A Secretary of Food is Just Lipstick on a Pig

Nicholas D Kristof has an interesting column in the NY times about who Mr. Obama should pick as the Secretary of Agriculture. His first point is that he should change the name of the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Food. He thinks that this would "...signal that Mr. Obama seeks to move away from a bankrupt structure...".

While I am in agreement that the Department of Agriculture is in need of reform, changing its name is unlikely to have much effect. Its a lot like putting lipstick on a pig. It is still a pig. (Apologies to all the fine swine out there).

Mr. Kristof begins to zero in on the much more fundamental issue when he says.

"But let’s be clear. The problem isn’t farmers. It’s the farm lobby — hijacked by industrial operators — and a bipartisan tradition of kowtowing to it."

It seems to me that we can re-use this statement to describe just about every problem we are facing right now. Try this one.

"But lets be clear, the problem isn't bankers, its the banking lobby - hijacked by large corporate banks - and a bipartisan tradition of kowtowing to it."

Or to generalize even further

"But lets be clear the problem isn't -insert favorite working class American-. It's the -insert lobbying group- hijacked by -insert corporate scapegoat- and a bi-partisan tradition of kowtowing to it."

Two sides of the same ugly coin are on display here. "Lobbying Group" on one side and "bi-partisan tradition" on the other. As long as special interests are able to exert the kind of control that they do today, no amount of reform will ever be enough. Special interests will always find a way to game the system and stack the deck.

And where is the incentive for either of the parties to reform? Neither party in any real danger of being far enough from power to loose the attention of the special interests that keep them elected. They have no competition. They are a duopoly. If they were corporations they would likely be charged with collusion.

These two sides exist to serve one another. Politicians of both parties require lobbyists and special interests to get elected, and lobbyists need politicians to enact legislation to protect their special interests. The only one left out of this little back slapping contest are the American people.

As Mr Kristof was careful to clear the name of individual farmers everywhere, let me also clear the name of individual politicians and lobbyists. I don't not believe that all of them are evil creatures intent on doing harm, I think they are trapped in this system as the rest of us. They would probably prefer it if somebody would stop the merry-go-round so they could get off.

While it may be that some lobbyist do good and decent work. I am convinced that the net effect of lobbying is negative, and that we would be better off without it. However I am also convinced that there is no way under our constitution to outlaw what is essentially free speech. So what do we do?

Step one might be to accept that this is a fundamental problem effecting our government. Until we find a way to free the government from the grasp of special interests, carrying on about reform of this program or that Department will have no significant long term positive effect.