what good are conservative principles in the first place?

They serve the same purpose as "intelligent design": they allow the guy with no ideas of his own to feel as though he's really the deepest thinker in the room.

Think of how much energy conservatives spend trying to convince the world that "less is more" is a grand, earthshaking ontological breakthrough worthy of Locke and Hume and Christ himself.

Goldberg is a partisan hack who only looks at the political implications of any issue. Goldberg never shows any sign that he is smart enough or well informed enough to understand policy. Obviously, Goldberg is clueless about farm policy (other than its effect on partisan ideology). It is useless to engage any policy at a level this superficial.

And how much of the Ag subsides go to corporate giants like ADM or the meat packers? Or the chemical corporations? They are philosophically in favor of corporate socialism.

of all the farmers I know taking farm subsidies, and there are a bunch, I can't think of one who isn't a committed Republican. And that's not even including agribusiness. Seems to me it's conservative welfare, just like corporate welfare, bail outs of the savings and loans, mortgage and finance companies, oil and energy subsidies, military research and contracting, Iraq profiteers, bankruptcy laws that protect banks and screw poor people, health care policies that make insurers rich and keep 47 million Americans without care, tax breaks for the super rich, and pretty much the vast majority of our fiscal policy. Farm subsidies are a drop in the bucket or hypocritical and weak conservatives sucking off the government like so many republican law makers in a bathroom with bunch of cops. I'd say, keep the farm subsidies for the little guys, and cut off agribusiness, then get down to the real business of reversing the flow of our current state sponsored class warfare against everyone but the super rich in this country. Seriously. Let's try eating some rich. I hear they are tasty.

"....and yet Republicans all merrily and enthusiastically support ag subsidies anyway, then what good are conservative principles in the first place?"

I'm not sure this is supported by the voting record. Didn't most Republican senators vote against the 2002 farm bill, even though it was supported by a Republican president?

Alot of "conservativism" is just about getting elected - they don't practice it. I bet ten bucks Senator Bridge to Nowhere and free Home Remodels Stevens from Alaska refers to himself as a "law and order/small government" type. Bwa Ha Ha.

In practice Republicans ♥ Big Government - they just don't want to pay for it.

Conservative principles ain't worth a bucket of warm spit.

Farm subsidies are an example of good conservative principles: they maintain the status quo. That's what conservatism is all about. The principles conservatives declare publicly are just a smokescreen for the real goal.

they're good to get republicans elected.

Nothing!

No surprise here. GOP's increasing love for farm subsidies tracks with the shift away from family farms towards Big Ag.

Republicians = Hypocrites ... or are they Hypocritians? whether it be about sex, farm subsidies, nation building, welfare, family values, .. they all say one thing, enforce it for others, but do the opposite when it benefits people like them. Greedy bastards

Actually Bush has behaved better than the Dems this year. He wanted to cut farm subsidies for the very rich, but the Dems in Congress insisted on keeping the subsidies for farmers earning up to $1 million per year. Under the Dems plan, a married couple could earn $2 million per year and still receive farm subsidies.

I am disgusted by all these subsidies for the rich, but one must acknowledge that the Dems are worse than Bush on this item.

Let me defend Jonah Goldberg a little bit here. In the post at the corner that Kevin links to, Goldberg self-links to a piece where he sets out his view on farm subsidies in detail. And basically, he observes that the inequality built into the Senate and the Iowa Caucuses are responsible for the bad policy.

Now is this wrong? I don't think so. I think Goldberg is almost certainly right that most conservative elites oppose farm subsidies, but support of farm subsidies is necessary to win a lot of Senate seats as well as the White House. It's no different than most liberal elites being opposed to the Cuba embargo, but support of it is seen as necessary to win the White House. Does that mean liberals are at fault for the Cuba embargo?

Conservatives like Fatass Goldberg prefer looting the U.S. Treasury on behalf of wealthy individuals and corporations and squandering our children's future on worthless weapon systems like "Star Wars" and B-2 bombers.

The need to get elected is hardly a moral imperative.

I am going to spend my labor day weekend with some family members in a rural town. They are all ranchers and farmers. They are all addicted to agriculture welfare. They are all Republicans. They see absolutely no contradiction between their addiction to agriculture subsidies and free market Republican philosophy. If I ever suggested they were all welfare recipients, despite the fact they are family, I would have a hard time getting out of town with my skin. If I did I would never be invited back.

