-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Lexington
When Ted2 Cruz is the only person talking sense, something is wrong
A FEW years ago, while reporting on the madness that is European farm subsidies3, this columnist4 came up with a “Richard Scarry” rule of politics. Most politicians hate to confront any profession or industry that routinely appears in children's books (such as those penned by the late Mr Scarry). This gives outsize power to such folk as farmers, fishermen, doctors, firemen or—to cite a fine work in the Scarry canon—to firms that build Cars and Trucks and Things That Go. The rule is seldom good news for taxpayers5, and there is a logic6 to that too: picture books rarely show people handing over fistfulls of money to the government.
The Scarry rule was tested afresh on March 7th at the inaugural7 “Iowa Ag Summit”, a campaign-style forum8 for politicians pondering White House runs in 2016. Reflecting Iowa's clout9 as host of the first caucuses11 of the presidential election cycle, the summit lured12 nine putative13 candidates, all of them Republicans. Democrats14 were also invited, but declined. Such grandees15 as Jeb Bush, a former governor of Florida, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey16 took turns to sit on a dais beside a shiny green tractor, to tell an audience of corn (maize) growers, pork-producers and hundreds of reporters how much they love farmers.
The gathering17 was an unprecedented18 show of strength by the farm lobby. Rather than wait for journalists to tease out candidates' positions over months on the campaign trail, the nine Republicans were each quizzed on stage for 20 minutes by the summit's organiser, Bruce Rastetter, an Iowa ethanol and pork magnate. His most pointed19 questions concerned the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), a federal mandate20 which obliges oil firms to blend billions of gallons of ethanol into vehicle fuel each year. Most of that ethanol is made from corn, in a process of questionable21 value to the environment, though a newer type made from stuff like corn stalks is better for the planet and for people in poor countries who eat corn or feed it to animals.
Taking a stance on the RFS is a nightmare for ambitious Republicans. Boosters insist that ethanol has created 73,000 jobs in Iowa, and many more across the electorally important Midwest. They declare that every barrel distilled22 means less oil bought from foreign regimes that hate America. The corn lobby adds that recent doubts over the future of ethanol quotas23 have hit farm incomes and cost jobs, including at Iowa tractor factories. Governor Terry Branstad of Iowa, who calls the Ag Summit a “bold and brilliant” way to educate presidential candidates about farming, notes that agriculture was booming during the 2008 and 2012 elections, and so was not much discussed. Now, amid falling prices, he calls farmers “genuinely fearful”.
However, the RFS is a glaring example of Big Government meddling24. It is awkward, to put it mildly, for a small-government conservative to favour rules that force Americans to buy more of something than they want. For, adding to Republicans' pain, the RFS is resented by the oil industry, which makes good money by blending a bit of ethanol into petrol but loathes25 plans to make it add a lot more.
Most Republicans at the Ag Summit tried to have it both ways. They poured noisy scorn on federal regulation and loudly declared their faith in free markets. They expressed confidence that farmers, not bureaucrats26, know best how to manage the land. This was the cue for some corny reminisce. “I've sat on the end of a turnrow and watched a wheat crop be lost to a hailstorm,” sighed Rick Perry, a former governor of Texas and farmer's son. Mr Bush noted27 that Florida had lots of citrus farms. Asked whether he backs rules that would label all produce by country of origin, he managed to woo Christians28, Iowans and Hispanics in a single answer, and all while presenting himself as a family-loving Everyman. The day after the Ag Summit would find him at a Publix supermarket after church, shopping for “Sunday Fun Day” at his Florida home, explained Mr Bush, whose wife is Mexican. Iowa beef would be on the menu and his own special guacamole, and “I want to know where that avocado is from.”
