The amazing interest and outpouring of commentary from my last post, "Where are the Conservatives in the local foods movement?" has motivated me to continue asking questions aimed at the heart of the political divide over our food culture. I wrote the piece because I want to see the local and sustainable food movement grow. I've been saying for sometime that this needs to happen from all sides of the American electorate. All great and lasting social movements are bottom-up and people-powered. One need only consider American history and the examples set by the American Revolution and the Abolitionist and Civil Rights Movements. The local sustainable foods movement has the potential to join these great and lasting movements.
That being said, it should not come as a surprise that food is a battleground these days. But just who owns good food? This is the question that stood out as I read, and commented on the over 200 comments to my first Huffington Post blog. People questioned my conservative credentials, and made wildly inaccurate claims about conservatism as an intellectual tradition.
Here is a gem from AuntieGrav that equates conservatism with ignorance:
"It might have something to do with the circumstance that the conservatives tend to think the Earth is 6000 years old and the moon is made of green cheese we can have for free if we only let the banks freely distribute money to the corporations who will build hover cars for all of us to 'kiss Hank's ass' (look it up)."
KataVideo felt the need to draw stereotypes of conservatives as women-hating racists and homophobes:
"The modern conservative movement has nothing to do with conserving anything, least of all food. The modern conservative movement is based on resentment of education, resentment of other races "getting ahead", resentment of LGBT, resentment of women who won't toe the line. If an approved demagogue gets onto the radio and tells the resentment-class that the only way to stop "them" (gay black jewish spanish-speaking college graduates) from "taking over" is to drive hummers and to drink high-fructose corn syrup directly out of the can, they'll do it."
Is this the expected reaction when a self-identifying conservative contributes to the discussion on Huffington Post? I know that Huffington Post's readers skew leftward which is precisely why I wanted to post there. I hoped to generate a discussion with the goal of extending my hand across the aisle to let my fellow progressives know that there remain opportunities for conservatives and liberals to come together and do some good together. Is there really that much distance between two people picking up the same CSA box? As long as they don't bring up George Bush, the answer is a resounding "No!"
What the reaction to my post illustrates is that many progressives simply do not want conservatives in the local food world. There is a reluctance on the part of progressives, to permit conservatives into a space that they feel they "own" politically. This is a serious problem, and one that threatens to staunch the critical levels of growth necessary to grow the movement into a mainstream phenomenon.
It's also completely irrational, if you are serious about growing the movement beyond its current niche. If I were a progressive activist who had worked long and hard building the foundations of a movement, I would be thrilled when new converts, of any political stripe, decided to join the fight. I would feel so satisfied. Instead, many of the comments to my piece were derisive, hateful and dishonest. To be fair, many comments were supportive, encouraging and gracious, and I appreciate every single one of those. But it is my duty to trust that instinctual groaning that tells me I, as a conservative, am simply not welcome in the local foods movement.
I'd like to think that the movement has the potential to coalesce into a national grassroots association that transcends partisan differences. This may shock some, but there is a time and place for partisanship in American politics. Fights over Supreme Court justices or tax policy, for instance, are arenas in which legitimate differences over which direction the country should take require partisan squabbling. But when it comes to our food and the myriad issues that emerge from our complicated relationship to it, such as our national health, our economy, our environment, even our national security, there is less of a place for extreme factionalism. All Americans, regardless of political party, still eat thrice daily, and frequently more often than that, and because of our primal need for food, it remains an exalted subject that should be beyond mere partisan bickering.
As all of us continue to do the hard work that lies ahead of us, we should be mindful that the movement stands a greater chance of succeeding in its goal to repair America's broken food system when we work together. As the conservative movement continues to analyze its weaknesses, and begins the hard work of restoring Americans' trust in its policy goals and principles, the local sustainable food movement will become more of a focus for us. This is because the principles that underlie the good food movement, outlined in my previous post, are perfectly in line with true conservative ideals. Like it or not, more conservatives will be joining the fray. Progressives need to get comfortable with this, and with as little delay as possible. I would love to hear your thoughts but specifically I would like to hear from progressive activists what conservatives can do for them to make this inherently bumpy process a little bit smoother.
Follow Zachary Adam Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ZacharyCohen
http://www.ecohearth.com/eco-zine/eco-heroes/824-closing-the-food-gap-an-interview-with-mark-winne.html
www.phillyfoodfeed.blogspot.com
It is ironic that "liberals" are laying claim to the local food movement when most small farmers are actually "conservatives", "libertarian", "jeffersonian", or "independents".
If the movement is to progress forward, respect for each others' freedoms of opinion and basic rights has to exist.
