It's a double-edged sword. On one hand the subsidies create poverty in other countries but on the other it protects us from trade pressure and starvation here. I certainly see both sides of the debate but I still believe it is a necessary evil.

As for the types of crops, I think you keep it basic: corn, beans, grain. Everything else is a luxury (and also logistically possible with backyard gardens).

One other aspect of the need for domestic production is not just national security but also national health. I don't want our food supply left in the hands of third world countries with unreliable growing methods and poor health standards.

So back to my question: How do you ensure adequate domestic production without subsidies?

The electoral college seems to indicate it's a majority-takes-all scenario. Therefore if we're stereotyping, shouldn't we follow the same logic?

The only remedy for the problem you describe ED is to either dump our surplus into starving countries or burn it on the docks.

How do you ensure A) An adequate amount of food production and B) a majority domestically produced food supply without subsidies/protections?

Agrilculture is the highest risk business there is. Without a serious safety net for growers you would see production dramatically decline overnight.

I think Helen makes a good point. Maybe the issue is that these are just basic liberal verses conservative claims. The question then is whether or not it's fair to characterize the east coast as liberal and middle america as conservative.

One of those blue/red electoral maps seem to indicate that IS a fair statement to make.

I think there is just as much a sense of elitism in middle America as anywhere else. Even in little Louisville, KY we have our elites we rail against just like everywhere else. But there's definitley a certain type of elite found on the East Coast...just like there is another type found in Nebraska.

...it seems downright unethical to enter into free trade agreements like NAFTA and then subsidize our own, say, corn farmers.

I tend to view food subsidies as national security. That puts it outside the realm of 'free trade'.

As for other industries, yeah, if they can make it cheaper in China and the same quality, let them do it.

I was on a ferry to Martha's Vineyard on my honeymoon the day after Bush defeated Kerry in 2004. I overheard a woman say, "How can the rest of the country be so stupid?"

Now I realize we were in serious liberal country where you can't throw a frisbee without hitting a Kennedy, but it was an interesting moment. All myths have a little shred of truth in them.

I'm just going to riff a bit here...

I think first and foremost the key factor in the differing approaches is simply one of preparation. Obama had to brush up on his knowledge of Iran and decide on his approach while campaigning. Something tells me Honduras never came up in his foreign policy crash courses. With regards to Iran, we knew that election was coming and no doubt the administration talked about possible outcomes and how they would address various scenarios. Again, I don't think they planned for a military coup in Honduras.

As for him sticking his rhetorical foot in his mouth, I think it will be a lesson learned. One of the things that I think a lot of Americans, especially liberals, find appealing about Obama is his habit of thinking out loud. Rather than speak with conviction all the time he will share his in-process thoughts with the public and admit he's still grappling with issues and thinking through them. So when he says that he is still trying to decide the best course of action on a given topic, fans of humble intellectualism swoon. I really think with Honduras he just jumped before he thought. He probably knew exactly as much about Zelaya as most of us do, which is nil and should have kept his mouth shut.

The last thing I will mention is that I think democratically elected leaders have an instinctual dislike of seeing other democratically elected leaders removed from office in a coup. It upsets the natural order of things and makes them feel just a little bit less secure in their own job. Perhaps that colored Obama's thinking.

Yes - I meant stability.

Part of the problem is that our old definitions don't work as well. 'Working class' (a subdivision of the old middle class) is now just as likely to mean someone doing administrative work in an office or manning a phone in a call center as it is to mean someone assembling washing machines at GE. The lines are getting blurry and perhaps it's time to rethink our old class divisions.

Is a middle class vital to social instability? I think it could be argued that in certain socialist-leaning countries like Sweden they would see any divisions of class as problematic.

Good point Nob. It's quite true that Americans have put 'middle class' status on a pedestal. I guess it has something to do with our egalitarian dreams at the nation's founding.

(Now everyone pile on about how un-equal the Founding Fathers were to the rest of the country)

Oh I think upbringing is actually far underestimated with regards to political office. Look at Bill Clinton. Classic daddy issues. George W was easily influenced. Carter was weak. Ford was a Boy Scout.

