Dogface, erislover, thank you for seeing the forest for the trees (or the politics for the tomatoes, as the case may be).
From inauspicious beginnings (no offense, Binarydrone), a worthy debate is born. I like what I’m reading so far. What a lot of posts are hinting at that I will try to nail is the idea that politics, and hence politicians, has become a career and a class in and of itself/themselves. The political leadership of the U.S.[blanket generalization], from your local city council all the way up to Washington, D.C., is composed of individuals purposefully pursuing their career goals like any salesman, software engineer, or stock broker.[/blanket generalization] As a result, that leadership is no longer fundamentally connected to nor representative of the electorate to whom they owe their position. Instead, they must “market” their “product” (political ideology) sufficiently well to make sufficient “sales” (votes) that will keep them employed. Otherwise they run the risk of having to work for a living.
It was not always so. Once upon a time, the idea of a “civil servant” had a prestige and nobility of its own - an individual taken from the ranks of the regular citizenry with a willingness to work at the behest of his/her neighbors towards the betterment of all. Nowadays there’s precious little “civility” and a whole bunch of folks who ought to be “serving” (time, that is).
Lastly, regarding ‘maters - I’ve been spoiled by a lifetime in the more temperate states where most every community has its own little Farmers’ Market. Fresher, better produce at 1/2 the cost of store-bought, plus you get to patronize local growers instead of faceless agribusiness. Very much sorry for those who can only get the good stuff at pricy boutique groceries/co-ops. Move south!
Binarydrone, I know the forest is greater than the tomatoes, but I suspect you haven’t escaped the elitist leanings quite yet. Have you ever talked with the farmers at your local market? They ain’t exactly rolling in the dough, not most of them. I know when I worked for a market farm, I was putting in 60-hour weeks for, I kid you not, $15.00 a week, plus room and board. My agriculture prof in college talked about how you could make a small fortune in sustainable agriculture, as long as you started with a large fortune. One of the only long-term successful farms I encountered was started by a couple that decided to forego children so that they could afford to buy land, and lived for ten years off of one teacher’s salary, pumping every cent of the other salary into buying the farm.
Compare that to the lifestyle of the owners of agribusinesses. Sure, those Safeway tomatoes are cheaper – but those costs are paid by other people, and the profits of the growers are much larger.
Indeed, while it’s a real issue that decent food is difficult to afford in this country, it’s also a real issue that so many people involved in the food industry are paid so poorly. Pay the migrant workers a living wage, and those Safeway tomatoes aren’t going to be so cheap any more. Does that make those who purchase Safeway tomatoes (thereby supporting poverty for migrant workers) elitists?
I’d suggest another way out of this dilemma. Save the title “elitist” for rare circumstances. I don’t think most activists on either side are elitists; rather, I think they often see only one side of a tremendously complex issue.
Daniel
Yup, that’s right. However, that still means that most people can’t afford their produce. They may have a good reason to charge what they charge, but that doesn’t make the those who shop there as some sort of moral statement and look down upon all who cannot afford it any less elitist pigs.
DanielWithrow, I think that you may be missing the point of my posts. In truth, your response to this thread strikes me as a non sequitur. I am specifically not trying to say that the farmers at the Farmer’s Market are getting rich. Not by a long shot. I get that the actual farmers that bring us our food are taking it in the shorts for the most part. What I am saying is that the kind of food that one encounters in these venues tends to cost the consumer more. The assumption that one should simply buy this more expensive food “because it is the right thing to do” ignores many economic realities and to me is a stance that can only be reached by being in a position of privilege.
We can have a whole other debate on the pros and cons of agribusiness vs. the family owned farm, and indeed that would be an interesting topic. However, it is not what I am getting at here. The Great Tomato Controversy™, to me, is only an indicator of what was a heretofore unacknowledged similarity between the Liberal and the Conservative schools of political thought. Namely that they are both viewing the world from a position of privilege.
So, can we drop the tomatoes? I am not talking about tomatoes, and I do not wish to debate tomatoes. The conversation about them with my father simply pointed out a new line of thinking to me.
And I think you’re being overly broad. I know Liberals and Conservatives who don’t view the world from a position of privilege (by US standards, anyway. I realize that standard of living is better here than in much of the rest of the world). Just because there are elitists who are liberals and conservatives doesn’t mean that all liberals or all conservatives are elitist.
