Vilsack Best Possible Secretary of Agriculture

I am not just saying this because Tom and I are serving as fellow Fellows are Harvard's Institute of Politics and have been teaching together all fall. I am saying this because I have made an incredibly good friend in Tom and his wife Christy, and he is everything a public servant should be.

At a time when Obama's Senate seat seems to have been for sale by an overly-blown-dry Senate seat salesman, the Governor of Illinois, there could be no greater contrast than former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. Governor Vilsack has integrity through and through. He is impeccable with his word, and is open about his thoughts. He also has an incredibly unusual quality for a politician (if he even is one): he listens. He has listened to my ideas all semester, conversed with me about life and the election, often joined by his savvy and intelligent wife, and he respects other people. I am younger and more female than Tom- - he doesn't notice. I know this sounds funny, but usually middle aged white guys notice things like that.

Tom relates to young people: his classes were filled. Tom taught a study group on "Risk and Responsibility," helping to educate students about the responsibilities of an excellent public servant and citizen.

Tom and I talked a lot about what is needed in the Secretary of Agriculture in the Obama administration. It's not a job about bad fish from China, although that is part of it. It's not just a job about mad cow beef, although that's included. One of the greatest terrorist threats the U.S. faces from overseas or internally is in tainted killer food. I learned from Governor Vilsack that our food intake is not protected to the degree it should be, and that people need to use scrutiny in this regard.

Tom understands the obesity issues that cause the top (and most preventable) diseases.

Tom ran briefly for President, and I saw him in that capacity in New Hampshire before I knew him. He was impressive, but not the celebrity of Senator Clinton (whom he endorsed) nor Senator Obama (whom he later endorsed quickly when the race narrowed and he deemed it appropriate based on his long standing relationship with the Clintons). Tom was one of a handful of fully supportive, active surrogates for both candidates, traveling every weekend to stump for Obama this fall. Still a bit shy, Tom could shine for them in a way his modesty didn't allow him to do for himself.

That's my take on Tom. Plus, how many governors don't even flinch when you call them by their first name the first time you ever meet them?

A blogger just called this a puff piece. I beg to differ. It is insight into a public servant's character. If the democratic party weren't so polarized right now, progressives and centrists could agree that character matters, particularly in light of current extreme ethical breaches in government and finance.

One more note to the people who think I am naive about what part of the political spectrum Secretary-of-Agriculture-appointee Tom Vilsack represents. Let's just remember how the far right influenced and moved President Bush to their causes through intimidation by people way outside the mainstream center on a variety of issues. Some would say it led us to war. Others would say it's why we can't figure out if we're in a recession or a depression. My only caution is that politics goes both ways. There are people in the middle who would rather worry about the Obama Cabinet's trustworthiness and ability to represent the whole country rather than just serve as ideologues.

Comments

[jhbeck23]

I read this article a week ago and thought, oh, good, another fine choice by Obama. Now from everything I'm hearing I think this may be his one big clinker. Rick Warren's wrong on gays and much else, but he gets a couple of minutes and may use it well. Gov. Vilsack would get to shape policy for at least four years, and he's been wrong on almost everything that matters to me.

[bswell]

It would be preferable to have a Secretary of Agriculture than to have a Secretary of AgriBusiness.

Being a good colleague at Harvard is really not enough of a recommendation for this position.

[Tags]

We don't need a secretary of Monsanto. We need someone who'll help farmers who grow real food survive against the big agribiz conglomerates.

[castrochavez08]

In an era where forward thinking people are embracing organic food, food with less pesticides and steroids, the Vilsack pick is nuts.

Factory farms produce more pollution killing our rivers, terminator seeds are a crime against nature, and our livestock is pumped full of chemicals.

The battle between good food and corporate food has been a slow steady march of death for family farms.
Every step of the way, Monsanto was on the wrong side. Every step of the way, Vilsack was on the side of Monsanto. Their Biotech Institute named him Governor of the Year. How nice.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15573.cfm

[Steroids]

Go to Iowa. Smell the hog-lots as they pollute the air. This is Vilsack country. This will make you sick (literally).

[pamelagerloff]

Re: "There are people in the middle who would rather worry about the Obama Cabinet's trustworthiness and ability to represent the whole country rather than just serve as ideologues."