Playing armchair psychiatrist to President's is a favorite pasttime of historians and for good reason. Nurture matters.

I agree 100% with Mark. I believe Ross was refering much more to her upbringing than her current status. And also I don't think one can overlook the perception surrounding her. Her story plays pretty well in middle America. That's why she was drawn into the small town populism angle during the campaign. People ate it up.

Settlement patterns in the US have always gone in one direction...out. The best we can hope to do is slow that down and develop sensibly. While cities serve their purposes, the chance of drawing people back in any significant numbers is very, very unlikely.

Sam,

I agree with a lot of what you say. When I travel I like to try interesting spots when I have time, but when you've got kids or you're in a hurry sometimes it's nice to see a familiar menu, or a Borders that has all the same things you can get at home. So there's definitely something to be said for dependability/predictability.

I was out west a few weeks ago and after having some real hit or miss for a couple of days i have never been so happy to see a Denny's.

So what are some ways that the rural and the urban could/do interact? What do they offer one another?

What about the rural? They depend on cars just as much, if not more, than the suburban. If you're suggesting that cars create some kind of barrier that can only be broken down by getting out of them I would agree. But yet even in the most car-heavy places on earth (NYC, LA, etc) culture is flourishing. If you're talking about polution, then obviously we just need to work harder on the Mr.Fusion.

Another possibility to answer your concern is the planned community movement, which is really pressing the 'bridge' between city and country angle with thoughtful construction that creates a town-within-a-town on the edge of the suburbs and providing a link between the urban and rural. I would cite this article for more info.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/00685-are-farms-suburban-future

I think the type of place you describe E.D., with a cookie cutter and fairly homogenous periphery and a more diverse, interesting and artsy center is a fairly common part of the American landscape. It's certainly the case here in Louisville, though ours resembles more of a half-circle with the Ohio River defining our northen border. While these vibrant city centers are important places for all the reasons you mentioned (tourism, arts, interaction of different individuals) and they serve their purpose by preserving older architecture, I do not believe they are necessarily the most important parts of our cities.

I must admit that most of my thinking on this subject has been shaped by Joel Kotkin who I consider a near-genius in the realm of rural, suburban and urban studies. His research seems to indicate that while cities and country are important, suburbs are where all the growth takes place. They are also the places where the majority of our people choose to live. So how can they play a more FPR-inspired role in our communities? By functioning as a bridge between city and country. They offer employment for the part-time farmer, a market for their products and a place for their kids to move to if they work in the city and still want to be close to the land they grew up on. They also put us that much closer to the rural, for those of us who need it like we need air. That's the role the suburbs play in my life. Looking in the other direction, I am close to the rural areas of my youth and close to the woods that bring me peace. I'm also close to the restaurants, the galleries and the wi-fi connections that broaden my cultural horizons. In my experience, those in the rural trust the suburban dwellers a lot more than those in the cities. I don't know if the city dwellers feel the same, as I often wonder if they hold contempt for my choice to live among chain stores and strip malls.

Nevertheless, it's the middle places that often get overlooked in the debates between extremes. Localism verses post modernism forgets the suburbanism that bridges the two.

I'm still trying to recover from reading Clinton's My Life back in 2005.

Ha! I'm embarrassed by stuff I wrote 6 weeks ago!

I have to sort of agree with your friend. I have a blogging friend who is in his early 20's. His take on things is brilliant but often lacking historical context. At 34, maybe I'm finally getting old enough that the 'big picture' is coming into view.

I tend to think it depends on your idea of how God is. If he's big on willpower, then he will say we should exercise control. If he understands that he made sex groovy and fun and pretty hard to say no too, then I think he would be okay with condoms or the pill.

E.D. I may misunderstand your question, so if so, please ignore my reply...

Theologically speaking Catholics believe it is a sin to 'waste one's seed' in a sex act that does not at least have the possibility of pregnancy. Some take that rule very seriosuly. When I was growing up my church had at least 10 families with 8 or more kids.