Conservative blindness on ethical eating

There are a great many people described as conservatives today who are nothing of the sort. Rightists perhaps but not conservatives.

last post was me; sorry.

To say that eating is a political act worries conservatives because many seem to cling, oddly enough, to an old liberal conception of private, personal life that they wish to preserve free from outside interference, including ultimately the "interference" of neighbors, relatives and local community.

And they are right to be worried because conservatives do not want their personal life politicized (the personal is political, etc). This is why conservatives have a tin ear for the topic: the left-wing has politicized food extensively. In LA the gov't banned new fast food restaurants, in NY the gov't banned trans fats. That is lunacy and far beyond the scope of any notion of limited government.

Conservatives will balk at any attempt to use government to impose cultural values, especially those seen as left-wing. Beyond that, they are also going to balk at what is basically a tax on food. All of our behavior affects others, be it commerce, land use, eating, worship, etc. Most conservatives, and obviously libertarians, are going to see red if you propose having the government tell people how to do business, use their land, eat, and worship.

Am I the only one who finds it hilariously ironic that so many of these self-described conservatives get into such frothy high dudgeon over the fact that someone would dare get judgmental about their lifestyle choices?

Rod,

Why is Larison using the word political, if he knows that conservatives don't use the word in the same way? This is akin to the libertarians who want to take back the word liberal, which is also debased. You can find heated discussion on the topic, but most people just accept that for the time being the meaning has shifted. If one accepts that conservatives are less than open to the idea, why add a battle over language? (Ironically, if he wanted to start a battle over how certain philosophies and ideologies have ruined the meaning of words, he'd find many conservative allies.)

Substitute moral for political and the problem goes away.

@otherjim:

... in NY the gov't banned trans fats. That is lunacy and far beyond the scope of any notion of limited government.

I accept that there should be regulation aimed at preventing food poisoning and sale of spoiled or contaminated food, but I am generally skeptical of efforts to regulate nutrition (other than disclosure requirements). That said, I am convinced that trans fats are so dangerous that they merit unusual treatment.

Judge Richard Posner, whose sympathies are also usually libertarian, has expressed support for a trans-fat ban:

I appreciate the concern that adoption of a sound regulation of restaurant meals will encourage further, less justifiable, interferences with consumer autonomy. ... I do think it worth emphasizing that trans fats seem exceptionally dangerous --almost in the category of poisons.

rod, i think you're right about conservatives and their view of food. i respect many conservative positions, but what i've always disliked about conservatives is that inflexible nature that some of them have. i'm generalizing, yes, but look at the nugget of truth.
and a further truth is that eventually conservatives will have to face that fact that everything they do, including what they do in their private lives behind closed doors, affects everyone else. as the world grows smaller and the influence of technology grows bigger, everyone is coming around to our interconnectivity.
there is actually an interesting related discussion going on at this new site, opposing views .
it's about whether or not people should eat meat. there's various arguments from both sides (health, ethics, economy).
as populations grow and food supplies shrink (it's happening, people), all of us, not just conservatives, will have to grapple with questions like these. should we eat meat? should we eat food grown with the use of pesticides? is it acceptable to import food from far far away?
the burger i ate at lunch cost much more to make in money and resources than the rice someone in china had for breakfast.

It's not that I don't want to think about where my food comes from--I do try to grow some of it myself, and I agree that it would be better if we all bought locally, etc. But a couple of years ago, my teenage daughter was diagnosed with anorexia. It was very frightening, and though she's better now, she still constantly focuses on food, including what's in it, where it came from, what good or ill it might do her, etc. etc. Meanwhile I have friends (in the homeschooling community) who are so certain about a right or wrong way to eat that they've actually broken relationships over it...so what's going on with us, I wonder? Sometimes I just think that we human beings start getting a little loony when food is so plentiful that we have the leisure to make political or religious choices about it. It's like the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. My practical response has been to try to make a few considered choices every time I shop, but not aim for perfection, or anything near it.

Substitute moral for political and the problem goes away.

