It is a genuine pleasure to be here today on the occasion of the Annual Convention of the American Farm Bureau Federation. Your organization is greatly respected on Capitol Hill by members of both political parties, by those who agree with you and those who disagree with you. Your able and articulate officers, your unique and democratic system of policy-making and your persistent, consistent presentation of your position on the issues - these are characteristics for which the Farm Bureau is widely known and rightfully admired by all.
This is the first convention of any kind which I have addressed since the Democratic National Convention last August -- and I must say I find this a much pleasanter task. Miami Beach in December makes more sense and better speeches than Chicago in August -- and the Roney-Plaza Hotel here has a certain atmosphere about it that is superior to the atmosphere in the Chicago Stockyards.
But after all the talk about the "farm vote" and my own status that circulated cut at that Convention, it is quite a challenge to be standing here face to face with a large segment of it. Some of my friends have advised me to use this speech to capture the "farm vote", to outpromise and outflatter all my fellow politicians. Others have urged me to speak words calculated to win the support of one or more of the major farm organizations, who could deliver the "farm vote" in some future election.
But I intend to follow neither course this afternoon. For I am frank to say that I have long doubted whether there is any such thing as a "farm vote" in the sense in which it is usually meant, or of the size that is usually described. I am convinced that there are more mythical rules, mistaken assumptions, and fictional reports about the so-called "farm vote" than practically any other political phenomenon. And I believe that continued reliance upon these myths and fallacies is doing a grave disservice to sound farming and sound government alike.
Now these, I will admit, are strong words from a city boy from an eastern state who has never milked a cow or plowed a furrow, straight or crooked. Indeed, my very appearance here is contrary to accepted practice. For in Washington, although Senators from farm states may decide whether Boston should have an urban redevelopment program, and what labor relations laws should govern our major cities, a "city Senator" from an eastern state is not supposed to have any positive thoughts of his own on farm issues or have anything to say of interest to farmers.
I think, of course, that this is a great mistake -- not only because my own state's 200 million dollar farm economy boasts some of the nation's finest farmlands, most modern methods and most famous products - but also because it is wrong to assume that eastern and urban Congressmen are so narrow in their views and interests that they are unable to consider farm issues, or talk to farm families, on a par with farm-state Senators.
Nevertheless I speak today not as a farm expert discussing farm policy, but as an amateur political scientist and practicing politician discussing some prevalent political theories about farm voters -- theories which I think are not only fallacious but harmful, an injustice to farmers, and a barrier to sound farm policies and politics.
I ask you to examine with me the four most common farm fallacies we hear in Washington today, to see if by refuting them we might strengthen the bonds of mutual understanding between agriculture and politics.
FARM FALLACY NUMBER ONE - The basic, overriding issue in agricultural policy today is the choice between flexible and rigid price supports.
This one issue alone occupies practically all of the time and attention devoted to farm problems by the Congress, the political parties, the press and the public. We give comparatively little thought to most of the truly major issues -- such as the disappearance of the family-size farm, the spread between farm and consumer prices and the rising costs of the farmer's purchases. Instead we concentrate, year after year, with bitter emotional divisions, upon an issue which now has little more than symbolic value.
For the truth of the matter is that in recent years there has been very little real difference between the parties and the candidates on the question of parity price supports, and very little real difference between the so-called rigid and flexible programs -- this year roughly a choice between 90% and about 86%. It can hardly be said that either approach offers a perfect, permanent, comprehensive answer to all the ills of agriculture; or that either program is free of the faults for which its own adherents condemn the other.
Both depend upon the storage of surpluses too big to handle, and expensive to store. Neither diminishes appreciably the production of surplus commodities or increases appreciably their markets. Both offer support to some farmers in some parts of the country that hurts other farmers in other parts of the country. Neither offers substantially lower prices to consumers and industry, or substantially lower costs to the taxpayers. Both subsidize inefficient and well-to-do farmers while giving little help to those who need it most. Both concentrate more on the farmer's price than on his net income. Both depend upon rigid controls. Both restrict, through price structures and necessary tariff barriers, the world market for farm exports.
In short, with all of the basic weaknesses they share, the dispute over "fairly rigid" versus "slightly flexible" should hardly rank as the fundamental issue in agriculture today.
FARM FALLACY NUMBER TWO - A Congressman's or candidate's stand on farm price supports is the basic test of his attitude toward farmers and their problems, and the basic test of whether he will win their support at the polls.
