We're back with another edition of The Federalist or Radio Hour. I'm Emily Dashenski,
culture editor here at the Federalist. As always, you can email the
show at radio at the Federalist dot com, follow us on exit fdr LST,
make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcasts, and of course to
the premium version of our website as well. I'm joined today once again by
Bill Wurtz. Bill is the senior policy analyst at the Consumer Choice Center.
He's been writing a lot about and you probably remember last time Bill was on
the show. He's still writing a lot about the sort of uprising of farmers
in various countries across the EU. Bill, welcome back to Federalist Radio Hour.
Thank you for having me back. So you're actually just on Fox News
a couple of days ago talking about what's happening in Germany right now. I
think last time you were on, we were talking about what was happening with
Dutch farmers. First of all, why don't we start you just telling us
what the heck is happening in Germany right now? Because I think a lot
of people have seen the viral images on social media and have seen both sides.
You come up with explanations for what's happening in Germany, but tell us
Bill, what on earth is going on? So briefly, before Christmas last
year, the German government announced new measures in order to plug a hole in
the budgets. A but eighteen billion dollars that the German government is looking for
that it can't raise by taking up new debt because of the constitutional reasons.
They also have a debt ceiling. So the good German government said, okay,
we can raise one billion by ending a tax break on diesel for farmers
and also by raising taxes on the purchase of new attractors, new agricultural vehicles.
And what it did is by ending this tax breakers essentially increased the tax
diesel. And the German farmers said, okay, there's no way we can
sustain this. You know, we did have a good harvest in twenty twenty
three, but that might not repeat. And if we if we increase the
taxes, that will apply to all the upcoming years. And they said,
okay, we're taking to the streets. And initially it was about fifteen hundred
farmers and tractors that went to Berlin, and I mean just just this week
it was thirty thousand, right, and this is so, this is these
are the biggest farmer protests well by like that since the end of the Cold
War. I mean this is, this is massive and the German farmers have
essentially not even bigger than what we saw sorted to interrupt it, even bigger
than what we saw in different countries last year. I'd have to check on
the numbers because in Germany is way more decentralized in that sense. If you
want to protest in the Netherlands, you go to the Hague, but if
you protest in Germany, there's a bunch of few different places you can go
to. I'd have to run the numbers to see that, but it's but
it's incredibly impressive, especially for Germany as a country where these large protests are
usually not for like very localized like tax reasons like here's a tax on diesel.
Usually it's for like protesting a war or any of those things. Like
usually Germans will want take to the streets for these type of things and neither
will farmers. And it turns out not only were they successful in rallying the
troops in terms of like people actually showing up. But also if you look
at the polls now polling shows that eighty percent of Germans who have no association
to the agricultural sector also now say that they support the farmers in their protests.
So even though like a lot of people had, like you know,
had to deal with blocked streets, getting late to work and all of these
things, the sympathies are absolutely on the side of the farmers. So it's
very interesting to see how that, you know, sort of panned out very
similarly to the Netherlands. What do you think or why do you think exactly
what you just explained that the sympathies are with the farmers in these countries that
also see, you know, climate protests that are similarly disruptive. What do
you think? What do you think it is that the public's sympathies in large
part are aligned with the farmers in these case, I mean in case of
the climate protesters, it was also that they made no exceptions whatsoever. So
a couple of a couple of people were in serious trouble and I think one
or two people died because the ambulances were also not being let through by the
climate protesters and when they were asked about it, they said, well,
and a lot more people are dying from climate change that will maybe dye in
an ambulance because we blocked the streets. And that just showed such a lack
of empathy that people really like resisted sort of the the you know, any
type of sympathy towards those protesters. And in the case of the farmers,
they were very consistent like, yes, we may be blocking the streets,
but we are letting a lane open for those emergency vehicles, police and fire
trucks and all of these things. So I think that that also, you
know, had had had an impact. And then on top of that,
a lot of people come from farming families. I mean, if you just
look, if you go down you know, your your your your family history,
you will eventually find a farmer and maybe from an aristocratic family, and
you have to like wait longer and go further back, but eventually there's always
we all offer farming families, and I think people sympathize with farmers in general
on that level. I'm not sure if this is something that is specific to
Europe as such, because there there's this adage that if you make policies against
farmers. You you sort of lose politically, and we've had some confirmations on
that recently, but it definitely plays into it. Despite all of the disruptions
and what Again, we talked about this a little bit before, but obviously
we're talking about EU countries. Can you get a little get into a little
bit what sort of policies are pushing people over the brink? I imagine that
they're mostly EU policies as opposed to or maybe the countries implementing EU policies.