This kind of thinking is precisely the problem. Reasonable agriculture and food policy positions, which most Americans support, get characterized as views promoted only by [politically progressive] ideologues. That is simply not true. Mainstream Americans, when given the facts, don't want big agribusiness determining food and farm policy; food that makes them obese and unhealthy; small farmers to be unable to make a living; or agriculture policies that allow damage to the ecology and environment.

They want healthful, affordable food; an economy that's viable for "regular" people (including small family farmers AND people who grow organic!) They want ecologically-friendly agriculture and communities where they and their children can be more connected to the land and natural environment. That is MAINSTREAM--not "ideology".

Non-ideological policy responds to the real, underlying wishes and needs of the people. It doesn't polarize by labelling big agibusiness supporters as mainstream and treating as "ideologues" those who want balanced policies that will enable smaller farms to thrive, and will help create a healthier culture--physically, economically, environmentally, and emotionally/psychologically--for individuals, communities, and society.

Agriculture policies that represent the whole country would not cater to big business and special interests. Those who insist that the whole country be represented are not "ideologues". They are people voicing what the Obama campaign was all about.

[swkidder]

Pamela: Bravo - and all true. And we'll see if Vilsack is willing to use his knowledge of Monsanto to "redirect" the company that is currently the single biggest obstacle to healthy 21st century global agricultural practices on the planet. The "Science" is absolutely clear on which approaches to farming can actually be most successful in feeding 3rd world countries - and it's not factory farmed GMO crops. Of course, Monsanto's "studies" say something quite different.
If Vilsack is as willing to listen to those who really do understand how to formulate, support, and direct the policies that could spread sane agricultural practices - as he was to listen to the author - then I would agree that "good guy" can go a long ways in the right direction. The proof will be found in the "rBGH" free pudding.

[Bonobo]

But Jennifer, if you title it "Best Possible Candidate", and then the only policy positions you mention are that he opposes terrorist food and obesity, then it kinda is a puff piece.

Character is important, but it's more than just being a nice guy, and lecturing kids on being responsible, and not looking down your blouse. Philosophy and record matter more in this context, and there Vilsack shows a distinct lack of conscience or courage. For both environmental and humanitarian reasons, American agricultural policy is critical to improving the human condition, and yet again Mr. Obama has dropped the ball.

[shaunhaney]

What I don't understand is how people think that it would be better if he hated Monsanto or Syngenta.

[Netizen]

Okay, he's a great guy. Does he know what he needs to know about AGRICULTURE? Am sick of hearing how WONDERFUL politicians are. I want to know what they know and don't know.

[mnyegele]

I erred. I should have said Vilsack, not Vislack. Sorry. It's a simple letter reversal.

[mnyegele]

My big concern with Vislack as Secretary of Agriculture involves his endorsement of celluostic ethanol. I hope he is not endorsing or promoting corn ethanol. That's a lousy option. Swith grass has more promise because it grows well on marginal land. I am glad that Vislack has some interest in biofuel, but whatever we choose should not compete with farm land. He could also consider producing fuel from specially bred bacteria or algae.

[Bonobo]

All biofuels are ultimately inefficient. Photosynthesis is no more than 3% efficient at best (generously). It would take some serious genetic engineering to up this, and we barely have any idea where to start. At that level, you could use the same land area for photovoltaic electric production (~20% efficient, and improving) and make synthetic fuel, and still come out ahead. Not to mention what you could do with wind energy. If you really need a liquid fuel in the first place, rather than just a battery.

[mikies]

I expect no help from the Dept of Ag with Vislack at the helm. As it has been for so many years regardless of administrations, the REAL CHANGE comes from the activists and organic farmers in the fields. Safe, healthy,sustainably-grown, pesticide-free foods, means more to us, because our lives and health depend on it and we know it. The Dept. of Ag with Vilsack is unlikely to embrace this as a model for wise use of the land or the production safe and healthy foods. They are incapable, and maybe unwilling (or not allowed) to connect the dots. I'm quite certain the agri-business-biotech industry would like to genetically modify humans, to create round-up ready humans which can eat their round-up ready foods.

Everything that Obama may have wanted (and perhaps somewhat believed) when he began his presidential run, is so far back on his list, that right now and for the next 4 years it will be nothing but economics, the economy, climate change jobs, etc at the expense of all other things that matter. Least important is safe sustainable agriculture. Vilsack will deliver more of the same. Obama won't even have time to look. That's the lost opportunity of Vilsack's selection.