When a politician asks "How does he stand on the farm problem?", or "Is he right with the farmer?" he really means: Did he vote for or against 90% of parity? Some farm leaders say a true friend of the farmer is one who voted for 90% of parity; others say the real test is just the opposite.
Yet few tests could be so artificial and so meaningless. One vote either way on this issue does not make a man either a friend or an enemy of the farmer. Other farm issues are important; basic attitudes toward the farmer's problems are important; and so are all the personal characteristics of integrity and sincerity that win a farmer's respect and confidence. I would not want the farm voters of Massachusetts or any other state to either support me or oppose me on the basis of how I stood on this one complex issue -- an issue on which farmers themselves disagree, and where the differences, as I have mentioned, have in practice become very limited.
It is clear that on both sides of this question may be found men devoted to the best interests of our farmers -- men like Senator Anderson or Senator Russell, who split on this issue but neither of whom could be called "anti-farmer" in any sense of the word. Moreover, both opponents and proponents are usually simply representing the best interests of the farmers in their respective states -- a responsibility which frequently finds opponents of high supports on some commodities favoring them on others. They cannot properly be considered "anti-farmer" for taking either position.
I would hope, therefore, that our major farm organizations, instead of publishing analyses of Congressional voting records showing so many "right" and so many "wrong" votes, will look with more understanding upon a legislator's responsibility to his constituents, and will measure his acceptability to farm voters in broader, more realistic terms.
FARM FALLACY NUMBER THREE - The "farm vote" is cast for the party or candidate who promises farmers the most financial assistance.
This is perhaps the most basic, the most widespread, and the most dangerous, assumption of them all. It has led to political campaigns filled with glowing exaggerations, cleverly-worded promises and shameful political hypocrisy. Running throughout last fall's campaign debates
about price supports and early Soil Bank payments was the clear implication that the nation's farmers would vote for whichever candidates offered them the most economic security.
But the vote of no farmer, I am convinced, is for sale to the highest bidder; and I am sure that farmers everywhere resent the implication that it is. And although farm voters, like everyone else, naturally take into account their economic future, it is clear that they are influenced by a multitude of other considerations (which I will mention in a moment). Indeed, a Roper Poll of 1952 showed that a majority of the nation's farmers outside the South believed they would probably be better off financially under the Democrats -- but that they were going to vote Republican. This year each side is now presenting a maze of statistics to prove that the election was a mandate for or against the Benson program or 90% supports; but candidates on both sides of the issue in both parties having won and lost, with other issues and personalities obviously having entered in, I personally doubt that anyone can find a mandate from a united farm vote in 1956 for any single farm policy.
Even the so-called "farm revolt" of 1948 does not prove that farmers vote their pocketbooks; for farmers were deeply split in that election, with Mr. Truman -- who was running, it might also be recalled, on a flexible parity platform -- losing as many farm states as he won, and winning others only by virtue of his vote in the cities. I think most objective observers would agree that those farmers -- by no means all -- who did express a preference for Mr. Truman over Mr. Dewey and for Mr. Eisenhower over Mr. Stevenson, were motivated by more than promises of financial assistance.
FARM FALLACY NUMBER FOUR - The "farm vote" is cast in accordance with the level of farm prices or farm income at the time of election.
Last fall the political pundits thought Democratic chances were rising as farm prices fell and the drought continued. Mr. Nixon said in October that he expected the farm vote would hinge on "what happens to farm income between now and election." The political maxim accepted in Washington is that farmers would vote against the party in power when prices or income were low; and the effect of soil bank payments, drought relief and a stepped up pork purchase program were considered in that light.
But how could it be believed that farmers would take such a short-range view -- that they would decide on an administration for the next four critical years because of what happened to their pocketbooks during a campaign of four months? Undeniably farmers who are at the end of their rope financially, ruined by drought and falling prices, are more ready to try a change -- and yet even they, I am convinced, are not so narrow and short-sighted in their political thinking as to permit a temporary rise or fall in prosperity, or a sudden burst of rainfall, to alter their political beliefs. Too many other considerations are at stake; and too many other measurements of the farm economy, such as assets, indebtedness and tenure of ownership, are ignored by such a single explanation. The man who at long last owns his own farm free of debt, and sees his land values rising, will not cast a protest vote just because prices are low on election day.
