American Food History

James McWilliams has an interesting post skimming the American past and our views of food. I think there could be another post on how eating new and different foods has been a mark of culture and class.  (Is it just coincidence that Tyler Cowen and Ezra Klein are both very much into food?)

Community Supported Agriculture--the Limits of Locavore

The Post had a brief mention (today or yesterday) of someone who had had a CSA agreement with a farmer.  Paid $750 but the farmer had problems, whether weather or management it isn't clear in my mind, and she ended up unhappy with the deal.  She's trying again this year with another farmer.

I think this points to one of the issues with the new-ag type ventures and, perhaps, one of the advantages of the much derided "production agriculture".  I'd make the leap and say it's similar to the problems with charter schools and public eduction.  Or, it's like the 1960's again when no one got fired for buying IBM.  I guess for you youngsters the almost modern reference would be no one got fired for buying Microsoft.

What am I talking about?  Call it the dominant paradigm, to dress the idea up in fancy jargon.  Production agriculture, the chain of big farms, big wholesalers, chain groceries is the dominant, the majority way most people in the US get most of their food.  The public school system is the way most children get their K-12 eduction. The IBM main frame used to define the word "computer", as Microsoft defines "personal computer".  Some people try to come up with a new and better idea.  Typically that involves lots of experimentation, lots of learning by failing, lots of people who con others or con themselves, lots of adversity. When DC opened up to charter schools, the Post had horror stories of abuses and failures for several years.

To simplify further, the dominant paradigm offers the consumer safety: what's being sold is known and you know you're very sure of getting it.  Venture outside that paradigm and you increase your chance of rewards but you also increase your risk of disappointment.

What a Politician Loves to Hear

I posted the other day about Robert Kagan's praising the Obama administration for its foreign policy, arguing it had mostly continued Bush policies, which was good, as he's on the right.  Today Matt Yglesias writes on foreign policy: " For a mix of good and bad reasons, the Obama administration has mostly gone in a different direction from Bush without really challenging the legitimacy of Bush-era policies as within the bounds of the American political mainstream."

In other words, people coming from different positions on the political spectrum think Obama's policies are good.  I say that's what a politician loves to hear.  In democracies, most of a politician's work is trying to persuade people he or she is on their side, assembling a majority in support of a position.  (The worst thing a politician can hear is what Secretary Vilsack is hearing these days: complaints from production agriculture about being abandoned; complaints from the greens about things not advancing fast enough.)

A Flashback Moment from Ezra Klein

Ezra Klein had a piece in the Post today, discussing reconciliation and the filibuster.  His piece, upon which I commented twice, brought back memories.  The Budget Reconciliation Act of 1974 was passed in a time of warfare between Congress and the President, and ASCS, the predecessor agency of FSA, was caught in the middle.  President Nixon made much more extensive use of impoundment than prior Presidents. If I recall correctly, he impounded the entire appropriation for the Agricultural Conservation Program, which was about $200 million.  Under this program ASCS shared the costs of performing "conservation practices" with farmers (yes, the principle survives in current programs).  Fiscal conservatives didn't like it because the practices sometimes (or often, depending on the viewpoint) increased production (like liming fields), which was at cross-purposes with the production adjustment aspects of other ASCS programs. For ASCS the impoundment was particularly serious, because commodity prices were high (Nixon had taken us off the gold standard and made the grain deal with the Russians and oil prices were rising--all of which boosted corn and wheat prices) so the agency wasn't busy.  Losing the ACP would probably have meant losing a third or so of the ASCS bureaucrats in the county offices.

It's my memory there was a court challenge to his impoundment authority, which he lost.  Impoundment looks very like a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court eventually disallowed. 

A separate historical thread was the "imperial Presidency"--in 1974 Congress had found its authority within our government waning.  It lacked staff, it was disorganized in spending and budgeting, Nixon was grabbing all the authority he could get.  So the 1974 Act was just one piece of the effort to make Congress operate better and redress the power balance between the President and Congress.  Of course,  Nixon's resignation in August confirmed the swing of the pendulum to Congress.

Good News from Africa

Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution links to two studies suggesting Africa is doing better than we expect, poverty is falling and statistics understate real improvements.

Turning the Soil

First day of working in the garden--spading one of our raised beds to have it ready for peas, onions, and lettuce.

Comity Because Congress People Stayed in Washington?

In discussions of why there is so much partisanship in Congress, one argument often heard is proximity: in the old days people stayed in Washington for weeks at a time travel was difficult which gave them the chance to get to know each other and develop friendships across party lines.


This bit from the 1930 blog doesn't undermine it, but it does point out the differences between now and the distant past--a 9 month Congressional vacation?

"The 71st Congress adjourned at noon Wednesday; the 72nd will convene in Dec., giving a 9-month respite from “legislative considerations.”

Normal Is Bankrupt

The Bank of Illinois, Normal, that is.

The Embrace of the Right

In today's Post, two conservative thinkers embrace the Obama administration's policies--Mr. Kagan on foreign policy and Mr. Gerson on education policy.  Toss in the possibility of a compromise on Gitmo and trying KSM in the civilian court system and the left will see Obama as running to the right.

As for me, I'm not terribly concerned about any of the above.  Some of the changes reflect lack of political support, some lack of realism about the world while campaigning, and some the more conservative side of his campaign. The "trick" for political leaders is to tack back and forth while still progressing towards their goals, to evoke a metaphor from reading Horatio Hornblower novels.  And so long as the choice on the Republican side runs from Mitt to Sarah, Obama has lots of running room.

Surprising Factoid of the Day

According to Joel Mokyr's The Lever of Riches, the Koran was first printed in the 20th century (i.e., Islamic or Arab culture resisted the printing press).