I have customers on both sides of the coin, I could care less about their ideology, lifestyle, marital status, etc, or political opinion (that is their business, not mine), as long as they do not force their opinions on me (thus infringing on my rights).
It is time to drop the labels and name calling and time to realize that we are all human beings and that we all have a right live our lives as we see fit as long as we don't infringe on the rights of others when doing so. I would think that "progressive" thinking people would understand this, or maybe I am just being too conservative.
This however is a posting about food, not other social issues. The two can be separate, can they not? Can not people of differing points of view on some issues agree on others?
The author is not expressing his opinion on gay marriage or any other issue in this article. I would hope that would be enough at this point.
By interjecting other issues into this forum, one merely is distracting from the important issue at hand. There are plenty of threads to discuss the issue you bring forth.
Topgunna — "As for the organic movement - I haven't seen any research that demonstrates that organic food provides better nutrition than conventionÂally-produÂced food." I wouldn't dream of using a household cleaner as a recipe ingredient, so why would I feed my family a pesticide-laden piece of fruit, or meat and dairy with added hormones for that matter?
All that "equipment and knowledge" goes towards making the perfect crop because corporations want it grown for uniform taste. Our food supply has been hijacked by CEOs who want to maximize their profit margins. They don't care about the farmers, who see less $ compared to the farmer's who sell directly to the consumer at farmers' markets.
"The reason we do not all grow our own food, make our own clothes, etc. is because the global division of labor allows food and clothing and everything else to be produced more efficiently by people who specialize and invest in those activities than by all of us alone in our homes." That's just code for cheaper prices and higher profit margins. Americans have become disconnected from the art of creating—be it clothes, cars, or food. The only thing many seem to be excelling at is consuming, and way too much of it.
I think that's a bit of a straw-man. The trace amount of pesticides used on conventional foods is high RELATIVE to organic foods, but not in ABSOLUTE terms. Wearing a helmet 100% of the time will certainly keep you safer than going without - but that doesn't make it a worthwhile precaution to take.
"All that 'equipment and knowledge' goes towards making the perfect crop because corporations want it grown for uniform taste."
So is making a perfect crop with uniform taste a bad thing? Would it be better to sprinkle in some imperfect pieces, like a spotty apple or mushy banana?
Since when is cheap prices a bad thing? With regard to the art of creating - my guess is that you didn't build the computer you used to type your comment. Nor did you generate the electricity to power it. Nor did you build the chair you sat on, lay the carpet beneath your feet, shingle the roof over your head. You consume TONS of things daily - which it good. It keeps other Americans employed and is responsible for our incredibly high standard of living.
If you feel guilty about it, don't fret. You can always run off to an Amish community.
My wife built my computer from salvaged parts. My electricity comes from a wind turbine. I am a cabinet maker and woodworker, thus building my own furniture from black walnut grown on my farm. I did stretch and lay down the carpet in this house, as well as remodeling it from the studs out. I plumbed and rewired the structure as well. I installed a new roof last year.
I am a farmer, I grow my own food and my farm feeds about 4,000 people a year. I donate part of my production to the local food bank and volunteer every two weeks to pack bags for those who are in need. I have to ask... what is your contribution to society?
I fail to see where your comment adds to the discussion other than being sarcastic and condescending.
I DO know that organically-grown farming can feed, at most, 4 billion people. And to do that, you would have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal areas or cutting down millions of acres of forests. To get the necessary organic fertilizer, you would need 5-6 BILLION additional cattle (based on the estimated 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients used each year).
You clearly see the other side of this issue, rather than parroting the position of your ideology. To me, that's admirable, and shows you think for yourself. But I think this movement makes less sense than people realize, and there's nothing terribly sustainable about it.
so What sources will you accept?
lff
I don't particularly care for the local food movement. Sure, I appreciate going to a local farmer's market once in a while. But lets go back to economics 101. The reason we do not all grow our own food, make our own clothes, etc. is because the global division of labor allows food and clothing and everything else to be produced more efficiently by people who specialize and invest in those activities than by all of us alone in our homes. So instead of each of us growing our own corn, in whatever quality soil we happen to have around our house, some guy in Iowa grows it for thousands of us, and because he specialized and grows a lot, he invests in equipment and knowledge to do it better every year.
Inclusion is a two way street.
How we achieve the goal of having healthy, pesticide-free foods available may be a political question, but the goal is something all people in their right minds can agree with.
I have spent many afternoons arguing about healthcare, abortion, the death penalty, gun control etc. etc with someone who disagrees with me politically - but when we sit down to dinner, we are on the same page. We want good, wholesome, delicious food that was produced without chemicals and pesticides and without polluting the environment.
This is an issue that Americans of any and every political persuasion can get behind.
