DISCUSSION Sector As Personality: Reply Luther Tweeten

Luther Tweeten is Anderson Professor of Agricultural Marketing, Policy, and Trade, The Ohio State University, Columbus. He has published widely in the area of farm policy, including his books Foundation of Farm Policy and Farm Policy Analysis.

I have no major quarrel with William Browne's thoughtful elaboration on my article "Sector as personality" (1987). However, I do think that leaders of radical groups for the most part believe the rhetoric of their organizations. My reply is directed at Lundgren (1987). He mostly agrees with my position but is upset with me for not noting the worthy activism of the National Save the Family Farm Coalition (NSFFC). In my article, I was not speaking against individual activists or farm organizations which seek political change. I endorse efforts of individuals and organizations to cushion adjustments to financial stress through personal support systems, counseling, restructuring of debt, retraining, and job mobility assistance. I have been a strong supporter of the IFMAPS program formed several years ago in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Oklahoma State University providing personal and financial counseling--a program which has rescued many farm families. I also advise against a quick phase-out of farm commodity programs called for in early versions of the 1985 farm bill, which would have caused extreme hardship to many farm families. In my attack on nonsensical ideology, scapegoating, intimidation, and violence practiced by some farm groups, lack of space precluded listing the many good works performed by dozens of activist farm groups. I'm sure Lundgren recognizes the impossibility of listing worthy deeds performed by each organization but he says I need exorcism for falling to list those of the NSFFC. Although I did not discuss how social scientists should deal with activist groups which stop short of violence but display other objectionable behavior, Lundgren gives me an opportunity. First of all, working with such groups is a useful activity for social scientists and I have done so 96

on numerous occasions. I have refused to wave banners or otherise campaign for them, however. My role is strictly educational and advisory. They deserve the highest standards of objectivity and intellectual honesty social scientists can offer. Objectivity and refusing to become an advocate have costs. After I spoke to an activist group, one of the audience came to my office afterward to inform me they would first get power and then me! 11 am saddened to report that the most vicious and distorted of the verbal attacks have come from the liberal religious press. An extension economist at Kansas State University, never known for conservative socioeconomc or political views or for lack of compassion for stressed farm people, had to be protected by armed guard after threats of violence by a farm group. Much later, in an unrelated incident a load of manure was dumped in his office by activists after he made the correct statement that some farmers were doing well finacially. Lundgren might dismiss such intimidation as mere pranks---after all boys will be boys. Hooray for his satisfaction that some activist groups have dropped Jews from their most hated list! But how about bashers of the Trilateral Commission, Committee for Economic Development, the futures market, the grain trade, banks, multinational corporations, and other aribusinesses that are scapegoats for farmers' economic ills? Lundgren justifies making them villains in conspiracy because they compete with farmers. Compelling evidence reveals that agribusiness corporations are not the source of farmers' economic and social ills (See Tweeten, 1988; also Marion). Hence activists are engaged in false witness, a clear violation of Judeo-Christian ethics. Activist organizations provide a support system for each other, helping to overcome anomie.

Tweeten: Sector As Personality

That's good. But they support each otheCs sense and nonsense alike. The activists I have worked with strongly oppose adaptive policies of job counseling, human resource development, employment information, and relocation assistance to those few farmers who inevitably will need to find alternative employment. They strongly support the Harkin-Gephardt (H-G) "Save-the-FamilyFarm" Bill which I assume Lundgren calls the Family Farm Act. Lundgren's ethical standard is to support radical organizations if they benefit farmers. What about the welfare of consumers and taxpayers. The 600,000 commercial farms that today receive over 80 percent of farm commodity program benefits have an average net worth of $1 million per farm. In contrast the median net worth of all U. S. households is approximately $35,000. Under what code of justice does Lundgren sanction mandatory transfer under H-G of food dollars from the median consumer household to the average commercial farm? The Harkin-Gephardt Bill would raise farm prices to 80 percent of 1910-14 parity from the current 50 percent of parity by lowering production idling millions of additional acres that have value producing food but little value elsewhere. The lower output would lose far more jobs in the agribusiness sector than it would save in farming. Actual or potential assemblages of power by farm groups or agribusiness that threaten food supplies are anathema to most economists and to consumers. The H-G Bill would make multi-millionaires of many current farmers as benefits would be bid into land prices. But high land values would constitute a formidable barrier to potential new entrants, confining commercial farm entry largely to industrial-type corporations and sons of wealthy farmers. The Canadian mandatory control program for dairy has demonstrated that mandatory controls can hasten rather than slow the demise of family farms (Dvoskin). While I defend farmers' rights to promote H-G or other political agenda by peaceful means, I fail to share Lundgren's enthusiasm to wave the banner for an activist group promoting economic inequity and inefficiency. The bill would entail far greater expense to consumers than gain to farmers. A selfaggrandizing group has the right to ask; society has the obligation to say no. Lundgren stated that "if paranoid political beliefs are an understandable response to bad circumstances, there is no moral justification for stigmatizing every expounder of such beliefs • . . " It is understandable why farm extremists turn to scapegoating, vilification, intimidation,