Then seven of the nine murmured that the RFS was the law and so should be enforced, or should be preserved for a while to give farmers certainty as they plant crops. Market forces would ultimately prevail, said Mr Bush delicately, so that farmers might not need the RFS after 2022 “or somewhere in the future”. This pandering29 marked a timely shift for some. Mr Walker used to denounce ethanol mandates30 with a passion, calling them “central planning” and “fundamentally wrong”. But the Wisconsin governor, whose fortunes have been surging of late, can ill-afford to alienate31 a next-door state like Iowa, full of pious32, thrifty33 midwestern conservatives in his image. So Mr Walker told the Ag Summit that he is willing to see the RFS continue, at least for now.
Patrick Pig at the trough
The pandering is bipartisan: ethanol backers cheered reports that Hillary Clinton has recruited an aide to Tom Vilsack, the agriculture secretary and a former Iowa governor, to run her campaign in the state. Yet the pandering is not universal. Mr Perry did not explicitly34 endorse35 the RFS. His fellow-Texan, Senator Ted Cruz, told Iowans that he opposes it, explaining his conviction that “Washington should not be picking winners and losers.”
Mr Cruz is betting that political dynamics36 are changing. The Ag Summit showed the farm lobby's strength but also its vulnerability: a truly confident industry would not even ask candidates to declare their fealty, almost a year ahead of the first presidential caucus10. In 2000 Senator John McCain simply skipped Iowa, because he opposed ethanol subsidies. Today, the shrink-the-government right is more confrontational37. Mr Cruz sensed a political advantage in flying to Iowa to sit beside a tractor telling farmers that they are wrong to want federal help. The coming months will reveal if he is right, or if the Scarry rule remains38 in force.
1 fealty | |
n.忠贞,忠节 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 ted | |
vt.翻晒,撒,撒开 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 subsidies | |
n.补贴,津贴,补助金( subsidy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 columnist | |
n.专栏作家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 taxpayers | |
纳税人,纳税的机构( taxpayer的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 logic | |
n.逻辑(学);逻辑性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 inaugural | |
adj.就职的;n.就职典礼 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 forum | |
n.论坛,讨论会 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 clout | |
n.用手猛击;权力,影响力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 caucus | |
n.秘密会议;干部会议;v.(参加)干部开会议 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 caucuses | |
n.(政党决定政策或推举竞选人的)核心成员( caucus的名词复数 );决策干部;决策委员会;秘密会议 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 lured | |
吸引,引诱(lure的过去式与过去分词形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 putative | |
adj.假定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 democrats | |
n.民主主义者,民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 grandees | |
n.贵族,大公,显贵者( grandee的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 jersey | |
n.运动衫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 gathering | |
n.集会,聚会,聚集 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 unprecedented | |
adj.无前例的,新奇的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 pointed | |
adj.尖的,直截了当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 mandate | |
n.托管地;命令,指示 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 questionable | |
adj.可疑的,有问题的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 distilled | |
adj.由蒸馏得来的v.蒸馏( distil的过去式和过去分词 );从…提取精华 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 quotas | |
(正式限定的)定量( quota的名词复数 ); 定额; 指标; 摊派 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 meddling | |
v.干涉,干预(他人事务)( meddle的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 loathes | |
v.憎恨,厌恶( loathe的第三人称单数 );极不喜欢 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 bureaucrats | |
n.官僚( bureaucrat的名词复数 );官僚主义;官僚主义者;官僚语言 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 noted | |
adj.著名的,知名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 Christians | |
n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 pandering | |
v.迎合(他人的低级趣味或淫欲)( pander的现在分词 );纵容某人;迁就某事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 mandates | |
托管(mandate的第三人称单数形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 alienate | |
vt.使疏远,离间;转让(财产等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 pious | |
adj.虔诚的;道貌岸然的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 thrifty | |
adj.节俭的;兴旺的;健壮的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 explicitly | |
ad.明确地,显然地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 endorse | |
vt.(支票、汇票等)背书,背署;批注;同意 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 dynamics | |
n.力学,动力学,动力,原动力;动态 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 confrontational | |
adj.挑衅的;对抗的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 remains | |
n.剩余物,残留物;遗体,遗迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|