Moreover, these generalized rules of the farmer's political behavior are always risky. Rising grain prices for some farmers may mean rising feed prices for others. A heavy rainfall may be a blessing for some farmers and a catastrophe for others. (Indeed, I have rarely met a farmer who didn't have some complaint about the weather! And I wish you would tell me the answer to that old political argument -- does a rainy election day bring the farmers out because they can't work in the fields, or does it keep them home because of poor travel conditions?)
The continued prevalence of these four fallacies, I am convinced, makes more difficult the evolution of a sounder farm program and greater understanding between farmers and politicians. It is my hope that men of intelligence and goodwill in both groups, in both parties and on both sides of the parity issue can work together to eliminate these fallacies in popular and official thinking.
Let us substitute facts for fallacies, the proven record for mistaken assumptions, and recognition of individual needs for gross generalizations. Let us keep in mind when we speak hereafter of farm policies and farm voters, or when others speak loosely of the "farm vote", not these four farm fallacies but some solid farm facts, such as these:
FARM FACT NUMBER ONE - Farm voters do not agree on the issue of parity price supports.
They disagree not only in their organizations, party affiliations or economic philosophy, but also on grounds of economic interest. Too many politicians looking for the "farm vote" forget that while some farmers, of some commodities in some states, are benefited by high rigid price supports, others are not; and, in fact, many farmers are hurt by the very supports that help others.
FARM FACT NUMBER TWO - Farm voters are interested in more issues than parity price supports and other farm measures.
Many other issues, of course, help shape a candidate's farm record -- including his votes on such matters as agricultural research, rural electrification, soil conservation, reclamation and irrigation, the St. Lawrence Seaway and surplus disposal programs. But, in addition, the farmer has a special interest in legislation affecting highways, schools, hospitals, and postal service because of his location in the country. He is vitally concerned with laws affecting transportation and freight rates, public power, cooperatives and Federal land policies because of the nature of his business. He has discovered, in recent years, as his export markets have become less accessible, his special stake in trade and tariff policies, foreign aid programs, and the availability of American Merchant Marine facilities. And more important to remember, farmers, like all the rest of us, are interested in issues of health, taxation, atomic power, labor relations and, above all, in a secure and peaceful nation. The issues of war and peace, the record shows, have time and time again been far more important to farmers than their own economic gains.
FARM FACT NUMBER THREE - Farm voters are subject to the same influences and pressures as all other voters.
All farm dwellers no more think and vote as a unit than all city dwellers. Both are subject to the same kinds of ties, appeals, pressures and influences -- of popular personalities, ethnic patterns, income, age, sex and so on. All farmers do not vote as farmers, regardless of whether they are German or Czech, young or old, rich or poor, big farmers or little farmers. Women and young people on the farm are subject to the same influences as women and young people in the towns and cities; and appealing personalities, such as Mr. Eisenhower, that are able to captivate voters in other areas regardless of the issues, can have the same effect on farmers.
FARM FACT NUMBER FOUR - Farm voters are not the captive of any one political party, are not deliverable by any one farm organization, and are not represented by any one legislator or public official.
No one voice speaks for all American farmers, no cabinet member, no Senator, no party leader, no farm organization. That is as it should be -- for the interests and circumstances of our farmers are too varied and too inconsistent with each other. Some farm belt politicians -- (and even a majority of their constituents, in most cases, are not farmers) -- may assume the role of spokesmen for the American farmer; but they cannot speak for those who will be unhelped or even hurt by their policies. The American farmer, voting statistics show, is more independent and more politically sophisticated than ever before. He may belong to a national organization such as yours, and a producers organization, and a local cooperative and possibly others, all in disagreement with each other and the political parties over some issue. They cannot all speak for him accurately or promise his vote; and when he enters the voting booth, he speaks for himself.
In reviewing these facts and fallacies, I may have said more than a "city Senator" is entitled to say on these sensitive subjects. But my intention has been not to deprecate your importance as farmers but to appreciate your importance as citizens -- citizens who are interested in more than farm issues, affected by more than farm profits and convinced by more than expensive farm promises -- citizens who vote not as a bloc but as thoughtful individuals, not with their pocketbooks but with their heads and their hearts. For in this way, and only in this way, can that complicated, vulnerable, sometimes discouraging political machinery which we call democracy produce a better world for ourselves and for our children.
Speech Images