Anyway, what does political philosophy have to do with farm subsidies? Have you followed the work of the Ag committees? For purposes of farm policy there are no Democrats and there are no Republicans on those committees. Ag Committee Republicans and Democrats alike are all committed to creating and dividing the biggest possible welfare pie among their agricultural contributor constituents.

The results, of course, are that our food is cheaper than it would otherwise be if there were a real market economy, and that third world producers can't compete.

Hypochristians! Weee!

Poor GWB, forced to sign a bill with a high cap for farm subsudies by the mean Democrats! If only the Constitution allowed some means for the President to say NO to a bill that had obvious flaws.

And likewise, it's too bad that the innocent (R)Senators in 2006 were unable to do something like that when they had the power, or the same set in 2007 had no means at all to gum up the works to stop some objectionable thing the Dems put in.
When can we make the Senate work just like that?

Actually Bush has behaved better than the Dems this year. He wanted to cut farm subsidies for the very rich, but the Dems in Congress insisted on keeping the subsidies for farmers earning up to $1 million per year.

That's *revenue*; with margins of 1-2% that would translate into personal income of $10k - 20k.

Kevin, Jonah Goldberg is Larry Craig with a keyboard -- a minimally talented, deeply closeted chickenhawk who's full of right-wing vitriol.

This a clown who last year denounced Iraq War opponents by saying there was no cause to complain because American casualties are far less than other major wars in the past -- which is very small comfort indeed to the families and friends of the young men and women who lost their lives to this Persian Gulf clusterfuck.

The publisher and editors at the Los Angeles Times were fools to replace Robert Scheer with this superficial and intellectually dishonest Republican hack. You don't need to give him a platform, too.

Kevin,

You are reading Jonah Blowberg....It must be a slow news day.

Dilan Esper asks:
Does that mean liberals are at fault for the Cuba embargo?

If you consider JFK a liberal, yes.

If liberals hadn't allowed all these socialists throughout the world to take over countries with agriculture as their major export, there'd be no need for subsidies. These payments are simply necessary to permit US farmers to compete in a global market economy distorted by governments opposed to the American way of life. Why, this country's moms just wouldn't be able to make a flaky golden crust for that apple pie we all love without US government aid to wheat farmers. They simply couldn't!
Not to mention the cheddar cheese on top. Jonah's been putting pies away since he was a little tyke but ever since he's needed to lose weight, he's been opposed to subsidies; I'm guessing that was at 15 or 16.

They see farm subsidies as buying votes.
As long as people are voting Republican - there's your principle, right there. Save America from those evil commie bastard Democrats. No matter what it takes. Destroy the village to save it.

Who gives a flying fuck what Jonah Goldberg thinks? This blog sucks today.

principles, schminciples... it's about hanging onto that nicely compensated, cushy seat in congress -- whatever the costs in integrity, dignity or ideology..

"... and yet Republicans all merrily and enthusiastically support ag subsidies anyway, then what good are conservative principles in the first place"

Kevin Drum has been very playful today. It's almost too easy, I guess.

"So where does this idea that conservatives (as opposed to the GOP strategists) love ag pork on principle or as a partisan tool come from?"

The partisan tool needs to look in the Corner Mirror...

My wife gets pissed off when I read Jonah's column in our newspaper. There are always spit stains on his little smiling face when I'm finished.

Conservatives have principles?

Farmer. That's a nostalgic term from the past. I don't find it out of the ordinary that Republicans support subsidies for wealthy corporate agri-businessmen, including the most expensive possible subsidy, the importation of massive numbers of illegal aliens and guest workers, for which the taxpayer will have to pay the extra cost of jackpot babies, the Dream Act, etc.

In defense of Kevin, I must say that anyone who subscribes to LA Times, which means anyone who is interested in the national news, is force fed the Goldberg nonsense every Tuesday morning on the Op-ed pages.

Although there is no redeeming value in Jonah Luciane's oh-so-smart and anti-democratic pro-Republican propaganda in the Southern California's prime newspaper, it is a far cry from the earlier conservative effluvia of David Galetner in the LATimes.

This is simply another example of the GOP's selective and hypocritical application of conservative principals. Yes, they are opposed to distribution of federal funds to the public, but only if that money tends to benefit Democratically inclined voters.

If conservatives are philosophically opposed to farm pork — and Jonah offers a creditable argument that they're not only philosophically opposed but almost universally opposed in practice as well — and yet Republicans all merrily and enthusiastically support ag subsidies anyway, then what good are conservative principles in the first place?

