Yesterday, I wrote about the problematic possibility that Tom Vilsack could be appointed Secretary of Agriculture. Vilsack, of course, is the former governor of Iowa, which means the sum total of his agricultural experience has been building relationships with large corn producers in a state where they have a hammerlock on the political structure. And building those relationships has meant being a ceaseless and effective advocate for corn subsidies. But as folks in the comments pointed out, Vilsack would not, as Secretary, necessarily be beholden to the same interests. And as Tom Laskewy put it, there might even be a slight upside. Maybe "subsidy reform could only happen in a Nixon-to-China scenario," and, if you take that view, "Vilsack is certainly trusted by the farm lobby." Maybe. At the end of the day, Secretary Vilsack will implement President Obama's agenda, whatever that might be. Which is why I see commentary on the Vilsack pick as commentary about Obama's priorities, not Vilsack's skills. TAnd there's only one real signal from this sort of a pick: Your subsidies are safe. The Nixon-to-China analogy does not hold much water. Nixon could go to China because, unlike a Democrat, he couldn't be painted as weak, and so the political system couldn't muster effective opposition to his resumption of diplomatic relations. But for the corn lobby to paint an administration as anti-subsidy, all they have to do is effectively argue that the administration is opposing corn subsidies. Which is either happening or it isn't. The question is not a vulnerability in the realm of political narrative, but a tangible economic cost inflicted on an interest group that's been very effective at hijacking our system of regional representation. That it's an Iowan closing the spigot won't blunt the uproar among farm state senators who see those subsidies as crucial for their state's economies. Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin still need to win reelection, eve if Vilsack does not. As such, floating the name of a former governor whose primary agricultural experience is assuring subsidies suggests, to me, that Obama is signaling the Agricultural Department will remain the province of Big Ag. And since Obama did not demonstrate any particular bravery on ethanol during the primaries, it's not as if this pick is inconsistent with his record on the issue.
