Comments on: The Populist Farmer, Revisited

By: polistra

polistra — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:22:11 +0000

The Voice of America’s Youtube channel has just added a really fine
feature on Borlaug’s 95th birthday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bF5PF-rri4

By: Caleb Stegall

Caleb Stegall — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:52:40 +0000

Response here.

By: Russell Arben Fox

Russell Arben Fox — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:23:47 +0000

Kevin, thanks for the comment, and for your small but necessary cheer for pragmatism when thinking about farming and agriculture. Defending the yeoman or organic farmer ideal is all well and good, but it’s just as important to be able to think practically about what sort of limited compromises will do the most real-world good to enable as many of us as possible to approach that ideal. For us, at least, about to begin our third year gardening our small plot, some fertilizer to supplement our compost pile still makes good sense.

Polistra,

When was the American family strongest, when was it most possible for an ordinary man to support a family with his own labor? From 1945 to 1970. In other words, after FDR sustained the family, and before LBJ and later presidents turned the paradigm inside-out. Before welfare ruined the poor and “economic efficiency” ruined the middle class.

Very well said. Of course, there were models of the “American family” which arguably were even stronger back in the 19th century, or earlier, but I sincerely doubt many of the people reading this site would genuinely want to live in a world where patriarchal authority was no unquestioned, where educational opportunities were so limited, etc. So the best way to put the question, I think anyway, is: “when was it most possible for an ordinary man to support a bourgeois or middle-class family with his own labor?” And, of course, you answered it: the twenty years or so after WWII, the hey-day of unions, the high-point of “buy American,” when welfare policies were, for the most part, strictly about supporting the economic life of families in the places they were, rather than breaking up those places (through trade, through busing, through ever-increasing suburbanization) in the name of greater growth or greater (ofttimes superficial) equality. Not that equality isn’t an important thing, but American welfare in the 60s and 70s was implicitly aligned with the rootless meritocratic ideal, rather than aligned with keeping families stable and wealthy and intact.

By: polistra

polistra — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:06:43 +0000

?The legacy of the New Deal–which always was far more about building economic security and solidarity than simply cutting welfare checks–included several programs that built upon the expected ability (and obligation!) of farmers to make wise use of their land, assuming the market would pay for and respect the kind of limited, disciplined work they were doing.”

Powerful and important point. Unfortunately, the talking points of both parties today can’t tolerate it. Both sides are determined to characterize the New Deal as a pure welfare program. One side hates it, the other side loves it.

However, simple experience shows your point to be true. When was the American family strongest, when was it most possible for an ordinary man to support a family with his own labor? From 1945 to 1970. In other words, after FDR sustained the family, and before LBJ and later presidents turned the paradigm inside-out. Before welfare ruined the poor and “economic efficiency” ruined the middle class.

By: Kevin Carson

Kevin Carson — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 06:20:41 +0000

Thanks, Russell. Actually, I’m fairly pragmatic myself. I don’t see much harm in using synthetic fertilizers on a supplemental basis, so long as it’s not on a scale that affects soil osmosis or supplants organic fertilizers as the primary broad-spectrum source of nutrients. And I use blossom set spray quite a bit, although purists don’t consider it organic.

By: Russell Arben Fox

Russell Arben Fox — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:28:51 +0000

Not in the Palouse; the panhandle of Idaho. More pine trees, mountains and lakes than southeastern Washington, but some beautiful, well-watered flatlands as well. Not quite as amazingly productive in terms of wheat farming, but pretty damn good dirt all the same.

By: D.W. Sabin

D.W. Sabin — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:36:22 +0000

Wow….1800 acres of the Palouse. in order to be geologically complete in your new Agrarian Republic, might I suggest that you drive that southern border right down to the Edge of the Great Basin and I’ll manage the look out on Steens mountain, as long as I can haul my parched consternation up to the north when I need some water and baked goods. Oh hell, lets just take the Great Basin too….but leave Vegas to the scavengers. That car ride from the Idaho Mountains down to and across the Palouse and then down the Columbia to the Pacific …in less than a day if you don’t dawdle tells a magnificent story in tones of burny yellow , brown and blue. It’s one of the best drives in a country of still great drives.

A cultural terrified of dirt thinks Terroir means Terror. What we need then, are a few Terroiristas to disabuse them of their unnatural fear of a single vowel called “i”. I shall smoke on it Russell, but never, never inhale.

By: Russell Arben Fox

Russell Arben Fox — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:17:48 +0000

Brett,

You’re welcome. I think this is actually one of the better posts I’ve ever written, and it holds up pretty well, despite being nearly four years old. You might be interested in reading the whole thing on my blog.

By: Brett Beemer

Brett Beemer — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:09:41 +0000

Russell,

Thank you for increasing my knowledge. An excellent post.