"when we sit down to dinner, we are on the same page" might be by NEW motto!
thanks
Z
lff
Thank you for focusing attention on this essential dialogue. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
You are so right that Pollan has done an excellent job. I've always felt included when reading his prose. In particular, when he wrote about Joel Salatin, admittedly someone pretty far from his perspective, he always treated him with respect, even reverence. In fact, that is kinda getting at my next post on this issue, which I've already begun to formulate. A lot of farmers in the local sustainable model are conservative. Not all, but a lot. And most of the consumers of local foods are liberal. Hmmm. You think there is some "there" there?
I hope so. More on twitter!
Z
You know I do trust you personally, your intentions and your self description.
I am finding it hard to swallow - that SO many little c conservatives coming out and saying "I'm not THAT kind of conservative." I know plenty of good people who call themselves conservatives, who voted twice for Bush. And Bush here is just a short hand for the days when those politics - (Including all the kowtowing to the Christian Right ) was dominant. Each night - I am seeing conservative people - denying every which way that they had anything to do with; The Reagan Revolution, Newt's Contract, The Culture Wars, etc etc.... You can't simply 'blame Bush/Cheney."
I doubt very seriously if Obama had not trounced PALIN/mccain and built a strong democratic coalition, we would be hearing anything remotely like "I'm not THAT kind of conservative" As cons assess 'what went wrong' - I think it's a massive tank of koolaide to suggest to yourselves, that 'we just weren't true enough conservatives' That is for you all in the now tiny 'big tent' to figure out. We'll be sitting over here with the popcorn - watching with interest as the cons try to disentangle all the contradictions that were embodied in the little big tent.
Ours is an honest reaction after all these years. You should neither be surprised or hurt.
So, moving forward, there is MUCH work that I am very happy to do with you, but let's get real.
You should not be surprised to see conservatives distancing themselves after the fact. That's human nature. We got trounced because we nominated a Republican, not a conservative. John McCain is a washinton insider who is interested in Power. So I do not think the answer in fixing conservatism is to be more middle of the road. McCain was middle of the road. He lost, badly.
I personally think the republican party needs to split into two in order to move forward. I believe America is a center right country. I also believe we are a conservative country. Conservatism hasn't failed anyone or anything, republicans have.
But still, these things happen over time. Now we're gonna clean it out, get rid of the RINO's like voinovich and spector and susan collins, these people aren't conservatives. I want the republican party to become truly conservative or part ways with conservatism once and for all...come hell or high water!
I didn't post that to get you to defend your sense of what conservatism is...but to point out that the reaction to the surprise of you in a progressive forum, being received, with less than flowers, shouldn't be a shock to you or anyone.
I guess I too am more interested in outlining why we both think the food system is broken and what we can both do to help get it moving in the right direction.
I tend not to argue where I think there is little middle ground...the culture wars would be one we would be wise to stay away from for instance... I don't like to waste my time, nor should you! There's too much work to do...
hyperlocavore.com - a free yard sharing - has serious appeal across all these lines - every day I have to remind myself that my members come from across the political spectrum - and that I LOVE THIS FACT...
Maybe what we feeling is the frustration of lack of new word for new ways of being..new strategies...
And to stop making cartoons of each other...
I would argue that the increased focus culturally on high quality food, whether with its provenance intact or not, is de facto apolitical. I'd further argue that anyone coöpting this, a growing trend in the restaurant and grocery industries for more than 40 years, is just a political hack taking what's in vogue and twisting it for their own benefit.
Although Alice Waters is about as lefty as they get, she did NOT start looking for local ingredient purveyors in 1971 for reasons related to social justice or wanting to stick it to "The Man" by sourcing foodstuffs from unlicensed "back yard" hobbyists. It was, and still is, because of quality. That's it! Cooks want the freshest possible ingredients, because that's how the best food is made.
Same for John Mackey, and the folks who started Whole Foods, or with my former employers at Wild Oats. They weren't trying to save the world. It was, and still is, about serving the multiple constituencies that make-up a successful businesses ecosystem.
To my mind, there's no reason to elevate food to a movement. It's food! Good food, which is to say fresh food properly prepared, is something that anyone can make a part of their lives, period. It's already affordable. The knowledge on how best to prepare it is available to anyone willing to seek it out at their local library.
and you are right, its so obvious that we don't need a movement or to attach labels, its all right there before us! Thanks for your comment and for your continued support, it is so very much appreciated!
If you have not seen the video of Cuba and how on 40 acre farms and front yard garden, they are growing organic food, I recommend it. Why? They were cut off from toxic sprays, fuel for tractors so they used oxen and a basic need to have "good food".