In the Russell Senate Office Building Caucus Room, Fred McClure was watching the crowd. It was March 1978, and the American Agriculture Movement — a pressure group for government support of farm prices — was meeting with Texan congressmen.
A legislative aide to Sen. John Tower (R.), McClure was leaning on a door when a rancher from Paint Creek, Texas, named Rick Perry walked past. Newly retired from the Air Force, Perry held a degree in animal science from Texas A&M. His class ring gave him away.
Spotting the ring, McClure, a fellow Texas A&M grad, introduced himself, and the two hit it off. Thirteen years later McClure, a notary public, would swear Perry into office as Texas’s agriculture commissioner, his first statewide office.
Advertisement
Today, McClure thinks Perry’s agricultural roots could help him win the presidency.
“He has the ability to communicate with all parts of the agricultural chain — whether it’s production or retail,” McClure tells National Review Online.
David Yepsen, former chief political correspondent for the Des Moines Register, believes that ability could prove fruitful in Iowa. “It’s important for candidates to show that they understand people and their problems,” he says. “And having an agricultural background will be helpful to any candidate.”
But Iowans aren’t a bunch of hayseeds. Laurie Johns, spokeswoman for the Iowa Farm Bureau, says, “People representing different candidates have called me up looking for a farm to hold some type of meeting, and they don’t want a modern farm. They want some old barn with hay bales stacked in the background, a farmer in overalls, and an ancient tractor the candidate can stand on. It’s amusing, but it’s also sad because it shows how out of touch they are. They’re looking for American Gothic, and we’ve gone way beyond that.”
Besides, the political advantage of a farming background is vulnerable to exaggeration, Yepsen warns: “Iowa is a state of 3 million people. Only 80,000 or so are farmers. And the actual number of farmers who attend caucuses is pretty small.” Still, the evidence of a “Midwest regional bias” in the caucuses is clear. Consider the candidates who have performed well there: South Dakota senator George McGovern, Georgia peanut farmer Jimmy Carter, Colorado cowboy Gary Hart, and Kansas senator Bob Dole.
Ken Luce, who managed Perry’s campaign for agriculture commissioner in 1990, believes the advantage extends beyond Iowa. “The agriculture economy is very important from Florida all the way to California and in between,” he says. As agriculture commissioner, Perry felt comfortable getting into the weeds of agriculture policy, such as inspecting gas pumps and determining funding for fire-ant programs. And, perhaps most importantly, the skills Perry sharpened in winning his first statewide race could be useful if he runs for president.
In 1990, Perry was an obscure state legislator running against one of the most popular Texas politicians of the 1980s: Jim Hightower. Although Hightower had the advantage of incumbency, Perry rallied several important constituencies to his side. Farmers were livid with Hightower over his opposition to pesticides and his favoritism toward niche markets such as organic foods. Perry argued that Texas should support its mainstays, such as cotton and wheat. When the European Community temporarily banned imports of hormone-treated beef, Perry urged Hightower to stick up for Texas ranchers (instead, Hightower suggested they could sell hormone-free beef to Europe).
“Hightower ignored mainstream agriculture for years, so they were riled up and Rick got them to cross over,” Luce says. Perry beat the well-liked incumbent, 49 percent to 47 percent, even while the Republican gubernatorial candidate, Clayton Williams, lost to Democrat Ann Richards.
I like Rick Perry and I think that he has a better shot at the Presidency than my other two favorites: Palin and Bachmann. Having said that, I think his support of 'price supports' is a negative. Most of the farm subsidies go to giant farms and so turn out to be welfare for millionaires. Given the current state of the deficit, farm subsidies and price supports are luxuries we can do without.
Jack, you said it yourself; subsidies have to go. Yet, you also mention that fatcat corporate farmers garner a large share of those that go out. Consider a "means testing" plan to ensure we subsidize the right sized farms. That would be easy to do and far less damaging to farmers at the local level.
There are farmers in my family and trust me, these are not lazy, wealthy people. I have never met a harder, more difficult profession than farmer. Before sunrise and well after sunset, they work and they deserve to be supported while they make our agriculture products.
Of course, we could always depend on some other country to sell us agricultural products at the lowest bid cost, but that would undermine our first, greatest economy.
"Consider a "means testing" plan to ensure we subsidize the right sized farms."
nope, no subsidies whatsoever. we dont subsidize the local mom and pop convenience store competing against 7-11 so why should we subsidize farmer brown competing against conagra.
Because the Fed. Gov. doesn't meddle in the prices that Mom & Pop stores are allowed to charge. Nor does it tell Mom and Pop what they are allowed to stock and sell.
The reasons behind farm subsidies are not what many people think they are.
"I like Rick Perry and I think that he has a better shot at the Presidency than "
This is one of the fallacies of campaigns: the person not in the race is better than the ones already in the race. It is the attraction of the not very well known, over those we are familiar with.
A similar fallacy is the: X loses to the generic Y party candidate, or, X beats the generic Y party candidate. It's all very nice and entertaining, but X doesn't run against a faceless, nameless generic candidate, X runs against a specific person. Genericness is irrelevant.
I agree that Perry's position in the past on price supports is a negative but compare him to obama when he ran for the Presidency. If obama can overcome NO relevant experience and a leftist voting record then Perry has a tremendous advantage as a Governor, military experience and agri background. This guy is a deft campaigner and can raise money big time.
"Consider the candidates who have performed well there: South Dakota senator George McGovern, Georgia peanut farmer Jimmy Carter, Colorado cowboy Gary Hart, and Kansas senator Bob Dole."
--
"And as for Perry’s retail skills, Luce says they’re Grade A. “Rick campaigned in all 256 counties in the state,” "
Yeah, most of them have population <10,000 and traveling to them keeps him from having to face the big population centers where he might get a coherent question causing him to look like an idiot while trying to answer it.
I live in Texas and have been able to observe Perry as governor. To be blunt, he's not smart enough to be a good president. However, if he is the nominee, I certainly will vote for him over The Smartest Man On Earth.
We are facing hard, hard times no matter who gets elected next year. A Republican at least can do some things (like blocking EPA's plan to explode the price of energy) that give us a chance to pull out of the slump. If Obama is reelected, I'm afraid the country will never recover.
mjfin: Remember Clark Clifford's description of Ronal Reagan? It was, 'amiable dunce.' One doesn't have to be a genius to be a good president, and, in fact, genius seems to get in the way. See, for example, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama (although the latter may be a faux genius). To be a good president, one has to have an intuitive notion of what will work and what won't, both domestically and abroad (and having good advisors doesn't hurt). I think many of the Republican candidates have that intuitive notion. Barack Obama certainly lacks it.
Re. Romney, I think you mistake "glib" for smart. I'll concede Gingrich may indeed have the most intellectual firepower of the group, but it is untempered by judgement.
Intelligence comes in many forms and is not always quantifiable. Common sense, sound principles, solid character and grace under pressure are just a few of the qualities I would value above a few IQ points, even if we knew what those point totals were.
If one reflects on history, a case could be made that the greatest disasters, atrocities and failures have been perpetrated by people reknowned for their supposed intellectual powers.
I know this is off topic, but I do have one question: Why is there no Democratic primary challenger to Obama? Is he really that loved by Democrats like Republicans loved Reagan in 1984, or is he feared like the Democrats were scared of Johnson in 1964? Or is it something else?