I am willing to buy that, as I think I have pointed out much of this is a new line of thought that I am still working through. However, give me a hand here. How about an example of a Liberal or Conservative political stance that does not assume a certain level of affluence or privilege? I recognize that there are a host of individuals that may define themselves as Liberal or Conservative may not do this, but I think that what I am really talking about is the core of both ideologies themselves.
Using my example, which seems to boil down to the political stance that one should purchase produce from local producers, I would again reiterate that this tends to be more costly, and as a political stance overlooks a great deal of economic realities and is therefore elitist.
The view that concrete examples (i.e the price of heirloom tomatoes) do not matter in the face of the Big Picture (binarydrone’s revelation) is in itself a form of elitism. If the example is flawed, the conclusion may be flawed as well.
I have patronized farmers’ markets and I would never have pegged the customers as The Elite. They walk to the market, take the bus or drive ordinary-looking cars. They wear jeans and not top-of-the-line fashions. Some things at the market cost more. But vine-ripened tomatoes* don’t seem significantly more expensive than the pale baseballs sold at small inner city markets, and are generally far tastier.
OK, now I’ll agree with you that political activists across the spectrum often get so wound up in their various Movements that they lose touch with what most affects the Average Joe, however you define Joe.
*It is also a form of vegetarian elitism if one believes that “heirloom” = “tasty”. I’ve eaten heirloom varieties that were less tasty than modern beefsteak varieties. Soil, weather, degree of vine ripening etc. all seem to affect flavor.
And yeah, try growing your own if you can.
I must be having difficulty expressing myself today.
I am not saying:
[ul]
[li]That the farmers that bring food to market are getting rich and are the elite.[/li][li]That all people that shop at Farmer’s Markets and Co-ops are the elite. [/li][li]That all Conservatives and all Liberals are elite or elitist.[/li][/ul]
I am
[ul]
[li]Stating that in my experience food at the above mentioned places of commerce are on average more expensive to buy. Using the example of the bloody tomatoes, at least where I am these things are running 2X to 3X the price that you would pat in a standard grocery. [/li][li]Suggesting that the notion that you should shop at these places “because it is the politically correct thing to do” is a notion that has elements of elitism to it and that this is worth exploring.[/li][/ul]
Again, what I am getting at here is not produce in and of itself. I am getting at a commonality that I believe that I have discovered between Conservative and Liberal ideologies.
Maybe, but is that a liberal idea?
In my experience, yes. The notion that one should ignore price so that one can support local business has always been one that has been expressed to me by my Liberal acquaintances. To be honest, I was not aware that Conservatives held this view.
Live in most any small town (let me suggest the Midwest for starters) and the business leaders/Chamber of Commerce types will lobby the consumer to support the small businesses (you’re somewhat of a traitor if you go to the nearest city to shop at the mall). I think a wide majority of these small business/C of C types are conservative by definition.
“Support your local farmer/fisherman/tradesperson” is, if anything, sort of a populist cry independent of liberal/conservative orientation (In North Carolina once, I felt guilty enough about my preference for shellfish to order some other kind of fish in a restaurant that I really didn’t want, because supposedly the local fishermen’s catch was going begging according to the newspaper).
Discovering a pleasurable activity and then allowing guilt to be injected into it and diminishing or ruining the pleasure involved is something I associate more with liberals than conservatives. Not that it’s always an inappropriate response.
But sheesh, have a fresh summer tomato from your local farmers’ market and enjoy it, whether or not you think inner city residents are obliged to make do with Safeway cannonballs. The more heirloom tomatoes we buy, the more mainstream they become.
I thought conservatives were more for protecting the local/national… but fine… 
I still think the liberal/conservative divide is pretty big independent of tomatoes and “elitism” even if they might have similar lifestyles. Thou I agree with the cynical view of John Mace… once in power… who knows what colors they will show.
This back-and-forth with the tomatoes reminds me of an episode of Simpsons. “This little man represents the car, and this little car represents you…”
Let’s drop the tomatoes. Sure, they have a bearing on this question, but so do a lot of things. Let’s get to the heart of the question, instead. If I’m reading it right, the question is basically this:
Conservatives and liberals seem to be different, but aren’t they both truly disconnected from the populace?
Despire who they rally for or what they rally for, aren’t they pretty much a group that’s out of touch with the people they’re ruling?
And if this is true - that both parties are out of touch - is there really a difference, in practice, between them?
That seems to be the question here. But I could be misinterpreting it entirely!
It seems to me, Binarydrone, that far from exposing your father–and by implication all Liberals–as an extremist, you’re faulting him with not being extreme enough.