and violence if they act out of ignorance, are rewarded by the political process for such behavior (and my review of past history indicates they have been rewarded though they also pay a high personal price), or lack moral fiber. But farm fundamentalism holds that farmers are the moral and social bedrock of the nation. We should expect some class, forbearance, and example from them. Not all sectors take to the streets when frustrated. For example, many agribusines industries have had higher failure rates than farmers in the 1980s and have been repeated victims of vilification. It would be understandable if they displayed some "dark side" personality. Yet, in dealing with hundreds of agribusiness people and organizations, I have never encountered an instance of scapegoating, intimidation, or violence. Although they are frequently at odds with farm people over policy, I have never heard them describe farmers or any farm group as diabolical or conspiratorial. Extremist farmers can constrain their behavior just as other groups have learned to control their behavior when faced with difficult circumstances where lack of restraint would be understandable. The world's progress in socialization and civilization is largely the product of learning self-control. Lundgren justifies farmers' vilification of agribusiness because agribusiness opposes the H-G Bill. That view will win friends among farm protesters, but it shows a disturbing lack of professional integrity. If farmers wish to vent their differences with agribusiness, social scientists should encourage them to campaign with facts and logic rather than the politics of hate. I believe that publicly employed social scientists in agriculture should serve society through agriculture. We search for that happy circumstance where what is good for farmers is good for society. Farmers who wish to aggrandize themselves at the expense of society rightfully should receive information from social scientists pointing out the implications of their policies. Advocacy of H-G by NSFFC to benefit farmers does not of itself make an organization worthy. My final point is that the ideology and tactics of farm protest movements are not devoted to equity, efficiency, democracy, or any other higher motive. They do not protest because that is their only means to be heard. The one common element of extremists' ideology and tactics is that they are self serving. Protesters advocate what increases their income, wealth, and influence. And because of the mystique called farm fundamentalism, society has rewarded them through legislation. In early 1979, I met in Oklahoma with leaders of the AAM from throughout the nation. They 97

AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES--SUMMER 1988

were amiable, bright, and generally a delightful group to work with. I told them they had little chance of winning 90-100 percent of parity prices and that a redirection of efforts to give momentum to Secretary of Agriculture Bob Bergland's structure policy initiative would better serve to save the family farm. I laid out a dozen or so policy options which if implemented would save the family farm. The policies rewarded small and mid-size farms and discouraged large farms. The leaders of AAM wanted none of that. They were set on the American Dream, a dream of wealth to be realized by 90-100 percent of parity. Even if they weren't large and wealthy farmers now, they wanted nothing to preclude them from becoming SO.

Notes

1. I explained in that meeting in early 1978 to AAM that if history was any guide, their strike would fail to control food supplies but would attract public attention and win

98

political support in Washington. They disliked hearing that their strike would fail but my prediction was on target--changes were made in farm programs adding $4 billion to farm income (Tweeten, 1979, Ch. 3).

References

Dvoskin, Dan. May 1987. "Some international experiences with mandatory supply controls." Agricultural Outlook. AO-130:29-33. Browne, William P. 1987. "Personality as Power: Reconsidering Tweeten's Sector Argument." Agricultural and Human Values. 4 (Fall, 1987); 43-46. Lundgren, Mark H. 1987. 'Tweeten as Exorcist: A Response to "Sector as Personality." Agriculture and Human Values. 4 (Fall, 1987); 47-53. Marion, Bruce. 1987. "Is the family farm being squeezed out of business by monopolies?" In Gary Comstock, ed., Is There A Conspiracy Against Family Farmers? Ames: Religious Studies Program, Iowa State University. Tweeten, Luther. 1988. "Is the family farm being squeezed out of business by monopolies? Another view." Pp. 213-243. In Ray Goldberg, ed., Research in Domestic and International Agribnsiness Management. Cambridge, MA: JAI Press. Tweeten, Luther. 1979. Foundations of Farm Policy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.