In the United States, recent political discussions focus on political behaviors related to the job loss and the white working-class. Absent from this discussion is the economic hardships and status of another working-class population—farmers. Gest (2016) claims the working-class has become marginal in the American economy and politics, yet, farmers too are increasingly marginal, and these feelings of marginalization influence political behaviors; (Besser, 2009; Bosso, 2017; 1978; Green, 1985; Harris & Gilbert, 1982; Kaufman, 2016; Longworth, 2008). Additionally, the contentiousness of the 2014 Farm Bill and President Trump’s trade policies demonstrate a growing political divestment in national government for the economic welfare of the American …show more content…
This powerlessness relates to the notion that rural Americans are victims of distributive injustice in government resources and public policy outcomes, which, Cramer claims, factors into a growing placed-based and class-based rural consciousness (Buttel, 1982; Cramer, 2016; Illing, 2018; Walsh, 2004, 2012). Class consciousness means the acknowledgment, awareness, and perception of an individual’s social ranking, or lack of power resources, relative to others’ status (Gurin et al., 1980; Keefer, Goode, & Berkel, 2015; Miller et al., 1981; Verba & Nie, 1972). In U.S. political history, agrarian struggles promoted radical class-consciousness among farmers (Kaufman, 2016). For example, in the late-19th and early-20th centuries, when farmers felt economic hardships, political resentments, and unrepresented by political elites, they mobilized for political action against capital investors, economic policies harmful to their economic prosperity, and voted against an unresponsive political establishment (Bensel, 2001; Browne, 1988; Danbom, 2017; Sanders, 1999; Sheingate, 2001; Strange, …show more content…
Moreover, Boss (2017) and Lay (2012) note that journalists, sociologists, and historians are largely at the forefront of studying farmers’ issues and politics, yet, political science research lags behind. In my view this is regrettable, for in previous decades, farmers were influential in American politics, hence, understanding farmers’ political identity, the economic pressures they face, and their perceptions of marginalization can shed light on current political trends (Capper, 1972; Sanders, 1999; Kaufman, 2016). Now in the post-2008 Great Recession, it is time to reevaluate farmer’s political attitudes, preferences, and behaviors in relation to their identity, perceived marginalization, and class status
In the New York Times article “When a Crop Becomes a King”, author Michael Pollan argues there is an overproduction of corn that does more harm than it does good. He writes this in response to a farm bill signed by then President Bush to increase the budget for corn production which caused much controversy. Pollan uses an infuriated and frustrated tone in order to convince American consumers that corn has taken over their environment and economy. Michael Pollan uses rhetorical strategies to challenge conventional views of corn and to argue against additional corn production.
* Raised on a cotton farm in Dyess, Arkansas, Cash articulated a racialized class divide not simply among whites and African Americans, but among whites, themselves. Cash belonged to a growing class of impoverished white farmers increasingly referred to by his contemporaries as "white trash," and recast by historian Neil Foley as "The White Scourge. " In his book of the same title, Foley analyzes the impact of class and race consciousness on white tenants and sharecroppers in central Texas as they competed for farm labor with both African Americans and Mexicans from 1820 to 1940. Foley asserts, "The emergence of a rural class of 'white trash' made whites conscious of themselves as a racial group and fearful that if they fell to the bottom, they would lose the racial privileges that came with being accepted for what they were not-black, Mexican, or foreign born. "
The period between 1870 and 1900 was a time to change politics. The country was for once free from war and was united as one nation. However, as these decades passed by, the American farmer found it harder to live comfortably. Crops such as cotton and wheat, once the cash crop of agriculture, were selling at prices so low that it was nearly impossible for farmers to make a profit. Improvements in transportation allowed larger competitors to sell more easily and more cheaply, making it harder for American yeoman farmers to sell their crops. Finally, years of drought in the Midwest and the fall of business in the 1890s devastated the farming community. Most notably, the Populist Party arose to fight what farmers saw as the issues affecting the agricultural community. During the last thirty years of the nineteenth century, many farmers in the United States saw railroads and banking enterprises threaten their way of life; their work to fight these elements eventually led to a change in national politics.
The Fight in the Fields: Cesar Chavez and the Farmworkers Movement. Hartcourt-Brace La Botz, Dan (2005). "The Species of the World." César Chávez and La Causa. Pearson Longman Moyer, John (1970).
