Campaign 2002: Agricultural Issues in Campaign 2002

Real Audio of Briefing

       MR. HAGSTROM: Well thank you. It's very nice to be here with you today. Since we're a small group, I'm not going to make too long an opening statement. But I would like you to know in talking about this, I'm actually combining two aspects of my career.

       When I was -- earlier in my career, I spent a number of years covering politics, particularly specializing in the political consulting industry. And I was the first reporter who did an analysis of who the consultants were in every campaign for Senate and governor around the country, and I have been keeping track of the major consultants and their role in American politics actually since 1984. And in 1995, I began covering agriculture for National Journal. Although, as Paul said, I did grow up on a farm in North Dakota, so I had some inclination towards this subject before.

       But I'd like to make some opening -- just some opening remarks, a little bit on the -- both on the politics of the campaigns, and then we'll talk a little bit about agriculture.

       The first thing that I would say is what is different about this year's elections in terms of the election -- not procedures, but what's going on in the campaigns -- is that for the second cycle in a row we have really four sources of advertising that are determining the debate, and that is that the candidates are doing their own advertising; secondly, the party committees in each state, although they're really run through the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, are doing their own issues ads. And then we also have -- on each side of the political spectrum we have independent groups that are doing advertising. And this is causing what one consultant told me is a jumble of information for the voters to go through. And in a year in which you don't have any really strong themes, this makes the work for the voter harder to try to figure out what they really care about. And also, they can't figure out who's giving them the messages.

       Now, supposedly this will change after the campaign finance reform rules go in this year; that they won't be able to use what's called soft money, so that the party ads should diminish.

       Now whether that improves the situation is something that we'll have to see in two years. But this is the way it is out there.

       If anybody wants to understand the elections, I really urge you to watch C-SPAN. I mean, compared to 15 or 20 years ago, the amount of information that you can get in Washington on each of these campaigns is incredible. You used to have to go out there. But it's -- you know, it is to me very interesting -- I don't know whether I should say "interesting." It's important to watch the debates and the ads every night. Sometimes I actually -- at this point, I'm getting a little bored with them. They do tend to be repetitive, and I think everybody would kind of like the election to be tomorrow, instead of two weeks from now.

       But those are kind of my general remarks on what's going on in politics, and we can talk a little bit more about that later, during the Q&A.

       Secondly, we should talk -- we talk about agriculture in the elections. From what I can tell, the passage of the farm bill did eliminate agricultural issues as a major campaign issue in these states, with a very few exceptions. Certainly the fact that Tom Harkin is the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee has played a key role in his campaign in Iowa. If you watch the debates, he talks about it very often. And his delivery of that -- I noticed that yesterday the Agriculture secretary, Ann Veneman, announced that there had been $6 million in grants made -- excuse me -- I should say $75 million in grants that had been made in states all over the country, for -- mostly for value-added agricultural economic development projects. And the biggest of those was $6 million to Iowa.

       Now of course while we would not accuse the Agriculture secretary of making this as a political statement, the fact is that it came out two weeks before the elections. It would probably be to the advantage of Republican candidates. The Bush administration is making the grants. The announcement noted that these fulfilled Bush administration policies -- the grants that have been made.

       But Harkin was able to turn this around. He -- we got a release from him in which he congratulated the, I think, 29 groups in Iowa that got the grants and then said, "I'm so happy about this. This is why I'm on the Senate Agriculture Committee, to get programs like this passed."

       So Harkin is really the only state where I have seen this as an issue, the emphasis on the farm bill.

       Now to me, since the farm bill has been so controversial, especially in foreign countries, to me the issue would be, you know, if it hadn't passed or if the Bush administration had opposed it, where would we be? And it is likely that it would have been an issue for the Democrats if it had not passed. And this comes down to a kind of contradiction among the Republicans that I think we might talk about here.

       The way that I look at party politics in the -- with agriculture is that both parties have their splits. We all know, from those maps that we see of rural America and the cities in the last elections, you know, that red America, where Bush won, is in the center of the country, and blue America is on the edges where you have a large urban population. And so you can think of that as Democratic and you can think of the center as Republican, and also, of course, you know, the South as being Republican.

       Well, if I were to go back 20 or 30 years in agricultural policy I would say that the Republicans -- it was easier for them as a party to question agricultural subsidies at a time when they were not in majority control in the House of Representatives or in a near majority in the Senate. But the fact is that the Republicans are very dependent on the votes from commodity-producing parts of the country.

       Now, my view is that when the Republicans were in the minority party in Congress, that the party was more dominated by the Midwest and maybe, you could say, the agricultural processing industry, which has always questioned the subsidies. But now that they are in the majority, they are -- the votes in these areas where the commodities are produced are very, very important to them, so it's very difficult for them to go against that.