[believe it]

Please read the articles posted at the Huffington Post by Jeffrey M. Smith, in particular,

OBAMA'S TEAM INCLUDES DANGEROUS BIOTECH "YES MEN"

Then, please browse the website seedsofdeception.com

Additionally, the film THE WORLD ACCORDING TO MONSANTO is essential viewing for all informed individuals, and the books GENETIC ROULETTE and SEEDS OF DECEPTION.

Then visit http://www.gmwatch.eu/ and http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/ where you should perform a search on 'gm foods.'

You'll change your mind.

[honeyguy]

I too am sorely disappointed with Vislack's nomination having spent some years now investigating the die off of the honeybees. I and many others,beekeepers and researchers, have concluded that the evidence points to genetically modified farm crops, and the use of Bayer and Monsanto seed treatments with nicotine analogs. I am notifying my lawmakers that this nomination is completely unacceptable.

[JohnnySacks]

Glad to see how easily one is given the benefit of the doubt no matter how many other MUCH more qualified people are available for the position.
I never had to change my mind, all I see is how Visack and Monsanto are arm in arm.
Monsanto, who produces a GM corn which can survive being doused in Round-Up and demands the purchase of the Round-Up along with the corn seed (because the chemical in Round-Up is readily available anywhere)
How much do they care how much Round-Up ends up in our food either directly or through the beef, pork, or chicken the chemical is fed to?
How much do they care how much Round-Up ends up in our wells? (he shrugs, at least not my well)
How much do they care how much Round-Up ends up flowing into the Carribean and poisoning the ocean? (he shrugs, at least not my ocean)
Monsanto, who sues neighboring farmers for patent infringement when the breeze tresspasses GM pollen from the Monsanto crop onto another farm and cross pollinates the non-Monsanto plants, AND WINS!

Thanks for the 'Change We Can Believe In' Obama, I hope Monsanto-Tom proves otherwise, but hope will always be a cheap emotion to be traded for political favors.

[mcjorich]

Vilsack and Salazar, what a pair to draw to. We need protection for our foods, the ag Sec has been allowing the FDA to use food additives like stupidity, no wonder IQ's have dropped, Bush trying to level the playing field.

Then Salazar, a sycophant for gas and oil development... he's been bought and paid for by them for a long time. If the choice is saving the biota, and we the people from toxic contamination of gas and oil, he voted for big oil and gas every time. The Roan in Colorado is gone and that belongs to all of 'we the people' and he voted to allow drilling on one of the most beautiful natural places left... not any more. I lived with gas and oil rigs in CO until the contamination became deadly and was forced to leave. There is no reclamation after they are finished spewing toxins into air, earth and waters.
Good Luck to us all, I'm still holding out hope Obama is committed enough to pull it off, he can after all fire people.
MJ Richards

[littlepitcher]

Just more Harvard privilege. Anyone asking the guys and gals out in the field with the plows?

[milo h minderbinder]

With all due respect, the guy may have good character but he's dead wrong on many farming issues.

As others have already pointed out, he's on the side of the ADMs of the world (including favoring factory pig farms over family farms), he favors GMO crops, and he favors corn ethanol which is a proven failure (beyond making some iowa farmers happy).

More specifics on his positions and commentary from a number of sources:
http://www.lavidalocavore.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=702

So far Vilsack is my biggest disappointment with Obama and I'm tempted to contact my senators and ask them to vote against approving him.

[stephtobin]

I agree with all of the concerns in this thread but want to remind the responders that Obama presents himself as welcoming differences of opinion and seeing himself as making the final decision on issues on which members of his cabinet might disagree. The presence of Steven Chu, who disagrees with Vilsack on issues concerning agriculture and the environment is an indication, to me, that Vilsack might be a good appointee. He knows Washington and might turn out to be a good choice. From reading his books, I concluded that Obama is a pragmatist, and doesn't think that attempting to make big changes quickly is usually a good idea. It usually results in a backlash where things turn out worse than they did before.

[Bonobo]

The thing is, though, there will never be a better time to try big things. People are much more accepting of change when desperate. If Obama fixes the economy first, and people get comfortable with the same old stuff again, change will be so much harder. Besides, given the opposition, there's going to be a backlash, anyhow. They'll be much bolder if Obama seems timid.