Basically, Bill, I am a dumb American who doesn't care about Europe until
no, you're not, you're not, you're not. And a lot of
Europeans want to act like the Americans don't know anything. And if you ask
Europeans about federal policy in the United States, they would be equally equally hard
pressed to get the answers. So I would never blame Americans for that.
And it's also so complicated that many Europeans don't really understand it either. I
mean, at least at least with the federal government, you sort of understand
who's in charge that you have Congress and the president, and who makes the
rules. It's sort of sort of clear. I mean, the thing in
Brussels with the European Union is that we see that when I used to live
in Bruscels, this was a common thing. You'd have protesters that wouldn't know
in front of which building to protest the policy because they wouldn't really understand how
the system works. So I think so that is ultimately it narrows down to
EU policy. So a couple of years ago, the European Union decided we
all need to reduce our global warming emissions and all countries need to do their
part. So all countries got homework to do, and they got targets they
need to reach, and some countries are very late on those targets and they
need to scramble to get to those numbers. And they and they think,
okay, what can we do? And this is this is why what happened
in the Netherlands. The large government said, okay, we're going to buy
out all of these farmers so that we have fewer nitrous oxide emissions, and
then we're just going to import food products from abroad because then you know,
the emissions are on those countries that we import from. And the German government
the nitrous oxide by the way, that's from fertilizer. Yeah, that's from
fertilizer. Okay, got it. And in this case, the German government
is indirectly pursuing something similarly what I mean, on the one hand, trying
to raise more money to plug the hole in the budget. But also if
small, if more small farmers give up and decide to retire, that means
fewer carbon dioxide emissions and methane emissions if it's from livestock farmers, So that
also plays into it, sort of trying to reach those targets. I am
not one of those people that thinks that there's sort of a grand plan to
just you know, make food more expensive. I think it's just ineptness of
the people in charge. They really try to appeal to these EU policies and
standards, and then it is as a result of that they're bankrupting farmers.
But I don't I don't like compared to other but I don't think that this
is some type of Davos type conspiracy thing. I hear that a lot,
and I, you know, I go to Davos every year to attend some
events, and I think, you know, it's an interesting meetup and a
lot of like you know, policy people thinking about the future of the world,
but you know as ultimately politicians that make the decisions to implement a tax,
implement a regulation. Right, So so I think that that that to
me is well, there's there's sort of consensus on the collateral damage being you
know, sort of a means towards end rather than you know, you have
a bunch of shadowy figures, you know, looking at the EU like a
treess match in a conference room at Davos. It's sort of there's agreement on
these farmers livelihoods being sort of a necessary piece of collateral damage to save the
planet as quickly as we possibly can. And they have that point of consensus.
And I'm testing this on you, Bill, because you just said you
go to Davos. But the the end, they sort of agree on that
we need to reduce emission significantly. So there will necessarily be some casualties to
that, yes, And so I mean some of these events I've also attended
in doubles is that you I mean, these some of the people who make
these suggestions that absolutely out of touch. I mean, they just have no
understanding of sort of the importance of it. One of the things you hear
very regularly is that they equate the importance of sustainable food. For food to
be more sustainable, it needs to be more expensive, and so this is
a very common belief that it has to be more expensive otherwise it can't be
more sustainable, which you know, is a very one sided reading of the
thing. I mean, American agriculture, if you compare it to European agriculture,
it's not just some more efficient, it's actually also more sustainable because American
farming. American farmies use no tail farming, which means you have less soil
disruption, which means you release fewer CO two emissions into the atmosphere that is
stored in the soil. And European farm don't use no till because it requires
a certain amount of pesticides that you have to spray so that you don't have
to do crop rotation. So a lot of these things, a lot of
these things that policy makers are unaware and then they make suggestions and they say,
Okay, this is the most important issue. We need to focus on
climate change, and anything else derived from there is just like a side topic,
right, and we need to focus on this, and so we're going
to do X, Y and z, We're going to increase the tax here
and there. It's just sort of this milkman type of milk made type of
calculation where you add all the numbers together and then who is affected by that
you just don't care as much about. But ultimately, and that's what I
always say, is like this idea that you know, this is like a
big think tank meeting, right, that was just a big think tank meeting,
And what you take from it is what you take from it. And
I think the sort of cop out where some politicians go, oh, I
mean, yeah, okay, but it was a suggestion in Brussels by the
EU ord was a suggestion made in Davos by by some policy people. It's
like, yeah, okay, but you made the decision to implement policy,
right, And that's what I think what we should be looking at. We
looked at think tanks in Washington, d c. We we don't blame the
Brookings Institution or or the Cato Institute for the policy. We blame the people
that implement the policy. So I think that is important to I do focus
blame Brookings and Cato. It's fine, well, no, that's a so
on that point, one of the uh, the let's say lines you hear
a lot is I won't eat the bugs, you know, goes to actually,
in a way exactly what we're talking about here is what is the end?
