An Urban's Rural View

For much of their history the Republicans were a pro-business party. Today, the GOP is increasingly a pro-market party. There's a difference, and the difference could make a difference to agriculture if the party continues down this path.

The party's pro-business tradition goes all the way back to its first president. Abraham Lincoln thought government should do for the people "whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves." He signed bills that subsidized railroads, boosted farm output and stimulated the settlement of the west.

To today's pro-market Republicans, measures like those reek of "crony capitalism," "corporate welfare," "industrial policy," "picking winners and losers" and other foul odors. Better, these conservative Republicans say, to just say no to promoting businesses. All businesses.

The pro-market Republican guru, Ronald Reagan, doubted there was much of anything "the people" couldn't do better for themselves. "The most terrifying words in the English language," Reagan said, "are I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

The Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and other business interests are finding they can no longer count on Republican support. At the moment they're pushing Congress to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. They're finding it an uphill push.

The Ex-Im Bank's mission is to promote American exports by financing overseas buyers and providing insurance and loan guarantees to American sellers. Business lobbyists say without the bank American exporters would be at a competitive disadvantage because 60 other countries have export-credit agencies. Conservatives say private-sector banks could carry the load.

Two years ago 93 House Republicans voted against reauthorization, ignoring constituents' protests that loss of the bank's export financing would cost jobs. This year, according to the Hill (http://tiny.cc/…), four in ten House Republicans are on record against reauthorization, including the new majority leader, Kevin McCarthy.

Pro-business Republicans who would reform rather than scrap the bank may lose this battle. To avoid an intramural Republican fight on the House floor, party leaders might decide not to the bring reauthorization up for a vote.

Critics say the bank favors big companies; Boeing is Ex-Im's biggest beneficiary. The bank says it finances lots of small-business exports, as well. A "success stories" list on its website includes exports of pecans from Georgia, popcorn from Nebraska, wine from Washington state and a variety of other agricultural products (http://tiny.cc/…).

That's not the only reason for farmers to take notice. The main argument against the Ex-Im reauthorization will have a familiar ring to those who follow farm-bill debates: Get the government out of the economy.

GOP antipathy snarled passage of the last farm bill, and while much of it was directed at food stamps, some pro-market Republicans also opposed farm programs. If conservative think tanks are any gauge, farmers could see more of this opposition in the future.

The Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth both urged a no vote on the last farm bill. The American Enterprise Institute said farm programs "deserve to be heavily scrutinized and most of them probably scrapped (http://tiny.cc/…)."

House Democrats voted against the last farm bill by a margin of 106 to 89. Many Democrats wanted more spending on food stamps, less on "rich farmers." It's easy to see how in future farm-bill debates the left and right might join forces to make passing support for farmers even more difficult.

It isn't inevitable, to be sure, that things will go that far. The dilemma facing critics of crony capitalism, left and right, is that in some sense we're stuck with it. The unfettered, untrammeled free market conservatives crave is probably a pipedream; the liberals are no closer to reality in wanting alms to go only to the poor.

As crony-capitalism critic Holman Jenkins put it in The Wall Street Journal, "In the end, crony capitalism is largely synonymous with democracy. In any case, it's the system we have."

Still, even those of us who see a constructive role for well-crafted government intervention in the economy must concede that the critics have a point. Some programs don't work. Others need tweaking.

Too often no one seems to ask the obvious question: What can government truly do better than the private sector? If, as I think, one of the answers is "support basic research," why are research budgets always being slashed? If government is going to support business, it should at least do a better job of it.

Even if it does, the Republican drift toward Ronald Reagan and away from Abraham Lincoln seems likely to continue.

Urban Lehner

urbanity@hotmail.com