Politics and the Farmer

Agriculture has become heavily dependent upon public programs in research and education, direct price support, crop storage, subsidized exports, cropland diversion, and in other ways. These all cost money—large sums of money, even by contemporary rich American standards. Their continuance is based upon political power, or upon consent of politically elected representatives. If present programs should be cut off or substantially modified, this would have major impact upon farming as it is carried on today.

If new agricultural programs are to be adopted, a minimum of consent by political figures is required. Every line of economic activity depends to some degree upon the governmental environment in which it operates, but American agriculture today is peculiarly dependent upon government. Hence, a consideration of possible shifts in political power is extremely important.

The direct loss of political power is loss of voting delegates in national and state legislatures, from dominantly agricultural (and associated small-town) districts, who represent the agricultural interests of their constituents. This loss in turn grows out of two major changes under way: first, the changing population pattern, with actually shrinking total numbers of people in many farming and small-town locations, while population is growing in the larger urban complexes, especially in their suburbs; and, second, the political redistricting forced upon states by the Supreme Court, to provide essentially one vote per one man.

Agriculture and associated small towns lost about a dozen congressmen in the 1962 elections, as a result of the reapportionment following the 1960 census. Continued shifts in location of national population will almost surely force another major direct loss of congressional seats in rural areas in 1972, following the 1970 Census; and probably again in 1982, following the 1980 Census. Disagreeable as the 1962 adjustment was to many old-time rural politicians, it was but the forerunner of more to come.

Within several states, the loss of legislative-assembly seats from essentially rural counties or districts has been heavy. In several states, the first election after reapportionment meant that 50 percent or more of the old legislature were reapportioned or voted out of office. This can fairly be called peaceful revolution, when office holding changes on this scale. The shift in political power, growing out of such reapportionment, is largely away from rural areas, toward urban ones, but it also frequently has its conservative—liberal axis and its farmer—labor axis too.

At the national level, congressmen from rural areas at present have considerable vote-trading power. Urban congressmen, especially liberal Democratic ones, often need votes of rural congressmen for their programs; and in return they will support farm measures. Urban support of agricultural measures was conspicuous in 1965, when the Food and Fiber Act of 1965 was passed. Without support by urban congressmen, this measure would not have passed in the form it did.

But this critical vote-trading power might be lost ... If relatively liberal Democratic congressmen managed to get sufficiently established in their urban districts, and became sufficiently numerous, they might arrive at a point where they alone could put over desired programs. Or they might strike bargains with more or less liberal urban Republicans, or with somewhat less liberal Democrats, which they would consider less costly than the political bargains they would otherwise have to make with rural congressmen of either party. The shifts in political power within urban complexes, therefore, may be crucial for agriculture, and beyond the power of the latter to do anything about.

The loss in indirect political power is not just something for the national scene; it may occur at state levels also.

The indirect loss of political power will operate in another way also: within districts. Some, congressional or state legislative districts are so heavily agricultural and small-town that they can properly be classified as falling into this category. More commonly, however, many districts will have a considerable agricultural and small-town component, with a large component of distinctly urban electorate. If the former is dominant or strong, either numerically or in a critical balance-wheel role, then it may have considerable power in deciding who is nominated and who is elected, at state-legislative, congressional, state-office, and even at Presidential levels. But let it lose much strength directly, and it's in-direct strength in these directions dwindles, perhaps to nothing. No sane politician will "kick the farm and small-town voter in the teeth," but it is wholly conceivable that he will not court such a vote because it might well cost him more votes elsewhere.

The force of shifting political power acquires a sharp cutting edge in the growing competition for public, especially federal, funds for various purposes. It might be argued that an affluent society can well afford all that we need, and that the only problem is how to collect the necessary taxes. But it might equally well be retorted that we are a selectively affluent society at best, that large segments of the total population not only live in poverty but have rather dismal prospects for the future. There are many resistances to increased taxes, or even to high ones; and certain budget levels come to acquire strong emotional overtones. The years immediately ahead are likely to see some painful and bitterly disputed decisions between various federal programs.

Under these circumstances, increased public and political scrutiny will almost surely be directed at many federal programs, especially those involving large expenditures. How can the agricultural sector of our total society continue to justify mounting expenditures, or even high and steady ones, for agricultural programs, as the total farm population continues to shrink? More particularly, how can it continue to defend public expenditures that have been far more effective in helping to push up land values than they have been in aiding lower-income farm people who are in need of many basic services? So far, agriculture has largely avoided any really serious attack upon the total level of federal spending for agricultural programs. But there seem to be increased rumblings. Might the dam burst, and sweep away large parts of the present programs, primarily to save the money to use elsewhere where it would seem to benefit more people?

All of the foregoing forces and processes will operate toward greater future change in agriculture. They would seem to be very powerful, but only the next decade or two will test their power fully. It would be a serious mistake to ignore other powerful forces inhibiting or limiting the rate of change. Entrenched interests of all kinds always have considerable economic and political power. Such entrenched interests include far more than the farmers who have been the recipients, directly or indirectly, of federal agricultural programs. There is an extensive bureaucracy within the various farm organizations and in farm communities, as well as within the federal government, that has strong vested interests in agricultural programs.

Moreover, it must be recognized that in government the defending role is always easier to maintain than the offensive or changing role. Agricultural interests that could never succeed in getting a particular program established anew might well succeed in getting it continued, or even reauthorized.

What programs for agricultural and rural areas are politically acceptable to the nation as a whole, or which programs are acceptable to which parts of the electorate? What will be the balance between the political forces pushing for change in public programs affecting agriculture, and the political forces operating against change or against rapid change? How will these forces which are more or less directly operative for or against the agricultural programs be related to political forces on other national issues? We have tried to suggest some of the possibilities; others may well suggest different facts or relationships or directions, or may doubt our analysis. But we think that political forces may have as much influence upon the course of agricultural change over the next decade as will the forces of technology, economics, and social relationships.