transfers, while a lot of military spending is pure waste.

Posted by MQ | December 4, 2006 12:56 PM

And the libertarians bring, what, 2% of the electorate to this "alliance"?

How about we deal with the elephant in the living room- the MILITARY budget- before we worry about any of that stuff. When will our wankertarian friends get on board with THAT?

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 4, 2006 1:25 PM

"Farm states are overrepresented in the senate, and the ag committees in both house and senate are totally dominated by farming constituencies."

And, of course, there's the little matter of the Iowa caucuses, which assures that at least a dozen non-Midwest Senators swear their undying fealty to Big Ethanol.

But defense spending is really the problem here, and it's especially the problem because the Wise Men of Washington are so heavily funded by defense contractors. Think Tim Russert or Chris Matthews are gonna challenge the conventional wisdom on the boondoggle that is the Joint Strike Fighter when their paychecks are coming from GE Aviation/NBC?

Posted by jkd | December 4, 2006 1:27 PM

And, of course, there's the little matter of the Iowa caucuses, which assures that at least a dozen non-Midwest Senators swear their undying fealty to Big Ethanol.

One interesting point here is that Hillary Clinton has spent most of her first term in the Senate voting against ethanol subsidies. This hasn't been picked up by the media yet, but with said Iowa caucuses coming on the horizon, we may begin seeing TV ads and lines in other Democrats' stump speeches referring to the matter.

Posted by Chris | December 4, 2006 1:40 PM

One interesting point here is that Hillary Clinton has spent most of her first term in the Senate voting against ethanol subsidies.

Hm. This could be a plausible instance of "small New York farmers vs. Midwest corporate farms" in play. After all, some corn is still grown in New York, just not on the same scale. So her opposition could be used to illustrate that even small corn farmers aren't helped much by the current system. It also means, as Chris alludes to, that Senator Clinton is probably not counting on a strong showing in Iowa.

Posted by mds | December 4, 2006 1:57 PM

Isn't the WTO going to force us to reduce farm subsidies?

Posted by miguel | December 4, 2006 2:00 PM

It also means, as Chris alludes to, that Senator Clinton is probably not counting on a strong showing in Iowa.

Why wouldn't Hillary be counting on a strong showing in Iowa? I mean, her appeal isn't particularly geographically-centered, or issue-centered, such as to make Iowa particularly difficult for her (as opposed to, say, New Hampshire or South Carolina or Arizona), is it?

Posted by Al | December 4, 2006 2:00 PM

Al,

I assume because Vilsack is running.

Posted by Rich C | December 4, 2006 2:40 PM

Vilsack is running for the nomination. I think a fair chunk of the Democrat nominees will only put in token appearances in Iowa.

Posted by daveNYC | December 4, 2006 2:43 PM

"Sebastian Mallaby observes..."

Hey, I mysteriously dozed off after reading those first three words. Did I miss any valuable insight relevant to actually-existing Earth? No? Go figure.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 4, 2006 2:55 PM

Why wouldn't Hillary be counting on a strong showing in Iowa?

[Counts slowly to eleven]

Because Chris noted that she has voted against ethanol subsidies, and the corn monoculture that has swallowed much of Iowa enjoys suckling at the ethanol subsidy teat in addition to the regular farm subsidy teat. Voting against the current agribusiness subidy program in any form is usually the kiss of death in Iowa.

Oh, and yeah, Governor Vilsack, who helped deliver Iowa for Kerry, is running. Even if another candidate enjoys broader popular support, Vilsack has an automatic edge in the inside baseball of the caucus process.

Posted by mds | December 4, 2006 3:23 PM

"Oh, and yeah, Governor Vilsack, who helped deliver Iowa for Kerry, is running."

[Counts slowly to twelve]

Vilsack is running expressly to help HRC.

Posted by Petey | December 4, 2006 3:48 PM

That's certainly been my working hypothesis, Petey, but I'm interested in that "expressly". Has someone in the know actually spilled the beans about this?

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 4, 2006 4:11 PM

Vilsack is running expressly to help HRC.