Is the end, you know, eating bugs and impossible burgers because you've
obliterated humanity's uh the source of you know, self sustainability for you know,
this this climate goal. And I wonder Bill, if you can tell us
a little bit about I actually really agree that there's probably so much in neptness
here that there isn't really a grand idea of what this comes to. They're
not sitting and saying if we get rid of the nitrous oxide, we will
suddenly all be eating bugs and everybody will be happy and you know us ale,
it's we'll get to kick back and you know, do whatever we want.
It seems to me like maybe they don't know how this all ends if
they pursue it to the logical end that follows from their ideas. I mean,
they're finding out right now to some extent that it's not politically viable.
I mean, we had, like there was an election since since we last
talked, there was there was you know, when we last tart there was
the provincial election Netherlands and then we had parliamentary elections in Netherlands recently, and
what happened there is that, you know, it's a big shift to the
right. I mean, that's just it's also on other issues, also has
to do with migration, but it's a big shift to the right. So
essentially the people that try to implement those policies are really not there anymore.
And in Germany there's an election next year and if you look at the polls,
it doesn't look good well the current governing coalition either, so it seems
it seems to thinking that this is a losing issue. And the upinion People's
Party is biggest parliamentary group in the European Parliament. They call themselves now the
Farmer's Party, so there is there's really a shift in narrative here. So
I don't know how successful they think some of those policies are going to be.
And then on top of that, I just I just you know,
again, I just I just don't see this sort of like as a plan
to because if you if you're a politician and you try to you're planning something
that will ultimately upset people, which is taking away meat products and increasing consumer
prices on food. It doesn't end up being politically viable to stay in power
as long as you have an an election cycle that usually ends up being a
problem. I mean, it's like in the US as well. It seems
to me that usually the presidents that seem to have the most problems of getting
re elected are the ones that go through an economic crisis where people you know,
pay have lower purchasing power. That across the board always ends up being
the most important issue that people vote on. It's like how much can I
afford? And so if you do that with foods, it's another another another
point where you run into a wall. Actually, this is interesting. I'm
curious when you look at Germany because one of the reasons I think people get
away with a sort of incremental approach is in the US we now have this
vast bureaucracy, and so Biden isn't directly implicated in the decisions of the EPA,
for example, even though he should be. The EPA can sort of
be doing these things around the margins, and or you know, FDA whomever
it is, a Department of Agriculture tinkering around the edges of things, barely
makes the news and isn't tied directly back to Biden. Is there a case
that to some extent there's a bureaucracy in the EU that's implementing these policies unelected
in many cases, or is it are politicians in Europe sort of owning these
policies. So I think that's the big difference actually between our two systems,
is that for us there's actually a big like the big difference between those two
is the official institutions, the UPE Food Safety Authority. Whenever the Upien Parliament
says we need to ban most of the pesticide it's because you know, environmental
reasons. Usually those institutions are the ones that come out and say, wow,
there's actually no basis in science to do that. We've tested these products
for the last twenty years. All these products have been used in the United
States successfully, and we actually have a lot of data on this. And
then what happens is that Upeen parliament says they must be bought by big businesses.
Then right, these these government agencies, which is all a bit silly.
So I think the difference is that in Europe we have a system where
the politicians are happy to say, we want to raise those taxes, we
want to ban those products, and we're going to vote on it. We're
going to have legislation in the Parliament and we're going to vote on it.
And in the US, I mean, some Americans tell me this is sometimes
the laziness of Congress or the fact that people are very politically exposed in everything
they vote on and do, where people sort of shift this to the to
the agencies, and where Joe Biden will appoint someone to the EPA who he
knows will then implement policies that won't directly ban certain products, but then will
shift on the on the edges in order to to not make it viable.
And the last time we talked about this with atrazine, where essentially the EPA
has shifted the maximum residue levels. So it does it wants to ban atrazine,
it can't do it unless it does it through Congress, but then it
shifts the maximum residue levels and then it's actually not viable to use it in
agriculture anymore. So these are sort of the bureaucratic things. And I mean
I noticed this because I write on this all the time, and there's just
no interest, Like when I write, when I pitch a piece, and
I go like, yeah, they're changing the maximum residue levels on this chemical,
and it's like it's going to raise food prices. It's like, yeah,
I just don't see it, Like there's no reader interest, like and
and and these things accumulates, right, And I think that's also what happened
in Germany. Now people look at this very like, you know, laterally,
and they go like, oh, yeah, it must be the diesel
tax increase, Like yes, also, but it's sort of like it's been
accumulating. There's so much bureaucracy, there's so much regulation that people end up
saying, Okay, enough is enough, and so of that's what happened.
