I’m not sure why—maybe it’s some desire for greater order or to compartmentalize things more—but I’ve found myself lately trying to figure out where the raw milk and the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) issues fit into our conventional political system. In other words, should people like Richard Hebron, Lori McGrath, Mark Nolt, and Greg Niewendorp be darlings of the liberals or the conservatives?
It’s intriguing to me that the discussion on this blog almost never breaks down (descends?) along political lines. There have been many opportunities, including my previous post about the huge Michigan/Federal expenditures in connection with bovine TB. Yet the comments on my previous post, which were in a sense about the politics of government spending, focused on nonpolitical themes–the seeming impossibility to truly controlling the disease in wild animals and about trying to think of the government agencies as the people (being paid the money) they really are comprised of.
I’ve always been intrigued with politics, having been a political science major in college. I actually took a government examination after I graudated and was interviewed about being a high-level bureaucrat. I received invitations to come work for a number of agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but when push came to shove, backed off. I really preferred journalism and writing. Imagine, though, I could be one of those FDA guys sending out warning letters to raw milk dairies or a USDA person writing up NAIS regulations!
Anyway, I’ve begun thinking about political labeling because I’ve had some feedback that both conservatives and liberals are uncomfortable with issues around the role of government in regulating, or over-regulating, the food supply.
As one example, I’ve posted a few of my blog items about Greg Niewendorp on FreeRepublic.com, which labels itself a “conservative” web site.
Here is one response: “Unlike most other people I don’t see the magic in the ‘small family farm.’ What’s so great about it? We have an abundance of inexpensive, safe, and reliable food. Gone are the good old days when fruit was so rare that people actually gave it as Christmas gifts. We’re better nourished and healthier than ever. So forgive me if I don’t lament the passing of the ‘small family farm.’”
To which another reader responded: “It’s a choice, see? What a concept–freedom. I realize freedom is an elusive concept around FreeRepublic these days.”
I’ve had a few conversations with dyed-in-the-wool liberals whom I would assume would be outraged by the government’s abuse of struggling farmers around the country and, while they aren’t as outspoken as the people on FreeRepublic, they seem similarly uncertain. Well, they seem to be saying, shouldn’t the government be protecting us from disease?
Now, obviously, this isn’t any kind of scientific sampling. But for all the cynicism that exists about the government, I sense a willingness to trust the authorities about matters involving food safety and nutrition. It’s very difficult for liberals or conservatives to conceive that the government would mislead them about something so basic as the science of disease.
We can probably say with a high degree of certainty that the founding fathers wouldn’t have a problem with raw milk—after all, it was a regular part of their lives—and would have a problem with tagging farm animals to enable the government to keep watch.
So is Greg Niewendorp a symbol for conservatives or liberals? Or libertarians? Maybe another question applies better: What is the politics of the germ theory? Whatever it might be, it seems to be at an early stage. Greg’s resistance to government “protection” makes both liberals and conservatives uncomfortable, so right now, he is alone politically in many ways.
To me, the matter of what farmers produce and what consumers purchase seems to come down to basic human liberties. These liberties were probably so self evident to the founders of our country that they didn’t even think to mention them in the Constitution.
***
There is a very interesting article in a newspaper called “The Bulletin”, which bills itself as “Philadelphia’s Family Newspaper”, about raw milk. The article is presented as a debate between pro and anti raw milkers, but what is curious to me is that it is one of the few such articles I’ve seen that avoids mention in its “anti” side of the propaganda that raw milk could kill you.
***
In response to Anna’s question about Joel Salatin’s latest book, “Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal”, I am in the midst of reading it. Lots of it pertains to things discussed on this site. More to come.
Of course when the big picture is keenly observed, very few of our beloved rules seem sensible. But we pay little attention to the big pictureits far too complicated, and besides, were never happier than when were busy controlling the world, so why cause difficulties with the process? Rule writers (and rule enforcers!) are paid by us to focus on narrow problems. They are paid, in essence, to see the trees, and to (aggressively, if necessary) ignore the forest. That explains why we simultaneously distrust government and support government programs. Ask an older person if government spends too much, and the answer will usually be Yes! Ask him, then, if he wants to see Medicare cut.
The founders chafed under senseless monarchic rule-making, and in response wrote a constitution that limited government powers. Where has that particular good idea gone?
David mentioned libertarianism. Personally, I support libertarianism because the libertarian ideal, at least in theory, is to put America back onto its constitutional foundation. I believe that the foundation-level fight is where the war must be waged, rather than at the __________ Department of Agriculture level.
Maybe were uncomfortable with the freewheeling America that the founders envisioned. Maybe individual liberty is too unnerving an idea for a people nurtured by a maternal government and paternalist businesses. Maybe weve come too far to change. Is that us?
For many people, perhaps change isn’t possible.
But I know I have changed my views over the past decade or so. I used to think it was marriage and motherhood that refocussed my views, but other experiences (changes in my health, disappointment in the Clinton admin well prior to the Lewinsky affair, learning more about how similar the two major parties really are in relationship to big business and lobbyists, etc., have further opened my eyes.
I was drawn to the Democratic party as early as age 11, when I marched around my neighborhood carrying a sign supporting McGovern for president on election day (my parents were one each Dem & Rep, but both usually voted Dem I think). Later I registered Dem, until a few years ago when I changed to no party affliation.
Neither of the two major parties reflect my views anymore, and I haven’t been captivated by any of the minor parties either. I suppose I have become more libertarian, but not to the point that I want to join the Lib party. It’s really frustrating to not have a "political homebase". So I have changed a lot, and it has made voting much, much harder. I don’t want to give away my vote just to use it, but no one seems to deserve it, either.
Here are his positions on a few related issues to this blog:
He’s Anti-NAIS – http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=463
He supports farmer/consumer rights –
He supports preserving health freedom – http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=920
His grassroots support is spreading like wildfire (even though the mainstream media hates to admit it). He’s raised more money than McCain and the military and veterans have contributed more to his campaign than any other candidate in the race.
It’s rare to find a politician who actually honors the oath of his office – Ron Paul does. Go Ron Paul!
Ron Paul is a different sort. He is drawing staunch support from people of all political stripes. He is this countries foremost defender of liberty and the only Presidential candidate who will turn this country around.
ronpaul2008.com
"The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. " — Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul400.html
"…are best described as…"