Small towns, quaint and charming, ideally picturesque for a small family to grow up in with a white picket fence paired up with the mother, father and the 2.5 children. What happens when that serene local town, exuberantly bustling with business, progressively loses the aspects that kept it alive? The youth, boisterous and effervescent, grew up surrounded by the local businesses, schools and practices, but as the years wear on, living in that small town years down the road slowly grew to be less appealing. In The Heartland and the Rural Youth Exodus by Patrick J. Carr and Maria Kefalas equally argue that “small towns play an unwitting part in their own decline (Carr and Kefalas 33) when they forget to remember the “untapped resource of the
After the devastation left from the Civil War, many field owners looked for new ways to replace their former slaves with field hands for farming and production use. From this need for new field hands came sharecroppers, a “response to the destitution and disorganized” agricultural results of the Civil War (Wilson 29). Sharecropping is the working of a piece of land by a tenant in exchange for a portion of the crops that they bring in for their landowners. These farmhands provided their labor, while the landowners provided living accommodations for the worker and his family, along with tools, seeds, fertilizers, and a portion of the crops that they had harvested that season. A sharecropper had “no entitlement to the land that he cultivated,” and was forced “to work under any conditions” that his landowner enforced (Wilson 798). Many landowners viewed sharecropping as a way to elude the now barred possession of slaves while still maintaining field hands for labor in an inexpensive and ample manner. The landowners watched over the sharecroppers and their every move diligently, with harsh supervision, and pressed the sharecroppers to their limits, both mentally and physically. Not only were the sharecroppers just given an average of one-fourth of their harvest, they had “one of the most inadequate incomes in the United States, rarely surpassing more than a few hundred dollars” annually (Wilson 30). Under such trying conditions, it is not hard to see why the sharecroppers struggled to maintain a healthy and happy life, if that could even be achieved. Due to substandard conditions concerning sharecropper’s clothing, insufficient food supplies, and hazardous health issues, sharecroppers competed on the daily basis to stay alive on what little their landowners had to offer them.
science people have been able to hold onto jobs a lot easier (650). It has
In 1919, farmers from thirty states, including Missouri, saw a need. They gathered in Chicago and formed the American Farm Bureau Federation. In 1919, they had one goal, they wanted to speak for themselves with the help of their own national organization. Since 1919, Farm Bureau has operated by a philosophy that states: “analyze the problem of farmers and develop a plan of action for these problems” (Missouri). In the past 94 years, the A...
In his three part writing, discussing economic inequality and political power, Martin Gilens analyzes the influence of class standing and income bracket on policy changes. In the first section, Gilens finds that when Americans in varying income brackets have similar preferences, the strength of the policy is greater. However, it is when these groups divide, that the policy changes favor those with high incomes. In the second part of his discussion, Gilens observes that during times of presidential election, or when the two parties have a near equal balance, policy more equally shows the preferences of all classes. Finally, the author brings up the point that policy favors the affluent in most cases because they may be more highly educated and better informed about policy changes. While the affluent may have an advantage, this still does not explain much of the inequality.
According to Schwartz-Nobel, America will lose as much as 130 billion in future productive capacity for every year that 14.5 American children continue to live in poverty (Koppelman and Goodhart, 2007). Sadly the seriousness of poverty is still often clouded by myths and misunderstandings by society at large. This essay studies the issue of poverty and classism in today's society.
Farmers everywhere in the United States during the late nineteenth century had valid reasons to complaint against the economy because the farmers were constantly being taken advantage of by the railroad companies and banks. All farmers faced similar problems and for one thing, farmers were starting to become a minority within the American society. In the late nineteenth century, industrialization was in the spotlight creating big businesses and capitals. The success of industrialization put agriculture and farmers on the down low, allowing the corporations to overtake the farmers. Since the government itself; such as the Republican Party was also pro-business during this time, they could have cared less about the farmers.
The urban rural tension of the 1920’s had to do with the voting numbers in elections, the wage gap between unskilled factory workers and skilled farm workers, and urban people put science as their source of reason over religion. The difference in values and lifestyle of those who lived in rural areas versus those who lived in the city was becoming more different every year, which caused a lot of tension. There were many different reasons and complications that led the tensions to get to the point at which they did, but the three reasons I listed in my thesis are the main reasons, that I thought of, that had the greatest contributions to these tensions. Voting, when it came down to the numbers, was a major reason why rural and urban tension grew to the point at which it did. Urban areas reached the point where they took up over 50% of America’s people, therefore, it took up most of America’s votes.
...th what little they have, however; why is it left to the poor to have to suffer the consequences of these political choices. The persistence of extreme poverty and social ills speak to a situation that bears for a different approach. It is clear that capitalism and free market solutions cannot spread wealth as advocated. American governments have shown their reluctance to admit this discrepancy through the strategic creations of welfare policies and welfare reform coupled with placing blame upon the citizens who possess little power to change market decisions that govern and effect their lives.
Farmers are essentially the back-bone of the entire food system. Large-scale family farms account for 10% of all farms, but 75% of overall food production, (CSS statistics). Without farmers, there would be no food for us to consume. Big business picked up on this right away and began to control the farmers profits and products. When farmers buy their land, they take out a loan in order to pay for their land and farm house and for the livestock, crops, and machinery that are involved in the farming process. Today, the loans are paid off through contracts with big business corporations. Since big business has such a hold over the farmers, they take advantage of this and capitalize on their crops, commodities, and profits. Farmers are life-long slaves to these b...
Agricultural subsidies are defined as “payments by the federal government to producers of agricultural products for the purpose of stabilizing food prices, ensuring plentiful food production, guaranteeing farmers' basic incomes, and generally strengthening the agricultural segment of the national economy” (Encyclopedia.com). By definition, farm subsidies sound important and necessary, but our research shows that most of the farmers that actually need subsidies, do not benefit from them. As reported by ABCNews.com, “subsidies make it harder for smaller farms to compete because farm subsidies rarely go to poorer farmers struggling to make ends meet. In fact, the average farmer makes twice what the average American earns. One farmer dubbed the “King of Farm Subsidies,” Maurice Wilder, is