That's really interesting, especially the point you made about how they'll sort of escapego
corporation buying off these various you know, byzantine sections of the EU, because
I do think that's part of the problem. Sort of in the other direction
in the United States is that if you look at who's investing in renewable energy
at like the highest level, it's oil companies, It's Exxon, and I
imagine, although I don't know that's a similar pattern. You can find a
similar pattern in sort of agriculture, and that the companies that are able to
that have the money to you know, invest in different technologies or are able
to withstand the financial consequences of heightened environmental protection policies are often the biggest ones
and just sort of further drives the little guys in many cases that are already
operating more sustainably and are you know, producing local food and all of that
further out of business. Is there any truth to that bill? I mean,
by the way, I mean local doesn't necessarily mean better, right,
I mean I think you do this thing with like the local bananas, the
Atlanta bananas, right, they would taste awfully if you try to grow them
locally. There's something something like that, local doesn't necessarily mean better. We
have a global food supply chain, and some things are metabate that better made
in other in other areas, and then and then transporters so and then also
that is often also more sustainable than if you tried to grow to grow tomatoes
in Norway. So, so I think that that's one of the things to
keep in mind. But I think the other thing is that the the I
just there's this idea that's sort of the the you know, big businesses.
I always distinguish between two types of lobbying. So there's one. There's the
lobbying of like, don't ban my product because that's how I make my money.
Right as you can have a gun manufacturer. You can have a tobacco
company doesn't want cigarettes ban, and they will lobby to not get cigarettes banned,
right because that's how that's how they make money. And then you have
sort of the the proactive lobbying where you try to get your subsidized or your
competitor to be taken off the market and for your product to be promoted.
And in the renewable sector, there's some of that, right you have the
wind Sorry about that. It's like there's some some ringing here for the deliveries,
but I didn't hear it. So I'm also I'm also actually in the
flight path. And I don't know if the if, the if the if
the listeners will hear that, but I think and then you have the the
business that will try and promote their products to those subsidies. And what we
see in Europe is that we have an organic sector and organic agricultural sector that
is very strong on the lobbying push to get themselves subsidized and to get their
competitors, which are the conventional farmers, out of business. So that's why
organic food represents about double the size of the American sector. So it's four
percent of consumption is organic in the US, it's eight percent in Europe.
But now they've lobbied that by law it will be twenty five percent of production.
Right, But just imagine what that means for farmers. Right, So
you're currently producing for eight percent by law, and you'll have to get to
twenty five. Now, what happens if consumers don't buy twenty five percent?
Right? The price for your products will drop because you'll have retailers selling organic
tomatoes and in all types of leg games and vegetables and so on, and
there's no buyer for them. Well, then the price drops, and then
the farmers will be on the hook for that. So I think this sort
of uncertainty where on top of the uncertainty of your yearly harvest, you add
on top of that the uncertainty of will I still get a subsidy next year?
Will I be bailed out? If the government program didn't work, So
these things are accumulated, accumulating. So yeah, I don't know if Whole
Foods is engaging in lobbying and you know, to get Congress to promote certain
organic food products. I mean there is there are these products. They did
these programs in the US where USDA is trying to promote organic farming, but
too much lesser extent because I mean, across the board, most Americans just
don't buy it because it comes at double the price, and he just there's
no benefit to it. There's no health benefit to eat in organic for instance.
There's no proof of that whatsoever. You wrote a really interesting piece for
the Washington Examiner with the headline why isn't agriculture an issue in presidential debates?
And this was back in September. Nothing to like, there has been nothing
to disprove this point in the last several months at all. I think,
actually, really one of the only people that talks about this is the fake
Gramaswami when he gets into sort of the World Economic Forum, Davos points,
but I don't know, I mean, I hear so little about it,
even though there is increasing interest among some of the folks that Viveke Gramaswami is
trying to reach with messages like that, Bill, can you walk us through
a little bit of the point that you made back then and maybe any additional
nuance that's come up in the last couple of months too. Absolutely so,
I mean in the in the in the last four years, the US has
been going through a lot of different as on the agricultural system. I mean
you have you have regularly had the Farm Bill and what will the what will
the subsidies look like? And sort of to what extent is there steering policy
where you tried to give subsidies for specific type of production. You also have
the You also had the whole crisis with a lack of pesticide availability, I
mean certain pesticides which is not available in production, especially COVID caused a big
shortage in that world and and that meant, you know, reduction in yields.
