In his work Prejudices, H.L. Mencken wrote plenty of scathing criticisms about American social life. His arch-nemesis received the most scorn: the average farmer. The farmer, he wrote, is “a tedious fraud and ignoramus, a cheap rogue and hypocrite, the eternal Jack of the human pack.” Mencken had no sympathy for a poor crop season or financial difficulty. The farmer “deserves all that he ever suffers under our economic system, and more.”
Why the sage of Baltimore held such deep-seated feelings about those who maintain the food supply, I do not know. Perhaps he witnessed too much backdoor lobbying for farming subsidies. Or perhaps he saw just how violent farmers get when their profit margins are in danger. Mencken was no fan of populism and the empty rhetoric some men would use to stoke the flames of resentment. Back then, farmers were pawns for politicians looking to fake their rustic roots. Nothing has changed today. Farmers are still showered with government subsidies, while pretending to be rugged individualists who eke out a living from the dirt they plow. When those benefits are threatened, farmers exhibit more outrage than the normal taxpayer.
Recently in France, vegetable farmers in the small town of Morlaix went on spree of violence. In one night, farmers set fire to both the local tax office and a local insurance company. Some used their equipment to dump excess crops in the street.
Why were profit-seeking farmers destroying their goods on purpose? Currently, there is an abundant supply of vegetables in France and other European countries. The cause of bountifulness is the ongoing sanctions against Russia. The embargo prevents European farmers from selling their crops to Russians. Basic economics says that with an increased supply, prices fall ceteris paribus. Hence, French farmers are left with merchandise they are forced to sell at lower prices.
In any other industry, excess supply wouldn’t be seen as a huge problem. Businesses slash prices to get rid of inventory all the time. They accept the loss, chalking it up to imperfect calculation of consumer demand. In the marketplace, there are no guaranteed profits. You sell, or you sink.
Why can’t farmers accept the hard reality of competition? Why must they react as spoiled children when things don’t work out perfectly?
The answer is state intervention. For decades, farming has been coddled by government. The men and women who cultivate the ground and keep supermarkets full are a powerful special interest. Politicians not only count on farmers for votes, but for support. Romanticizing the work of farmers makes for great political ads. The sweaty, dirt-stained laborer, the setting sun, crops in the breeze, the unwavering promise of support – each makes for an emotionally-appealing campaign commercial. Voters end up supporting farming subsidies, without realizing the deleterious effect of government regulation.
State benefits don’t just provide unjust profits to the receivers. They also create dependency and a distorted view of responsibility. Instead of placing blame on the real culprit of their financial problems, French farmers are attacking local tax authorities. The tax collectors aren’t responsible for sanctions aimed at curbing Russia’s imperialistic desire. They are only doing their job, which is, admittedly, not altogether different from the common thief.
It is doubtful that French officials foresaw the consequences of banning citizens from trading goods with Russians. They used political expediency to pass regulations that were popular at the time. In fairness or not, Russia was seen as a bully following the annexation of Crimea. Western governments acted in unison to deter President Vladimir Putin. The opposite effect is now happening. French pols sacrificed the farming industry to prove they were tough on heavy-handed dictators. The only problem is, as blogger Mike Shedlock points out, Putin’s support in Russia “is at an all-time high.” French President Hollande is one of the most unpopular leaders in the country’s history. Sanctions don’t just backfire economically, they rarely bring political gains when all is said and done.
The problem with Hollande and his fellow politicians is their myopic view on economics. As Bastiat – a Frenchman who actually understood sound economic principles – once described it, policymakers are blissfully unaware of the “unseen” results of their actions. They see the short-term outcomes of their plans – not the potential downfalls.
Was the French political class so thickheaded it couldn’t predict that sanctions cause excess supply on domestic shores? I don’t doubt it. Politicians rarely give attention to the nuances of whatever dilemma they hope to rectify. Instead, they read news headlines and listen to pundits. Their opinions change as often as a child’s.
It’s hard to feel sympathy for farmers who, after being shortchanged by government policy, resort to violence to signal their disapproval. Aggression should never be an option for political change. It’s contradictory, counter-productive, and immoral. Ransacking a government building doesn’t change laws. It only empowers the political class to clamp down on dissent.
There was once a time that farming was looked upon as a noble profession. Taming the wild and nurturing life from the ground is still one of man’s greatest feats. Despite all our technological achievements since the Industrial Revolution, none of them would exist without the ability to harvest food. Even today, many individuals choose to labor and toil in fields – a testament to the staying power of what is typically considered an anachronistic practice.
Had government not come along and turned most commercial farmers into dependent beggars, the profession may not have lost much of its glory in the eyes of taxpayers who are sick of footing the bill for subsidies. It may have also saved farmers from the embarrassment of mindless destruction. Right now, the French farmers who took to burning down a few hapless buildings look like infantile whiners. They aren’t helping the cause of economic sanity.