Judgement Day

Let me just get this out of the way:  Now that I’m unemployed, I can say that I am a Democrat and a progressive, and I knew I was in the right party when we had a choice between a white woman and black man as a nominee for president, vs. a geriatric white male of the aristocracy.  The Democratic Party should be proud of that, and talk about it too.

Anyhoo, a very well written article today brings me back to a discussion I had several time with my coworkers at the Center for Rural Affairs.  While this isn’t the main point of the article, it is the part that made me think:

The Hundlings watch, they say, as the biggest farmers secure more and more land, the youngest ones, like themselves, fail to afford any, and the locals go on fretting that everyone has moved away.

“They sit and complain there’s nobody in the small towns anymore, there’s nobody in our schools,” Mr. Hundling said. “And then they go and rent it to the guy that’s already farming 10,000 acres and lives 30 miles away, 40 miles away, 100 miles away.”

This is a pretty powerful statement in several ways, but first let me unwind a little, and relate this back to my first statement.

Generally, progressives have a common trait that is both a blessing and a curse: we don’t like to judge individuals.  We’re squeamish when it comes to telling somebody they are simply wrong, and we’re even worse at telling people their actions are immoral.  We search for qualifications, ways to soften the blow of harsh words, ways to exculpate those who have contributed to some harm.

And that’s generally good; it reflects a certain recognition that the environment in which we live- call it the system- shapes ourselves and our actions to a large extent, and if we want large-scale change, we need to reorganize the system of rewards and costs our society imposes on certain actions.  But that mentality, taken too far, also feeds a major conservative critique of progressivism- nothing is ever anybody’s fault.  If you listen to Rush (and once a month, you should, just to get a feel for the opposition), you’ll hear him talk about whining liberals who never think anything is their fault, who blame everything on somebody else, who never want to take responsibility for their actions.  I really hate to say it, but he has a point.

Because we progressives hate to judge.  By extension, the progressive nonprofits that claim to represent us in Washington hate to judge as well.  Well, fuck that.  I’m sorry, but we have to start judging, and in the agriculture world, it is time for us to recognize that while we can acknowledge a screwed-up system, we also need to acknowledge that people created that system.  It wasn’t some automaton, some sort of machine- we have an agricultural economy that destroys family farms and rural communities because people made it that way.

The Hundleys, mentioned above, marvel at the ability of rural residents to bemoan their dying towns while renting their land to the highest bidder, no matter where that bidder may reside.  The progressive in me says, well, that’s hard to condemn.  Often that land is somebody’s retirement fund.  Sometimes, it is the thing they have worked for all their lives, and to ask them to accept a lower rental price may well mean they can’t afford their nursing home.  The problem is a messed up system, not the actions of one person.  But another part of me says, the hell with that sentiment.  If these people want to see a vibrant rural economy, why should they wait for some sort of magical policy to come around that makes the morally correct option also the most profitable?

So I’m going to say this is a continuum, not an either-or proposition.  If Grandma has to rent her land to the highest bidder to afford medication, I won’t call her evil.  But if the hedge fund manager in Chicago who inherited land rents out 500 acres to a 10,000 acre farmer because they offered $2 more per acre than a beginning farmer, I’m going to say that’s wrong.  And it’s not just wrong, it’s immoral.  It is contributing to the decline of rural America.  She or he should be ashamed.

Conservatives, of course, are quick to judge and quicker to condemn.  But it’s not just hard-core conservative Republicans who see this sort of judgment as a necessary task.  I truly believe the reluctance of progressives to “call it as they see it” or to stand up and denounce individual economic behavior (unless it’s somebody making more than $1 million a year) actually limits their appeal.  I know I’ve met many people who progressives could win over if they were willing to say that choices have consequences, that people should be responsible for the decisions they make that negatively affect their community.

Moreover, if we’re not willing to judge, I also believe we’re devaluing the pioneers.  If you spend all your time running around and talking about how it’s not the farmers’ fault, how it’s not anybody’s fault, you’re automatically denying people the belief they can change anything at all.

In agriculture terms, that would be the people who have rejected convential agriculture, which they usually view as environmentally unsustainable and socially harmful (to put it mildly).  Some of them may be making money now, but every single one I’ve ever met has worked incredibly hard to be a farmer.  And they didn’t wait for the right policy.  They stood up and did what they thought was right- and for an astonishing number of sustainable farmers, it’s not about money, it’s about morality.  For policy advocates to say, “well, that’s nice, but doesn’t mean a whole lot until we change the system” is, in many ways, downright insulting.  I’ve been guilty of that myself.  And for conventional farmers to say, “well, I would be a sustainable farmer, but it’s just not practical” is just as insulting.

And for an organization, such as a nonprofit, this presents a real dilemma.  You always want to appeal to the broadest number of people possible, if only so they’ll give you money and respond to your action alerts.  But I think organizations must recognize that having people who agree with you and having people who will fight for you are two entirely different things.  Those who seek to change the world need to inspire passion. In today’s world of paid advocates and Washington lobbyists, we need leaders.  Leaders are not those who tell us what we want to hear.  Not at all.  Leaders tell us what we know is true, no matter how uncomfortable, and then they tell us how we’re going to realize the change we seek.

And that message tells us that we are in charge of our own destiny, that we are able to change our lives and the system that so often governs our actions.  Implicit in that statement is the idea that those who have perpetuated and supported the existing system are wrong.  And if organizations and individuals want true support, they must make that implicit statement explicit.  They must draw the contrasts, make clear the differences between themselves and the opposition.  And what is that difference?  Money vs. morality.  Concentration vs. competition.  Community vs. corporate.  At all levels, in all instances, we know which is better, and it’s time for us to say so.