So farmers have been struggling. And also there is now pushes in New
York State they ban neonic insecticides because they think it harmed the bees, which
has no basis and science whatsoever, but they're going to do it anyway because
it's New York State. That's been my understanding in California is a bit like
that too, So there's there's a lot of pushes to become a lot more
like Europe. A few years ago, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren had a
piece of legislation in the Senate that would essentially copypaste every single agricultural regulation from
Europe into the American legal system, which meant identity like identicalism, which would
which would make trade, I assume, easier, but it would significantly raise
food prices for Americans. So so a lot of that has been going on.
I just don't hear it being talked about. Usually the only people who
talk about this, I know, Corey Booker once had an opinion video in
the New York Times where he essentially blamed oh yeah, climate change on factory
farming, which is just you know, unhinged and just you know, not
based in science whatsoever. He's a vegan, so we know he's unhinged.
Oh fair enough. I didn't. I didn't know that out to him.
I mean, if people decide voluntarily to eat a certain way, that as
if it's not forced and subsidized with everyone else's money, that's that's all good
for me. But yeah, So there's a few of these politicians in presidential
debates, nobody even asks a question about this, and it makes me makes
me wonder, is there a lack of awareness on behalf of the moderators?
Is it not a campaign issue whatsoever? Is it not a winning issue to
have the farmers on your side? Is that only for the Iowa Caucus?
And then that's it. I just don't understand there. It's ethanol. I
mean, that's the only that's like, to the extent that agriculture comes up
in Iowa, it's ethanol. And I mean, like Rhanda Santis has kind
of gone back and forth on ethanol, and it's very interesting someone coming from
the Freedom Caucus. I mean, it's just ethanol has always been fascinating.
But even that, it's all they talk about when it comes to Iowa.
It's all Republicans debate. And that to me is so strange because, I
mean, American food products are also being exported around the world. I mean,
you it's not it's not just that you produce for the domestic market.
It's it's very valuable international products, and people value having food products from the
US. Unfortunately not here in Europe because we still don't have a trade deal.
We wish we did, I think, but but I think on both
sides there have been some reservations in the past. But I just, you
know, I just don't see that being talked about enough. And I and
I and I wonder, I mean, to some extent, the present is
also not supposed to have a lot of saying this. Ultimately, this should
be all legislation from Congress determining, you know, what the rules are in
the agricultural system. But in reality, we've seen that presidents make significant decisions.
On the Obama administration, a lot of proper protection chemicals were outlawed,
and then Trump came in and he reversed all of it, and now Biden
came back, and did you know, Obama two point oh, all of
this keeps happening. It never comes up. I don't even not even in
the sort of the not even in sort of the races for Congress, do
I really see that being talked about as an issue. And I wonder if
it's a lack of interest, or or just because farmers also themselves believe that
they don't actually have a voice, but maybe they don't protest enough. I've
been asked this question a few a few times now over the last few days,
and it seems to me that maybe farmers in the United States just don't
don't don't think of themselves as as a relevant enough political voice that if they
protested something were to happen. Maybe maybe that's part of it. Is it
also maybe consolidation in agriculture, and that you know, there are so many
people who are farming are represented by the big guys because the servans snatched up
by the big guys, at least the United States. I don't know if
that's true in Europe. I think probably there are still a lot of smaller
farms in Europe, maybe more, maybe less, But I have to imagine
that's has something to do with it too. I mean, well, yeah,
the farms are a lot smaller in Europe. That I mean that also
has traditionally historical reasons also, right, I mean, if you were if
you were settling in the United States and you started a farming like, you
had all this space available, while in Europe we'd already been fighting over sort
of who has worked for for for hundreds of years before that. And also
like some of the farms you know, I mean if you look at farms
in Switzerland, you're looking at a significant altitude change. Also, like when
I fly over the United States, I just look at this amount. I
mean, you couldn't even Like in the last few days, a lot of
people, it was a Greenpeace said, for instance, we should use electric
tractors instead of diesel tractors, and I was just imagining, and I was
when you run the numbers, an electric tractor could even reach the end of
the field in most plastic farms just by virtue just not having enough battery power.
And Europe you could sort of imagine it if they weren't so expensive.
But yeah, so there's there's a different size in that too. So yes,
you do end up having more farmers or so as like is a large
part is this family businesses. I mean these are generations, like people who
have been in that business for generation. It's more I mean it's I don't
like the word factory farm, but I mean it's it's it's on a much
larger scale in the United States, absolutely, But the thousands of people who
work in that sector not just farmers, right, it's all engineers, people
who think the electricity, people who do the logistics, who drive the trucks,
people who feed the animals. I mean, it's like it's all of
those things. Not everything is mechanical, and you need still a lot of
people who work in the sector, and and and and and sort of that
seems to not be a voting block, but maybe they don't think of themselves
as a voting block. Also because in the Netherlands it has become not just
a voting block but a genuine political party. Well that's an interesting point because
it's almost i think, for a lot of people in farming communities, and
to your point, like it's not just the farmers themselves, it's these entire
ecosystems, social ecosystems that are reliant on what the farms are producing. I
feel like they maybe have priorities above they vote on things that are different.
