DO NOT CRUCIFY THE IOWA CAUC– — USES ON THIS CROSS OF CORN!*
Allow us a few paragraphs to develop what at first blush may seem a sensational inquiry. Lest readers be prematurely put off, the presumable short answer to the title question is “not intentionally” but we do have concerns as to collateral damage from recent statements by the Governor.
On Saturday we posted a follow up to our post about corn belt “mainstream” newspaper outlets publishing an extensive AP article questioning the environmental benefits of corn-based ethanol production. An alliance of corn and ethanol producers and environmental activists, with of course the requisite number of politicians to do the logrolling, have over the years seen to various special tax treatments, subsidies and mandates for the use of ethanol in gasoline.
Previously politicians could depend on studies from academics at corn belt universities, who know what side their bread is buttered on, to justify the special treatment. But now the environmentalists’ sacred ground of land set asides has come into focus after acreage studies show more and more of it is being plowed for production of corn, which is driven especially by ethanol mandates. Other economic studies also call into question the overall environmental and economic beneficence of corn ethanol.
So for a variety of reasons identified in the AP article some of the academics and environmentalists are now getting a little queasy from the corn pone and the EPA is proposing new rules scaling back ethanol use requirements in motor fuel. We sensed that the appearance of such extensive articles, particularly locally, even with rebuttals from the usual suspects, could implicate a significant breakthrough regarding the politics of the matter. Support for Big Ethanol has been considered the “third rail” of politics in Iowa.
Heretofore anything questioning the economy or the environmental effect of laws promoting Big Ethanol was given short shrift or dismissed as global warming denier / Big Oil propaganda. Instead trumpets would blare for any pro corn ethanol enactment or related rent seeking business venture.
Quoting ourselves, which we love to do, regarding the AP article:
It undermines some of the sway of Big Ethanol in the state. Some of the political support for mandates and favored tax treatments provided the industry are implicated. National politics are affected in that the homage of the past paid to Big Ethanol by presidential aspirants is not as compelling during the Iowa caucuses. An environmentalist cover is now provided.
And then the day after our post, late morning, we read in the QC Times online edition an article by Thomas Beaumont titled: Iowans worry about ethanol’s lost political clout. Beaumont must have been developing his article for the last several days as it includes quotes from recent political appearances by Governor Branstad and other corn-ethanol supporters who are clearly trying to stoke the political cobs for ethanol. Beaumont observes:
For decades, presidential candidates’ chances in Iowa were wounded if not doomed unless they backed federal support for ethanol, a boon to the state’s corn-growing economy.
That rule of politics collapsed resoundingly in the 2012 campaign when five of the six top Republican candidates said it was time for such intervention in the private market to end.
Of course many politicians realized from the get-go that corn-ethanol programs were inefficient. However in this politically important state, publishers, editorialists and biased journalists were open advocates for corn ethanol not to mention those motivated by direct gain. Rather than buck that presumed juggernaut in a caucus state, presidential aspirants made deals or kept quite. Heck they had boondoggles in their own state’s to protect. Even environmental organizations that knew better allowed for their favored sons to bow to corn ethanol, presuming it necessary to get through Iowa and the electoral college for the greater good.
But that was then, now perhaps journalists and environmentalist organizations will be more objective and not as likely to give corn ethanol promoting politicians a pass. That possibility has caused an overreaction by too many Iowa politicians with statements like Governor Branstad’s, as referred to in Beaumont’s article:
For politicians eying the White House, “Whoever comes here better understand the importance of renewable fuels, or they are going to have hell to pay in rural Iowa,” Branstad said in a recent interview.
There can be little doubt the Governor was primarily concerned with the effect of federal ethanol standards on Iowa corn producers. But if such positioning by Iowa politicians was intimidating before, will it be looked on as mere posturing now with wider acknowledgment of the degradations and inefficiencies of corn ethanol and the waning corn belt press protections afforded its political support?
The influence of Iowa’s first in the nation caucus system has already been damaged by poor judgement and subversion of the integrity of the process. First there was the wrongful declaration of the presidential straw poll winner to be Mitt Romney instead of Rick Santorum. That had particular national implications. Then party establishment elements in a major county (Scott) subverted the precinct results by maneuvering to deny Ron Paul supporters anywhere near a proportionate delegation to the district and state conventions.
With nary a tut tut from political personages across the state who should have been concerned with protecting the reputation of the caucuses from such manipulation, the die was cast for a take no prisoners approach from Ron Paul supporters when they were in a position to dominate conventions by virtue of showing up.
So with the integrity of the caucuses in question already, and now the Governor essentially demanding out of bounds subservience to Big Ethanol and King Corn, are presidential candidates going to be more or less likely to pay much attention to Iowa?
If they come out in support of the Governor’s position are they not then likely to be tainted here and elsewhere? If they think the Governor is correct as regards winning the Iowa caucuses, they have to decide which will play better, pay homage to corn ethanol and try to out promise other competitors in the state, or position themselves as national candidates, serious about resetting the Federal governments role and saving taxpayers from special interest pleadings. Some may decide Iowa is no longer worth the trouble. It will not be principled conservatives driving people away but the business as we like it, “subsidize to play,” conservative establishment icons.
But presidential aspirants can take heart that the Governor seriously misjudges Republican Party activists by presuming likely caucus attendees in much of the state are in lockstep with his position on corn supports and “renewable” mandates. In fact, by the Party platform created in 2012, delegates opposed mandates . . . and who are the caucus goers most likely to attend the 2016 caucuses . . . those who attended in 2012.
Here is a Forbes magazine article summarizing the watershed AP story and associated commentary from a perspective we share. Corn Ethanol Poster Child For Crony Environmentalism.
Alan Caruba, writing at Facts Not Fantasy, holds forth on the Ethanol Debacle
Related reading from the petroleum industry regarding the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS), corn and cellulosic ethanol — Fill Up On Facts.com
R Mall
* with apologies to William Jennings Bryan