       On the Democratic side, in a lot of ways you could say, well, why do the Democrats care about agriculture -- I mean, agricultural production? Certainly they would care about the food stamp recipients who live in the cities, they might care perhaps about the environmental voters who want farmland protected and other kinds of environmental programs, but in fact then look at who is in the Senate. And the Democratic majority definitely depends on those western states, particularly the Dakotas, Montana, et cetera, so therefore, they have a reason to be interested in agriculture too.

       So I don't think the politics of the farm bill are inexplicable, as some people would say, and I do think that it would have been an issue if it had not come -- if it had not been settled earlier this year. Now of course, most foreigners would think that it was settled, maybe, at their expense, because there's been a lot of opposition to this farm bill, but I think the politics are very understandable.

       Now, that said, there is one remaining issue in the races, and that is disaster aid. And I think that that issue is going to continue on until Election Day.

       Just to recap what it is, it's that there is a drought in the Mountain States. And there is also a -- there has been a problem with flooding in Minnesota and in a few other places.

       The Senate, earlier this year, passed a $2.4 billion drought package that was really to address the problems in 2001. It was put in the farm bill; it was taken out in conference. The Democrats blame the Bush administration and the House leadership for taking this -- for refusing to include it in the farm bill. And they say that that policy has continued until the present time.

       Now, the Senate also voted 79 to 16 to break the budget rules to put in a disaster aid package, now at $5.9 billion, on the Interior appropriations bill. But that bill was not finalized before they went home.

       At the same time, a -- I'm told a dozen, but there's really three or four particular House members have been trying to get the Bush administration to support a disaster package. They worked on it up until the last day that they went home. But the Bush administration is saying they won't support it unless there are cuts in other government spending. And so now they have -- there has been no action in the House of Representatives on this, and they have gone home.

       So we're leaving -- we're going to the end of the campaign with the Democrats saying that the House and the Bush administration haven't acted. And the House members are complaining that the Senate didn't act, either.

       Now this really affects, at the present time, one race, and that is the South Dakota Senate race, where Congressman John Thune is challenging Tim Johnson. And of course, as I'm sure you've been told, it seems to be a proxy for a race between President Bush and Senator Daschle, the majority leader. I'm still getting e-mails and press releases about this, and I'm sure I will be for the next week.

       But otherwise, I don't see agriculture being a direct issue in these elections right now. Although, rural states are absolutely crucial to this Senate race, you know, as far as who's going to control the Senate. We have, you know, the race in Arkansas; the race in Minnesota; I already mentioned South Dakota; the Missouri race between Jean Carnahan and Mr. Talent. All of these races -- in all of these races, the rural vote is very important.

       Now, when we discuss the rural vote we're not necessarily discussing the agricultural vote. And I think that that -- it's a little bit hard to talk about who the rural voters are because, of course, they're all kinds of people. But in general, you can say that one of the reasons that these races are so important is that the rural vote itself tends to be split, and the split is that rural people are generally more conservative -- they're not necessarily more Republican. And when I say -- and they're also not necessarily against abortion rights and other -- and taking socially conservative positions, but they're conservative in the ways that they live, and so this influences how they vote.

       But at the same time, the rural population is poorer, or just not as wealthy as the suburban and urban -- and to some degree as the urban population, and so they are more dependent on the government. They're more dependent in two ways. The first is that the rural population is disproportionately elderly and so, therefore, Social Security is a big issue among rural people. And secondly, of course they are dependent on agricultural subsidies and on other kinds of rural development aid.

       I often say that the Agriculture Department, which many people think of as one of the most boring divisions of the federal government, is really a second government. If you really look at what the Agriculture Department is involved in, it's almost everything. In addition to the farm programs and the food stamp programs and other nutrition programs, you know, the Agriculture Department is also the division of the government that electrified rural America and provides the basis for the telephone service. And in the poorest communities, it also puts in water and sewer and provides these economic development grants, trying to improve the economy in some of the most remote areas of the country.

       And there's one other factor about these rural states that is very important, but it's absolutely, completely modern, and that is television advertising in the campaigns because the distances are so great, and secondly, the ad rates are the cheapest in the country.

       So these races often are the most competitive, both for the Senate and for the House, because the candidates can afford to buy so much television. They tell me that the people in South Dakota are absolutely sick of it, as you can imagine.

       You may have seen a story in the New York Times that says that the South Dakota Senate race has more advertising than any campaign in history. That's because the ad rates are so cheap. You can buy an ad in South Dakota for a tiny fraction of what it costs to put an ad on in New York or in Philadelphia to try to influence the race between Lautenberg and Forrester in New Jersey. So this is very important.

