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

[kepary]

drill baby DRILLLLL

[edva]

He does come across as honest and sober. My question is: does he have any compassion for the billions of animals we exploit and upon whom we inflict terrible, needless, immoral amounts of pain and suffering? This issue supercedes all the ones mentioned in your post. Believe it or not, some things matter more than money, and more than our pleasure.

[hartss]

If you approach this argument from the "happy animals make better food" point of view, you will find a much more receptive audience than if approaching it from the tired, shrill PETA perspective. Free range and hormone-free food is better for people. Period. People are not going to become vegetarians based on PETA's point of view. They might, however, and recession notwithstanding, switch to more humanely raised food if health benefits can be proven and economies of scale achieved.

[Ayame]

I fail to see how a simple - and truthful - mention of the suffering inflicted on the vast majority of food animals is a shrill PETA tactic. It's this blind ignorance to basic facts that makes it necessary for PETA to embrace over the top tactics just to shine a little light on the mistreatment of animals.

[pamelagerloff]

I take a "character matters" approach to voting and political appointments. Someone with stellar character AND ability to listen can respond to unforeseen challenges in ways that an ideologue or person of questionable character will not. However, past history and current viewpoint also matter, because no matter how fine the character or how skilled at listening, people filter information through their existing beliefs. This often makes them UNABLE to change viewpoint when new information or diverse views come along.

Vilsack's current views and past record regarding GMOs, agribusiness, and the role of pharmaceutical companies in agriculture, matter--a lot. I grew up on a small, still-existing family dairy farm in the midwest. For some to act as if it is only "fringe" groups (e.g., organic farmers or left-leaning food activists) that want more forward-thinking agriculture/food policies is incorrect. Most Americans don't want big business determining food and ag policy. Our world needs much more thoughtful and resourceful approaches if we want to secure our future.

Jennifer's piece about Tom's character is interesting, but it ignores his views and record on some of the most crucial questions of our time, which will be his responsibility to address.

I wonder what views of Jennifer's Tom listened to. Let's hope that, if confirmed, he has the capacity to listen to EVERYBODY, the ability to change his views, and the character to stand up to the lobbyists and corporations that have dictated agriculture policy for so long.

[bichn]

Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocated across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack's history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid. An activist from the west coast even made this youtube animation about Vilsack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmoc4Qgcm4s
The airplane in this animation is a referral to the controversy that Vilsack often traveled in Monsanto's jet. For more http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15573.cfm

This is not change we can believe in.

[blueman55]

More farm subsidies. Business as usual..

[RedStateCenterLeft]

I have been saying this in many posts about food policy to my blue friends.

Obviously, you people have never read The Audacity of Hope.

Barack is a LOT MORE moderate than anyone ever thinks. When it comes to farm policy, he constantly seeks Dick Durbin's counsel. Durbin gets it with what real farmers are thinking, therefore I knew Obama would not listen to Nick Kristoff or any these foodie types.

He was going to pick either Charlie Stenholm from Texas or Vilsack. I said that all along. No one reads.

Moderation in all things.--B­enjamin Franklin

[KarlaElisa]

As an activist for safe food, truth in food labeling and an advocate for small farmers and organic foods, I find this nomination beyond troubling.

This man is big agri business and he is NOT our friend.

The only thing positive I can say here is at least Dennis Wolfe didn't get the job.

[CSDofNM]

Being a middle aged white guy, I have noticed you are "more female than Tom". Quite attractive in fact. Hubba-hubba!

But it was the ten years I spent in New Hampshire that made me a fan of you. You were one of the only sane voices on the local stations, when commentary on local, state, or national events and issues. Especially compared to the other Tom, full of Rath, who was always spending his time looking down your blouse (except when he was foaming at the mouth.

Barack has been picking good people. Whether we get the rule of law back is another question altogether.

Thanks for a little personal insight into Tom Vilsack.