You label it a kind of hypocrisy to spend lavish amounts of money on fine food while mouthing sympathy for the poor, implying that only if he subjected himself to the same privations could he save himself from being labeled a hypocrit.
Isn’t that a little extreme?
Why can’t one live in a way that balances one’s need for comfort with one’s willingness and ability to work for the means to fulfill those needs, and still be politically aware and devote additional time and energy–still maintaining a balance here–to addressing those few problems in the world he has the means, time, and ability to affect?
I don’t see the hypocrisy, being a hardcore liberal with a refined palate myself.
My ex-wife calls them “pink tennis balls”. And sadly, as the days grow shorter, the prices for even those abominations of the tomato world will escalate into the stratosphere. It’s quite common for the price of tomatoes to exceed $2. per lb. during the winter here in the NW. However, even at those exorbitant prices, those Safeway tomatoes will never attain the level of mystique and coolness that fresh heirloom tomatoes from the farmer’s market possess even during the height of late summer tomato harvest. Some of those whose incomes aren’t commensurate with the latest in tomato chic will simply have to pass. Especially if they’re saving up for that organically grown cotton t-shirt.
Binary, I see what you’re saying – but I reject an implicit assumption.
When I was living off near minimum wage in the early nineties, I was buying organic produce. I was foregoing eating out, meat, car trips, movies, television, CDs, air conditioning (in a Piedmont NC summer – no small deal), and just about every other luxury.
But I saw it as an obligation on my part to purchase locally-grown organic agriculture. I saw it as a moral obligation for me to pay the costs for my own food, and I believed that if I purchased conventional agriculture, it was other folks, other creatures, who paid the costs for my food – whether it was migrant workers getting shat on, neighbors getting crowded out by big stinky hog farms, or ecosystems getting devastated by unwise agribusiness practices.
I still believe we have a moral obligation to eat organic. Sure, if you’re literally having trouble meeting the basic needs of survival, that’s one thing – eat your Bi-Lo tomatoes and good on you. But if you have cable television, then you’re not having trouble meeting the basic needs of survival. Better to give up the cable and eat organic than vice versa.
I disagree. I don’t advocate purchasing organic foods “because it’s the politically correct thing to do.” I advocate purchasing locally-grown organic foods from folks that don’t hire migrant labor because doing so keeps you from contributing to the injustices and pollution inherent in large-scale agriculture. I’m not close to perfect in this myself – I, living in the Appalachians, ate shrimp for dinner tonight. But I believe it’s a worthy goal, not for any elitist reasons, but for sound ethical reasons.
Daniel
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by lissener *
**You label it a kind of hypocrisy to spend lavish amounts of money on fine food while mouthing sympathy for the poor, implying that only if he subjected himself to the same privations could he save himself from being labeled a hypocrit.
[QUOTE]
Are liberals simply congenitally unable to read? There’s no such implication at all. The statement is about the elitism of people who make living according to some kind of ivory-tower liberal standard some sort of moral crusade and mindlessly assign moral turpitude to anyone who does not, without bothering to think of their circumstances.
What is your opinion of people who do not do as you do? Are they immoral for not doing as you do, regardless of why they do so? If that is your opinion, then you are exactly the sort of elitist pig that is decried herein.
Once again, it looks like a lot of people are simply far too dimwitted to look beyond the trivial details of the specific example. This is why “ideologue” is identical to “idiot-log-head”.
Thanks, dogface, for your calm, reasoned words.
I don’t think people who don’t buy organic foods are immoral. I don’t think people who vote for Bush are immoral. I don’t think such judgements are accurate or useful.
I don’t think people who are vegan are more moral than myself; I don’t think people who never drive (but rather walk everywhere) are more moral than myself. I don’t think people who go to jail to protest injustice are more moral than myself.
HOWEVER: I do think that we face ethical decisions every day of our lives, and while some of the decisions are relatively trivial (whether to purchase organic tomatoes, whether to drive to the movies, whether to give a buck to the homeless guy), they’re nonetheless ethical decisions. I am far from perfect in the decisions I make, and so I don’t have any right to judge other people in the decisions they make. Nonetheless, I hope that other people will acknowledge the moral component of their decisions, at least.
Choosing whether to purchase the red shirt or the green shirt is a purely aesthetic decision. Choosing whether to purchase the organic, fair-trade shirt or to purchase the conventional, sweatshop shirt is not a purely aesthetic decision.
It ain’t all about tomatoes; but tomatoes are as good an example as any.
Daniel