[Counts slowly to thirteen, then divides by the square root of -1]

Yes, but the original point was that votes against ethanol subsidies are not the way to curry favor in Iowa.

OTOH, Vilsack could use his "inside baseball" to help Clinton offset this in the caucus. But how does he help her by running in Iowa? He builds a strong set of delegates, but secretly instructs them to caucus with Clinton delegates? Hmm, I was going to note how unlikely this is, but as I actually type it, it becomes disturbingly plausible.

Senator Clinton will still probably want to "flip-flop" on ethanol, though, if she wants to maximize her chances.

Posted by mds | December 4, 2006 4:13 PM

Well, here is a fairly interesting comment from NRO's Corner:

"The idea of liberals aligning with libertarians is based on their common hostility to American foreign policy. That was true in 1950, and it’s true today."

"What’s the reason those swing voters went D this time? Iraq – something libertarians oppose on dogmatic and philosophical, rather than prudential, grounds. One can always count on virtually all libertarians and a major slice of liberals opposing any US foreign intervention, and this is what has caused three generations of libertarians to imagine a new libertarian majority right around the corner."
[...]
"A broad lib-lib coalition would be based on a strict non-interventionist foreign policy which is often difficult to distinguish from leftist anti-Americanism. Wonder why Lindsey doesn’t go into that."

Some of the most annoying libertarians ("Instapundit" and Mark Steyn spring to mind...) are also great fans of the "Global War on Terror" but apart from that, I think it's a fair characterization. I also think a strong case can be made for non-interventionism in the Middle East, since the region essentially is a poor backwater that has few things going on for it apart from fossil fuel deposits (and these will become less important anyway).

MARCU$

Posted by MARCU$ | December 4, 2006 4:15 PM

I guess the operative theory is that since Hillary is in a bad position in Iowa, Vilsack is running solely to take Iowa "off the table," thus obscuring the fact that they don't like Hillary there. While this might be the case, I wonder if there's any support for it aside from Petey's Grand Unified Theory.

Also, I think people assume too quickly that Iowa will automatically go for Vilsack. A lot of people in Iowa get that Vilsack isn't a plausible national candidate and aren't in a hurry to proclaim themselves irrelevant by blindly supporting the local guy.

Posted by Steve | December 4, 2006 4:19 PM

"That's certainly been my working hypothesis, Petey, but I'm interested in that "expressly"

"Expressly" has two main definitions.

I'm not using the word in the sense that Vilsack has owned up to the rationale behind his campaign. (He obviously can't.)

I am using the word in the sense that acting as HRC's agent is Vilsack's purpose, to the exclusion of other rationales.

Posted by Petey | December 4, 2006 4:35 PM

"I guess the operative theory is that since Hillary is in a bad position in Iowa, Vilsack is running solely to take Iowa "off the table"

It's not about taking Iowa off the table. Vilsack isn't going to be able to do that in the way Harkin did in '92.

The calculus here is manyfold, but there are two primary factors:

- It's about reducing the number required to win Iowa. HRC has a pretty high floor in Iowa. She's much better off in a race where she can win with 30% than in a race that requires 40% to win. In all the early states, the more crowded the field is with serious candidates, the better off HRC is. And Vilsack will definitely be able to help crowd up Iowa.

- It's about neutralizing the Culver machine, which is weakly aligned with Edwards at the moment. Vilsack has been able to deliver Iowa in '00 and '04 by his whipping the party loyalists. Now that he's no longer in charge of the state machinery, his Presidential bid will attempt to suck up half of the loyalists away from wherever Culver is trying to send them. In neutralizing Culver, Vilsack helps remove a very powerful possible obstacle to HRC.

Posted by Petey | December 4, 2006 4:50 PM

As Stalin might have said, "How many divisions do the libertarians have?" Libertarians are a lot more numerous on the Web than in real life.

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 4, 2006 5:08 PM

I'd like to see some of this "circumstancial evidence." Occam's Razor certainly points in the other direction.

Posted by Steve | December 4, 2006 5:11 PM