[BMBTHC]

He understands obesity? Corn subsidies? WTF? He may be a great guy and he might be the right one for the job, but this endorsement has no content, just a lot of fluff. I'm interested in who will become the sec. of ag. and would appreciate actual information, not just punny "fellow Fellow" vapidity.

[JRsNana]

Really rude BMBTHC.

I thought the piece was a nice bit of insight from someone who knows his character. We don't always get that regarding cabinet posts.

Google him. There's a lot of information out there. All that "actual" information you want.

[paulfromportland]

Nickolas Kristof, who grew up on a small farm in Yamhill Country, Oregon, wrote Sunday in the NYT, that the new SOA should listen, far more, to the small farmers, if any are left, and not Agri Business.

Shilling for Monsanto and ethanol do not appear to be any change from Ag being in bed with the A-M-Ds of the world. The huge corporations have, also, tainted our Ag Schools across the land. Research caters to the giant corporations.

Kristof is correct in saying the Ag Deparment should be changed to the Department of Food. Think what is best for the consumer, not the CEO of Archer Midland Daniels.

[Danny]

I agree paul. This doesn't sound like such a "change" choice to me. There must be better candidates out there. The Monsanto connection makes me cringe.

[RedStateCenterLeft]

Sorry, Paul:

Obviously, you never read Obama the way I did. Read my post above.

BTW: Kristof knows nothing about real agriculture as practiced on the modern U.S. farm. Neither does the NYT as a whole. They need a farm writer, from a red state, to teach them a thing or two (percent of U.S. population that feeds six billion.)

[OB]

Jeez he must be her father what a joke. This Vlasack is a big fan of ethanol which is subsidezed by the taxpayers to the tune of $1 a gallon. So sure he will be popular with the corn farmers. Hey I am all for ethanol as long it is not subsidized. He is also in the pockets of agribusiness and we need to stop giving them big handouts help the small farmer but not those hugh farming conglomerants. I know here in the northeast food prices have zoomed up in the past few years or producers have cut the quantity down. Hey remember when a carton of ice cream was 64oz no more that has been reduced to
48ozs at the same price and in some cases higher price. All those subsides is cost the family more at the supermarket. Yes and Vlasck is a proponent of all this a fan of the big farm corporations.
His appointment is just the next one of poor selection by Obama can I have my vote back?

[JRsNana]

You bet. Just give him a call. What a freakin' baby. You and about a hundred other big whiny babies on this site. "He isn't picking who I want so I want my vote back!" How kindergarten. He's not even sworn in yet and all you fair-weather voters are crying in your beer.

[Brooklynindy]

Furthermore: When the Republicans nominated candidates this year whose only qualifications were, "They're good, honest people," many of us were outraged, and rightly so.

I know that in this case, he's more qualified, but your article, more than anything else, says, "I like him, he's nice, therefore he's a good pick."

[rockyersocksoff]

Well, if he's just going to "pick an Iowan" for Ag Sec, I'd venture the name of Iowa City chef, restrauranteur, author, and Slow Food advocate Kurt Friese.

I voted for Vilsack twice, and he was a decent governor and guy, but he's a lawyer.

His only real connection to food appears to be on the receiving end.

[Brooklynindy]

Correction: That's Milton Friedman, not Thomas.

[Brooklynindy]

Ms. Donahue, frankly, after so many years of failed attempts to remove the outrageous subsidies (corporate welfare and welfare for farmers) that U.S. agriculture receives, I no longer care about how great he is. Only one question matters: Will he fight to eliminate a program that distorts food prices, making junk food much cheaper, while at the same time causing and perpetuating poverty worldwide??

Thomas Friedman said that history will judge the War on Drugs as the most destructive public policy ever pursued. I would place the U.S.'s agricultural subsidies a close second.

I am skeptical that ANY ag secretary from Iowa has the guts to do what it takes. Can you give me any hope here? If so, your input is greatly appreciated.