Across the United States, autumn is a time of seasonal preparation: for colder weather in the North, hurricane season in the Southeast, and the coming rains of the Northwest. Yet no matter the region of the country, for farmers, fall is harvest season. The crops may differ — corn, soybeans, hay, apples, grapes — but capitalizing on the final cycle of the growing season is crucial to securing the agricultural yield that contributes $166.9 billion annually to the country’s GDP, or around 1 percent. This doesn’t include the additional $622 billion generated by agriculture-related industries such as fishing, forestry, and the production of tobacco products.
Autumn is also a vital preparation period for another season: the 2016 presidential election. Of the nearly 220 million US voters, 9.2 percent are employed in agriculture-related industries. Every state boasts a major agricultural industry — farming, logging, fishing — that is necessary for employment and often the preservation of regional culture. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has one of the widest jurisdictions of any cabinet department; its responsibilities range from rural community development to environmental conservation, organic foods certification, and school lunch programs. The agribusiness lobby contributed an unprecedented $90 million to congressional candidates in the 2012 election.
Yet despite its populist, bureaucratic, and monetary influence, agriculture is hardly ever a mainstay of a candidate’s platform, even for those like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders who come from rural states. Sanders’ campaign website lists his top issues as wealth inequality, college affordability, and campaign finance reform: Agriculture receives a single mention under the immigration reform category. Republicans are no better, even though the GOP made up three quarters of the recipients of agribusiness lobby donations in 2012. In the Republican National Committee platform, agriculture is granted a single section buried halfway down a list of stances on America’s natural resources. To gain more traction in the election, candidates from both parties need to place agriculture higher on the list of campaign talking points.
For one, agriculture is currently underrepresented because it is not a glamorous topic to bring up at a political rally or debate, especially beside hot-button issues like the Iran nuclear deal and Planned Parenthood funding. But in order for candidates to win Iowa and New Hampshire, two states with a large agricultural presence, this mindset needs to change. While the candidates should prioritize their national platform, they need to keep in mind the concerns of the individual, grassroots voters.
According to Gallup, the most important issue for 86 percent of voters, Republicans and Democrats alike, is the economy. Yet in many cases, the economic consequences of global trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership seem far-removed from the average American. For these voters, the strength of the economy is marked by their ability to pay off student loan debts or by whether holding one or two jobs will generate enough income to put food on the table. For nearly 10 percent of Americans, the state of the economy is determined by whether New England’s poor corn crop this year will impede their ability to pay heating bills: Climate change is about whether the California drought will end, along with the restrictions on the 80 percent of the state’s water supply that irrigates agricultural lands: Immigration reform is about whether there are changes to the H-2A program forms that farmers must file in order to bring temporary agricultural workers into the country.
Candidates have addressed agriculture to some extent, but not recently. In March, several Republicans, including former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (who dropped out of the race in September), and former Texas Governor Rick Perry, gave a promising nod to the agricultural community at the Iowa Agricultural Summit. The candidates’ attendance at the summit demonstrated the importance of agriculture in the upcoming primary, especially with the USDA projecting that Iowa farm incomes will drop by 33 percent in the coming year due to low corn and farmland prices. But this doesn’t go far enough to address agricultural issues at the national level. Leaders in Iowa agriculture, such as agribusiness executive Bruce Rastetter, hoped that the conference would be a catalyst for agriculture to be discussed outside of the Iowan policy agenda. This has not been the case.
Seven months have passed since then, during which the Republican candidates, as well as their Democratic colleagues, returned to the site of the Agricultural Summit for the state fair. Yet the major media coverage of the event was focused neither on candidates’ soapbox speeches nor the fact that frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump declined to speak. The candidates and media paid more attention to the cow statue carved in butter than the dairy industry and cared more about how many corn kernels were cast in Mason jars in support of each candidate than the economic importance of the agricultural land the seeds came from.
Even Rastetter’s status as a top political donor did not sway candidates to take up his agenda. Not every candidate prioritizes issues that inspire grassroots voter support, but regardless of campaign strategy, it is undeniable that fundraising is integral to success. If presidential hopefuls discount the importance of businessmen like Rastetter and agricultural lobbyists, they are denying themselves access to funds — in 2012, agribusiness gave $90 million given to congressional candidates. The top two beneficiaries from the agribusiness lobby were Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee Thad Cochran and Speaker of the House John Boehner. With such high-ranking members of Congress tying themselves to agriculture, a candidate who listens to the concerns of the agricultural community would place himself or herself in good company.
Agriculture politics have been unofficially relegated to the congressional level only in the past 50 years. Up until then, farmers’ support was key to winning the presidency. Because the Farm Bureau’s backing helped him win the 1932 election, Franklin Roosevelt delegated to the interest group the task of drafting the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, one of his most important pieces of New Deal legislation. Almost forty years later, President Eisenhower dedicated a new 11-story office building directly across from the White House to the National Grange, a Civil War-era organization dedicated to the social and economic wellbeing of farmers.
Arguably, the American economy is now far more global and less agrarian than during the Roosevelt and Eisenhower presidencies. Yet even so, there remain approximately 2,100 active local Grange organizations; most of their members are retirees and senior citizens, who make up the most active voter demographic.
Furthermore, after the economy, the second most consequential issue to the 2016 voter is the way the government operates in Washington. If voters are tired of the national politicking of presidential campaigns, and Iowa and New Hampshire residents are growing frustrated with the incessant media outlets and candidate cohorts occupying their states, presidential hopefuls need to find a way to recapture their faith and attention. One solution is to return to the local, agrarian roots that used to be a major part of American elections. Speaking with agribusiness leaders like Rastetter, visiting farmers on campaign stops, or including lines in speeches that address the impacts of climate change or immigration on agriculture would demonstrate a candidate’s commitment to this vital part of the American culture and economy. In prioritizing and giving a voice to the millions of farmers, ranchers, foresters, fishermen, and others whose livelihoods depend on the agricultural industry, a candidate might collect just enough corn kernels in a Mason jar to win the presidency.
Photo: Phil Roeder