       I'm going to end with one last note here. If you're writing about agriculture, I would say the most important thing that is going to happen in this election is not who wins or loses these. It is the fact that Senator Richard Lugar is going to give up the top position as Republican on the Agriculture Committee, and he is going to become the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And we believe that Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi will become the new chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

       Now I think this is important in three ways. First of all, there's Lugar's impact on the Foreign Relations Committee, where he'll be taking over from Senator Helms. I'm not going to address that.

       But secondly, within the Agriculture Committee, it means that Lugar -- who is probably going to stay on there as a member, but he will not be in the leadership position, so he will not be the -- you know, the -- if he's chairman, scheduling, or being the top Republican -- but he has definitely been a voice that has been critical of the farm programs. Senator Cochran is a big supporter of the farm programs, particularly the cotton and rice subsidies, and I think that he will be working to protect those -- to protect the farm bill. Also, he is likely to remain as the chairman of the Senate Agricultural Appropriations Subcommittee, and occupying these two positions would make him one of the most powerful people ever in American agriculture.

       So in fact I think that, you know, the switch from Lugar to Cochran is the most important thing that's going on here. I think it's much more -- this is more important than whether Harkin or Lugar or -- Harkin or Cochran is the chairman of the committee, although if Harkin is the chairman, there will be -- there would be some differences in approach on issues like the ban on meatpackers owning livestock close to the date of slaughter, probably on the food safety laws. But again, I think this change from Lugar to Cochran is very, very important.

       And so with that, I will stop talking and take any questions you have.

       MODERATOR: I'll just remind you, if you would, please, to use the microphones and introduce yourself and your organization.

       Q Michael Backfisch, Handelsblatt, German business daily. You said, you know, that the vote in the rural states is very important for these midterm elections. You said that the people have a more conservative lifestyle. What does that mean, exactly? And how do the parties appeal to that? You said -- I mean, the people are poorer than in other states, that might be an advantage for the Democrats, you know. Could you elaborate a little bit more on that?

       MR. HAGSTROM: Sure. By that I mean that -- (laughs) -- they don't lead very wild lives, and that influences the way that they look -- the way that they view the world. They're more likely to go to church every Sunday. They're not necessarily, in this day and age, less likely to be divorced. You have a lot of divorced people in rural America, and you have mothers with single children there, but they tend to be worried about things like the government -- you know, they tend to be worried about high taxes, they tend to be worried about the government spending too much money, and particularly about whether the government can spend money wisely. And so in that way, I mean that they are just very conservative. I would say, you know, they're kind of buttoned down.

       They're just -- in these rural communities, you kind of have to watch what you do. There is -- you know, everybody knows everybody else. It's all those old things that people used to talk about. And that tends to make them conservative and also to make them somewhat distrustful of politicians from urban areas and those who have support from people in urban areas.

       So on that side, they tend towards the Republican. But on the other side, because they need money and they need services, that makes them vote Democratic on some occasions. So -- well, I think that about says it, unless you have a follow-up question.

       Q Thanks. Peter Harcher (sp) from the Australian Financial Review. Two questions, please.

       The first is, as you say, the farm bill has neutralized agricultural issues in the mid-term election. Will it also have neutralized them in the 2004 presidential election?

       The second question is, how do you reconcile the farm bill and its 10-year program of subsidies, on the one hand, with the parallel negotiations going on in the WTO, where the U.S. has proposed significant scaling back of agricultural protection and subsidization?

       MR. HAGSTROM: Sure. As far as the 2004 election is concerned, I think that whether agriculture is neutralized depends on what goes on in the WTO negotiations, and possibly in the foreign trade -- no, what's FTAA? The Latin American negotiation -- Free Trade Area of the Americas -- and also the possibility of a free trade agreement with Australia. Now, if these things come up, that is these are really important negotiations within the next two years, it's possible that agriculture will not be neutralized in the 2004 elections.

       Now, as far as these kind of two tracks that we're talking about, I'm sure that you heard the statements from -- I think you could say they're from both the Bush administration and both parties in Congress, that the justification for this high level of farm subsidies at the present time is that we need these in a transition until the next round of WTO negotiations are completed. Now, whether that is true, or whether that works is uncertain.

       I certainly know, let's say, ag trade lobbyists who are saying that they are fearful that farmers will not be willing to give up the certainty of subsidies for the uncertainty of market access in foreign countries, particularly poor countries, where the economy may not be stable, and therefore you don't know whether they're going to really buy these imported products or not.