And that's not to say that the farming isn't part of it, but it's
to say that it feels like, and maybe this is what's recently happened in
Europe, it never felt quite existential, and it looks like EU regulations are
now making it feel existential. And meanwhile, in the US, I'm be
curious for your thoughts on this too. When you know, they were trying
to pass year end legislation. The farm Bill, to my understanding, got
renewed and punted for a year. Basically, I think it was a full
year. I think got a full year extension, which is highly unusual but
speaks the sort of autopilot that American politics is on when it comes to the
you know, just big ag and all of that. Yeah, it's it's
it's I mean, the farm Bill is something that I that I that I
follow to some extent. It's it's it's it's interesting to me that you know,
as a policy you have to have these constant renewals, but then you
don't hear it really being talked about a lot, right, You don't hear
significant debates. So what is the future until the year of Right, like
you will get a debate about the farm bill on you know, page twenty
four of the paper the year of the Farm Bill's renewal. And that's it
And something that somebody needs to explain to me. Maybe you can help me.
What is it with the American political system packing into things into bills that
have nothing to do with the title. I mean, in some Europeans are
trying to do that but I mean it's like the infrastructure bill had things about
I mean, it's like sponsorship for theaters, and just there seems to be
And because then when you vote against it on merits that might be good,
it always gets construed as you've also voted against these other parts of it.
That is Yeah, I mean it's a super easy explanation here, which is
that we simply cannot pass enough legislation to deal with the country's business on an
individual basis. So there's just not enough political will to tackle all of these
different issues. So if you throw them into a really big bill, you're
able to use it as sort of a pawn as the president wants to get
an infrastructure package passed. It's a really sad statement on the sort of Republican
system of tracks and balances that that is certainly interesting. And I mean,
since you mentioned Republicans, I mean, Republicans have gotten the support of farmers,
I mean across the board. If you just look at the polling on
farmers and overwhelmingly support Republican presidents kind of for president, maybe Republicans have also
taken sort of that support for granted. And as a result of that,
that is maybe why it's an autopilots and I think Democrats do that with sort
of you know, their voting blocks also, where it's like they've always voted
our way, so you know, it's like we can just kind of count
them in and then not address this issue. And the question is like for
me, is like, how what is sort of the breaking point? Eventually
there will be like this one measure, right. I mean, it's just
like in the Netherlands with the with the land buy back and then Germany with
the diesel tanks, Like what is it going to be in the United States
where farmers go like, oh, okay, no, it's enough now,
right, Yeah. And I actually think that's such a interesting point because again,
American farmers, I feel like their support for Republicans has come from this
sort of larger cultural feeling that Republicans are kind of with them, and maybe
all their policies on farming aren't with them. Some might be, but you
know, that's the general kind of just that in this big culture war that
feels like essential here in the United States, Republicans, including Trump, who
and build This is actually going to be my next question to you, because
it looks like we're heading towards another Trump nomination. Trump handled it better than
I think a lot of other Republican candidates said politically, I'm not talking about
the policy, but he sort of understood something that was happening in the middle
of the country in a way a lot of other people didn't. What does
your take. We're almost ten years in a Trump is so this is a
huge question, Bill, But what is your take on how Trump has handled
this question of the last almost decade? So on the on the you know,
the domestic regulatory issues, he undid a lot of the policies that were
implemented by Obama on the you know, the e b A and USDA,
a lot of bands that were necessary and made it unjustifiably difficult to protect your
your farms, like your your crops against the pests, whether it be whether
it be rodents or parasizes that became increasingly difficult on the Obama and Trump undid
a lot of that, which I mean, I don't know if he,
if you understood the issue, whether he just signed it. But I think
on the food issue, where you know, I'm disappointed, you know in
sort of the Trump is a part of it is is trade. I just
maybe maybe I'm from the from the philosophy that you know that trade is always
good. Maybe I'm old fashioned in that sense for many Americans. I just
don't. I just I just don't see the reason why this idea that all
trade must be automatically a losing game for the United States, Why why that
is such a strong believe and sort of the Trump side of things. I
just I think it's it's unfortunate because we had a chance under the Obama administration
of passing it. Then it was our mistake that it failed. This tt
I P that transer, the Transatlantic International Partnership something like that, as all
these acronyms, but it failed because of us, it felt because of Europeans.
