August, 2019
Lincoln -- Most presidential candidates have now had ample opportunity to explain their understanding of our country's current food and agriculture situation. It's time to give them grades on their policy proposals.
I'm fairly tough when it comes to grades, to which many of my former students can attest. An A is hard to come by. I don't hesitate to give a C or D when the work just doesn't measure up. The F is not unknown. The Incomplete allows a limited time to make amends.
In determining the grades, I will be looking at whether the candidate understands why food is important to health, where rural policy fits into the candidate's priorities, and the specificity and workability of any proposals.
Ryan: A-. Ryan is one of the few candidates who prioritizes rural policy, connects it to healthy food production and distribution, and has workable solutions for improving rural economies.
Buttigieg: B+. Very close to A territory. Needs more articulation on why food policy is critical to health policy.
Biden: B. The Biden offering is strong on prioritization and specificity. It appears as if he had considerable help in doing his homework from agriculture experts who know conventional policy and program issues, which is expected given his experience and contacts as vice president. To his credit, he notes the seminal work of the St. Louis Fed on regional markets. He is weak on the linkage between food and health, as he does too little to stress that poor nutrition is a cause of poor health.
Warren: B-. Warren's plan is well-integrated into her other priorities, such as breaking up monopolies. She also knows the history of the rural roots of the progressive movement. She is surprisingly lacking on the role of nutrition in health matters.
Gillibrand: B-. Gillibrand gets credit for considerable specificity and knowledgeability, which reflects her membership on the Senate Ag Committee. The grade might be higher with more attention to nutrition.
Klobuchar: B-. Klobuchar barely escapes a C. She sits on the Senate Ag Committee and comes from a key rural state, which raises expectations. Her offerings suggest that they were talking points left over from the last Farm Bill mark-up session, a bill that is proving to be woefully inadequate. She is weak on appreciating the role of healthful food in public policy.
Hickenlooper: B-. Good on prioritization but little thought is given to the role of nutrition.
Booker: B-. Good on conservation, but lacking elsewhere.
Delaney: C+. More rhetoric than substance.
Sanders: C. Sanders' rural policy is too much of an afterthought to his other issues.
O'Rourke: C-. Although O'Rourke sometimes speaks knowledgeably about food policy, he is weak on details and wont to raise rural issues only in connection to climate change.
Inslee: C-. Inslee is strong on the role of agriculture in climate change, but shows little interest in other aspects of rural policy.
Williamson: D+. The candidate at least made a strong first debate statement about the relevance of food to health.
Harris: D. Seems not to have thought much about food and agriculture.
Castro: D. A former cabinet secretary should have more to say if he expects to compete in rural America.
Gabbard: D-
Yang: D-
DeBlasio: F. He has made no apparent effort.
Trump: F. The President's food and agriculture policies have been disastrous by any measure.
Bennet: Incomplete. Bennet is headed for a D if he doesn't raise his game. Coming from Colorado, rural policy should be one of his strengths. He gets a temporary reprieve because a hospitalization set his campaign back, but time is running out.
Bullock: Incomplete. Bullock got into the race late. Likely he can get help from his fellow Montanan, Senator Jon Tester, a farmer, but Bullock needs to show more rural policy bona fides.
At the Iowa State Fair, candidates had a chance to press their cases on food and agriculture policy. But according to at least one account, from The Daily Iowan, they didn't rise to the occasion.
Of course, when the media know little about the issues and ask candidates instead about the distractions and affronts du jour, it's hard to raise the bar. Too bad the Fair crowds had to settle for a few candidates' comments about Trump's misguided China tariffs – for which rural America is suffering – and did not have the benefit of Warren's thoughts on supply management, Gillibrand's call for farm "parity," Buttigieg's plans for carbon sequestration supports, or Biden's ideas for a significant expansion of the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP).
Which is not to say there is not some excellent reporting going on. Helena Bottemiller Evich continues to lead the pack in insightful analyses of food and agriculture policy. Her latest coverage of troubles at USDA* should be grist for candidates to show what they can do to earn the votes of all Americans who care about such matters.
Which must be all of us.
___________________________
* The resignation of Dr. Lewis Ziska from USDA's Agricultural Research Service, as much as any other single event, represents the triumph of politics over science in federal agencies. Thanks to Ms. Evich for covering it.