       I have also had farm lobbyists now -- as opposed to ag trade lobbyists, who tend to work for the processors and for the big companies -- I've had a farm lobbyist just tell me yesterday that whether farmers really accept what the U.S. position is in these trade negotiations is still unclear because most farmers aren't following this. They were following the fast track negotiations. And another lobbyist told me, just two days ago, that the day after the fast track or Trade Promotion Authority was passed, he got a call from a farmer saying, "So, when are you signing the deal?" They don't -- you know, out in rural America there really are a lot of people who don't realize that these negotiations are going to take several years; they don't know what's going to happen, and they tend to focus on them when the negotiations are closer at hand.

       Also, I think in the next year they'll focus on it more because the farm bill is passed, and unless there's a major challenge to it, in a way they will have time to focus on the ag negotiations.

       But again, to bring this around to the 2004 election, I think it matters how much of this is going -- how far this has gone, and what they're going to be talking about. I mean, if in the middle of 2004 the Bush administration is proposing a large-scale reduction in farm subsidies, and they have gotten market access, or maybe they haven't gotten as much as they're hoping for, I think you're going to have a real debate in farm country about whether this policy is good.

       This brings me to something else about the importance of the farm voters. Farmers are extremely -- as you've probably gotten from your own reporting here -- farmers are extremely active in politics and in public policy. They also talk a lot. And I -- and they have influence over other people in the community.

       All the polls that are done about American agriculture show that there is still a great deal of trust and respect for farmers. I think that this goes back to the fact that so many Americans owe their ancestry to being the children and grandchildren of homesteaders. And their stories that are passed on in the families, going down generation after generation, of how hard it is. So people know that it's hard physical labor. They have respect for it, and they also -- well, you know, they like driving around farms. They like the beauty of the countryside; perhaps not quite as much as the French do, but they do like it. And so they want rural America to do well.

       Yes, Chuck?

       This is Chuck Abbott, who's one of my colleagues, and competitors, usually, so that's why I'm laughing a little bit.

       Q I'm Chuck Abbott with Reuters. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about why drought relief has not become an issue in farm states, considering there was a nearly universal front of farm organizations pressing Congress and the administration for action before Election Day.

       MR. HAGSTROM: All right, yes, this is very interesting that it has not become a bigger issue. And the best analysis that I have came from an aid to a conservative congressman a couple weeks ago, who said the reason it's not a bigger issue is that there are so few competitive House races in farm country, but particularly in those areas that are affected by the drought. And if you go out there, and you think about it, Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming, most of Colorado -- those states are Republican. There's not a competitive House race in the whole area. Except -- but South Dakota is competitive in both the Senate race and in the House race. But if it had been -- if there were more -- if the races were more competitive in more places, then I think you really -- that you would have seen a drought package.

       Q Generally, the voter turnout in midterm elections is not very high. It's around 38 percent. What's your prediction for these midterm elections, and how does it play in the farm states? And how do the parties answer to that? I mean, are there get-out-to-vote campaigns, and what are the big issues?

       MR. HAGSTROM: First of all, I don't see any reason why turnout is going to be particularly high this year. There is no national compelling reason to get out and vote. So the parties are having to work extremely hard to get out the vote.

       Rural states tend to have, I think, slightly higher voter turnout than the urban states.

       But voter turnout is very important here. And in these -- and probably the most important is in South Dakota.

       And in the Western rural states, the new issue in voting is the voting on Indian reservations. American Indians have had traditionally very low voter turnout. But in recent years the Democrats have been putting a major effort in to try to register them and get them to participate, and they've had some success with that. Last -- in the last election in Montana, there was a strong effort on this, and now there has been a strong effort in South Dakota.

       There -- the -- I don't remember who exactly has charged this, but there are charges of voter fraud in South Dakota because there have been people registered to vote who turned out to be dead. And the South Dakota Democratic Party says that this was poor work by one of their contractors and that this person or persons have been removed from the -- from this work. But it is still, to this day, an issue in the South Dakota race.

       I notice that Tim Johnson has been asking John Thune to take all the negative ads off the air. And Thune, I believe, said he was willing to do that, but he does believe that the question of Johnson's role in this voter registration has to be addressed. So I think what that really means is no, he's not going to take them off the air. But I'm not out there in South Dakota, so I haven't seen these ads. But it -- that is an issue.

       In the rural South, of course, getting the black vote out has been -- in rural areas has been a major issue. And in the 1960s and '70s, you know, civil rights activists went to the South to encourage that. I don't know how much of an issue that is in this year's races.

       MODERATOR: A final question?

       Q Thanks.

       MODERATOR: Then thank you very much. We appreciate it.

       MR. HAGSTROM: Thank you.

       If you've been thinking about going on the road, think about going to Minnesota or South Dakota or Missouri. I think that's where the -- I expect particularly South Dakota and Missouri, I think, will be the hottest races at the very end.

       MODERATOR: Thanks again.

       MR. HAGSTROM: Mm-hmm.