We we ultimately thought that American products were going to be too competitive for
our markets. And now it's sort of like on on on on GMOs and
gene editing. We're moving in a different direction, you know, accepting sort
of the scientific, scientific realities on that, and that's going to become legal
over the next few years, which means we sort of on the regulatory front
on that, and we're going to get closer together. And I just feel
like there should be there should be pushed by Republicans to to have more trade
because we have great European products that you know, taste great and should be
available on the American market, and and and the other way around as well.
And I think competition is good. We won a competitive marketplace, including
from abroad. So I just I think that's I find that disappointing ultimately Trump,
But there was there was I'm from Wisconsin with lie of trade with Canada,
Gary farmers, and that there was a legitimate point. And that's not
to say that it was prosecuted, because I'm not a trade expert, but
it was true that Trump had been set up by some sort of years of
policies that weren't exactly or trade deals that weren't exactly actually set up in the
best interests of everyone in the United States, and then he was able to
kind of tap into that and whether or not the results, you had a
lot of farmers who were getting a little anxious towards the end of the Trump
administration supported him. Soybean farmers all that you talk to them in the middle
of the trade war, and they'd say, we're with him, We're holding
out. But then towards the end of the administration. It kept going on
and on, and so who knows, you know what a second term would
have brought in that. But I feel like he had been politically delta hand
of cards that he played somewhat defintely. When he was talking about bad trade
deals of the past. What he was been woining is managed trade. And
I think that's I think it's it's a good point to make here, because
a lot of these trade deals get concluded, and you know, the sort
of the deal, if you put it in a book, size would be
you know, very very large. You could reach, could reach the height
of a person, all to say that we will freely trade with each other,
right as to two blocks of countries. I never quite understand that they
don't need to be this many rules. But what happens in these kind of
negotiations is that one site says, oh, okay, but you're producing way
too much beef. That will be too much competition. So we're going to
do We're gonna put a quota on beef so you can only export x amount
of beef like kilos of beef to the European market. And then you guys
say, well, I mean, but you make way too much weeds,
and that might be a difficulty for the American markets. So what we're going
to do is we're going to put a quota, and so you end up
with these very complicated rule books that benefit some people at the expense of others.
And that is sort of the managed trade. What I believe in is
sort of the real free trade, where we go, okay, we accept
each other's standards. So Europeans moaning about cows, you know, with hormone
treatment and these things, they will know that it's from the US and they
can make their choices in the supermarket. And Americans being afraid of a moldy
French cheese, they don't have to buy it if they don't want to,
but they will be available in their supermarkets. Right, And then we say,
okay, we accept each other's food product, and you know, and
we see how it goes, and you know, the best the best product
will win. So I'm on, I'm on that side of that equation.
I mean, it's I mean, it was very silly. I mean,
I'm sorry over the Trump we years we had in Europe. We had tariffs
on Harley Davidson and Jack Daniels whiskey and you know, blue jeans and all
of these symbolic things that are so petty and cost both of us because you
know, if you put it, if you put a tariff on European products,
it's your consumers also that have to pay more for for those ones if
they want to. And that doesn't necessarily mean they will buy those local that
does. There's this equation that just because the foreign product will be more expensive,
now the consumer will shift to the local product and only by American.
That's sort of misunderstanding how some consumers view their consumption. Maybe they just some
people love Argentinian beefy. They will eat a steak, but only if it's
from Argentina. They won't necessarily eat an American steak just because you made it
even more expensive to buy Argentinan beef. Right, So I think that's sort
of this decentralized Oh, we're going to centrally plan what the best way is
to let goods go in and out of the country. This seem to me
it's very reminiscent of a time when we thought we could plan the economy and
I'm not on that side of the equator. So Trump is net positive for
farming, possibly yes, But on the trade issue, I think it's just
you know, to me, it's failed policy. And the only thing I'll
say is a rebuttal of that that I can as a total non expert,
is that it reminds me of exactly what you were talking about with the sort
of enigma of American legislation estensibly being about one thing but also being chock full
of things on different subjects. Is that it's cronyism. It's the revolving door.