But that reinforces the false division between public and private.

To those who imply that the Conservative resistance to food reform is akin to resisting the politicization of food... I hate to tell you but that boat has long sailed. Just read the most basic of Michael Pollan's work... I won't get into the details here since all readers of this blog should probably do this research for themselves, but food has been politicized a long time ago. Our current industrial system is propped up by an alliance of big agro-industry and government. The way we eat has been decided long ago by politicians behind closed doors. Agro-business that dumps their environmental and health costs unto the shoulders of me and you, my fellow taxpayers, with the explicit support of our government - well, only ignorance would permit a libertarian argument in support of such a system.

Food has been political since the industrial revolution. What we are doing is tilting our food system to consider people a little more and shareholders and politicians a little less.

Charles Cosimano,
I am happy to tell you that my generation (millenials) is growing up in such bleak and cynical times that most of us have put aside your outdated and crude libertarianism. We recognize that a whole host of systemic problems exist that need collective action on the part of our societies, action which cannot be accomplished through small and voluntary grassroots movements or through the free market. Hopefully your kind will leave the scene before the damage you do becomes irreperable.

You just better hope that we turn out not to be a vengeful generation, and keep the money flowing when you are in your 80s, nowhere near death, broke, and in need of all sorts of resources.

cheap consumer goods (especially clothing) made in sweatshops by exploited children ...

Conservative Christians turn a blind eye to a whole host of evil ... and we console ourselves by being militantly pro-life and "pro-family" (quotes represent my cynicism for that euphemism)

But that reinforces the false division between public and private.

I'm not sure what you mean. There is a division unless we are a totalitarian society that decides everything for everyone at the ballot box. There are people on the left who want to stop me from eating all forms of meat, others who want to attack hamburgers, hot dogs, fast food, junk food, etc. To me that is an invasion of my personal life and against everything this country was founded on. They want to politicize my personal behavior, i.e. make it a political & government issue. It reeks of totalitarianism. On the other side are crunchy cons who are talking about the way we grow the food, how we consume it, in addition to the government regulations which protect and serve agribusiness. To me, the crunchy cons are selling a moral/philosophical argument about how we interact with food and animals, along with a libertarian/conservative approach to government regulation of the food industry.

Maybe I'm completely misguided, but to me the whole crunchy con approach is decidedly unpolitical because it was about changing personal behavior and getting government out of our lives, not giving the goverment more control over it.

Some of us just like eating a slice of pizza or a hamburger without being nagged to death over the political/social/moral implications of the act. That's why we tend to react rather badly when some Greenie-Weenie-Whack-Job waves their finger in our face while we're eating our burger.

To all the Frou-Frou Foodie-Foodie Freakazoids out there: lay off for once, will you please ? The next time one of you nags me over my hot dog, I may just give you a little "nourishment"----a nice, solid, steaming knuckle sandwich, served at high velocity without warning.

That'll be one chili-dog, with onion rings and a Diet Dr. Pepper, please. Hold the guilt.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

I think at least a portion of our (conservatives) resentment to thinking of specific food choices as being political/moral (as opposed to, say, gluttony), has to do with some of what Lord Karth touched on--the first exposure, for way too many people, to moral and political food thought comes from (pardon the stereotype) a screeching PETA harpy who, in addition to thinking that cows should not be mistreated at a feed lot, believes that the best treatment for cows it to just let them run completely free, and that we shouldn't even do things like taking their milk.

Set against this, it's no wonder that it's easy to dig heels in and dismiss the validity of both propositions she's making.

Neither Lord Karth, nor Roger C, nor any conservative, has ever been accosted by a "screeching PETA harpy" or "Greenie-weenie-whack-job" while eating a hamburger or hot dog. But it is a remarkable testament to the power of ideology that so many have false memories of such events.

So, was that your first exposure to the idea of the politicization of food? Did you let your entire outlook on food and politics be colored by one obnoxious person?

Finally, which was it? Greenie-weenie or screetching PETA harpy?