It's that the lobbyists who left Big egg or Big Pharma or whatever,
now are you know, they're the ones that are working these bills, massaging
these bills as Congress contemplates them, and saying, you can get this theater
provision into the infrastructure mode, you can get this carve out into the infrastructure
boat cetera, et cetera. And so Trump comes in and it's like,
listen, if we're going to have a Cronius system, we might as well
have a Cronius system that is at least directionally beneficial to Americans. And I
don't know, to me, it almost seems like farmers have made their peace
with the Cronius system and have said all right, if we're going to do
it that way, We're going to do it that way, and there is
no future towards this like idealized world of free trade because there's it's sort of
defeatism. I don't know if that makes sense. The system it's been erected
now means essentially that you have to lobby for your interest, whether it's you're
trying to prevent something or because you're trying to gain an advantage. I mean,
there's a story of Microsoft. Microsoft when it started never had an office
in Washington, DC. It just didn't think it was necessary until some of
its competitors tried to ban its browsers from being available on some of the device
and then Microsoft had to start lobbying Congress also. And farmers have to lobby
Congress also because they like to get access to certain subsidies. The ideal administration
would look at a way to wean people off these different subsidies and regulations that
benefit one at the at the expense of another, and then we totally agree
your market competition and this whole lobbying is I don't I don't think in all
cases is the reason for the bad policy or often it's the symptom of the
bad policy like we we we this is patchwork where we try to fix one
problem with a new rule, and nobody ever cuts anything right. I mean,
you always get applause and you get to put your name on a bill
if you make a bill. You never get you don't really get recognition if
you get rid of something right. I mean, to me, Carter is
underappreciated because he was a big regulation cutter, and to some extent more so
then than Ronald Reagan was. But I mean these things because you don't you
don't think about those issues a lot, because you don't get cognition if you
if you get rid of a piece of legislation. I think Europe it is.
I mean, Europe is far worse. Europe it's I mean, France
it's just done. I mean, we might as well give up on the
whole country. No, I mean it's no, but it's it's getting pretty
bad because you know, we've we've really gone down that road. And I
think, and that's why we also have you know, Brussels is to me
even follower of lobbyists than than Washington, DC is because it's more government power.
The more government power the more prone you are to corruption, the more
prone you are to nepotism, the more prone you are to you know,
the s of cronies descending on your city. And I think I think that's
ultimately where people need to realize we can't fix those problem by making even more
rules. Yeah, and I actually think I agree with that totally. And
I think if Donald Trump was serious about draining the swamp, the cutting of
the regulations across the board, not just at the Department of Agriculture and the
FTA and wherever else was excellent. But to get to the heart of the
swamp, there's some real like lobbying regulations that need to happen, or lobbying
restrictions that need to happen. There's some deep systematic changes that need to happen
that I mean, to be fair, I guess you only had one term,
but I didn't hear him talking about that a lot when he was in
office. Bill, As we're sort of rounding out this discussion, what lessons
and I know this is something you think about a lot. What lessons lessons
should the US take from what's happening in Europe right now? Don't copy paste
it. That would definitely be the message, don't do what we've done wrong,
don't underestimate the voice of the pharmists, because the environmental groups in Europe
have essentially imported the American campaign tactics. Tactics in the past, we'd never
had somebody dressing up as a whale in front of a building. That's sort
of an American campaign tactic that Europeans have sort of adopted. The same way
we got Halloween from you guys. That was not really a thing until Americas
and and and and farmers might do the same the other way around. I
think a lot of American farmers are looking at it at Germany and Netherlands and
say, oh, we could do that too, And next time a farm
bill comes up that we don't like, we might also do that without tractives.
Right, So don't underestimate sort of how like how big the sympathies are
towards farmers and and when you look at the polling in those countries, it
makes a big difference. And I think that's the message for Americans is listen
to what the farmers need, because ultimately that's how you end up. You
know that that's that's that's how you end up getting you food. I means,
these are the people that make sure that your food is safe and affordable
and so so. So listen to the farmers and understand sort of what their
needs are. Make it an issue politically, even if you're not necessarily who
works somebody as as someone in the ac sector. But if you give the
chance to ask a question at a town hall, make that an issue also
sort of what is your vision for presidential candidates? What is your vision for
the food sector? What should it be in the future? Are we exporting
more? Are we trying to rely on our selves? What? What is
what is our vision? Do we focus on doing nutritiousness of food? Do
we do we try and you know, adhere to all the standards of the
environmental policies? What is it that we want? I think those questions people
need to ask and and and and Yeah, it's just you know, don't
get too inspired from Europe. But I mean maybe maybe maybe now on,
when the tractors descend on the streets of Berlin, Uh, maybe maybe some
people will realize there's only so much you can do to farmers. They're they're
there are people with I mean, we have some old things in Europe.
I'm not sure they're translatable, but ultimately now it's down to it's like,
you know, farmers are very stubborn people and there's only so far you can
go with them. But where can people follow your work? You can follow
me on x at words, W I R t Z Bill or yeah,
just Consumer Choice Center the website consumer Choice center dot org. There you go.
All right, Well, Bill Words, we'll have to check back in
again soon. This is always so interesting. I appreciate you coming back on
Federalist Radio Hour. Thank you for having me. You've been listening to another
edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm a Lie Tashnski, culture editor here
at the Federalist. We'll be back soon with more. Until then, be
the lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray. I heard the fame boy
ser reason, and then it faded away