Hey Kevin, if liberals are philosophically opposed to torture and other Bush incursions on civil liberties and yet Democrats all merrily and enthusiastically support Bush policies anyway, then what good are liberal principles in the first place?

"what good are conservative principles in the first place?"

Answer: they're worthless.

""...what good are conservative principles in the first place?"

I'll let now know when I run into some.

I mean, let YOU know...

It seems to me that in some generality one can only oppose someone receiving money on the grounds that someone else should have it. Goldberg appears to believe that the conservative principle is that taxes and spending should be low on average. I am sure that many conservatives care a lot about the total tax burden and total government spending. This shows they don't understand the issues. The economic case for low taxes is that taxes should not distort incentives. Targeted tax deductions are as suspect as spending to an economist. A reform which introduces a tax exemption for, say, farmers would cut the total tax burden. It would also increase the distortionary effect of taxes on economic activity. A pro market economist would be opposed. Conservatives would be completely confused (as usual) and they are not alone.

This confusion (or a desire to exploit the public's confusion) explains, for example, why the Clinton Clinton and Magaziner health care reform relied on employer mandates and why Magaziner when ape fecal material when the GAO declared the mandate to be a tax.

The farm bill funds food stamps. That is the enticement for liberals to support it. WTF does it have to do with Iowa caucuses?? That is stoopid.

So Goldberg not only doesn't understand the policy, he misunderstand and misrepresents the politics?? I wonder what info Mom has on someone that gets junior a job at NRO?

In case noone has mentioned it, just to point out that agricultural subsidies fall in the majority into the hands of big business, both directly and indirectly, and the largest farms.

Definitely playing to a Republican gallery.

In defense of Kevin, I must say that anyone who subscribes to LA Times, which means anyone who is interested in the national news, is force fed the Goldberg nonsense every Tuesday morning on the Op-ed pages.

I'm sure any day now, the good folk at Tribune Co. will restore the old Times front-page flag -- you know, the one that calls out for "true industrial freedom." Harry Chandler would be proud.

"conservative principles": I've got money, you don't, so fuck you.

I happen to think conservative principles inform much of Republican's thinking on pork.

Ronald Reagan said, "Government is the problem." It's difficult to be respectful of, or to care for something that is the problem.

It is easier to rationalize pork when you disdain the system than when you view the actions of government with hope and seriousness.

I can't believe nobody called you on that "Conservative principles" oxymoran (spelling intentional).

"What good are Conservative principles..."

"Is the green cheese that the moon is made out of good to eat..."

Farms subsidies are okay because they are welfare for affluent white people. It's alright if the right sorts of people get welfare. It's a well established conservative proinciple.

Someone up thread said that the Repugs had voted against the 2002 Farm Bill - Kinda hard to accept that - The Senate final vote was 58-40 for passage. In the House reconciliation, the subsidy cap was increased from 250,000 to 275,000 and finally settled out at $350,000.

As the House was controlled by the Repugs and there were not 58 Democratic Senators, hate to quibble, but, the answer is Nah.

Liberals claim they want to raise taxes on the rich but eventually decide to raise taxes on everyone.... gouging their pay checks through the local unions........G.W. orwell at 11:34 AM

...The radical right has lied constantly about Clinton's first budget's tax increases. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they continue to claim that the tax increase hit the middle class, while in reality the Clinton tax increase was targeted at the most wealthy Americans. Let the record speak for itself. The tax tables from the 1040 booklets for the 1992 and 1993 tax years should be all the evidence necessary to tell who told the truth....

On average, union workers earn 16% more than non-union workers, so paying union dues is one of the best investments a working person can make

Bush and his Republican allies pushed through the biggest farm subsidy program ever.

Some folks simply cannot stop lying.

Kevin,

For once, we agree. Republicans betray their philosophy (at least the stated one) when they support such policies. Too bad Democrats can't get rid of such subsidies.

I think Sen. Craig has shown this week that what a Republican'ts SAY they are all about is more important than what they DO until they get arrested and plead guilty.

Since it is not illegal to vote for subsidies for wealthy farmers, Republicant's are never going to get caught in this hypocrisy.

And, after all, subsidizing the rich, whether in agribusiness, oil and gas, or the military industrial complex is what gets Republican'ts re-elected. Because, don't you see, subsidizing the RICH expands the economy while helping the poor does bupkus for anyone who gives sizeable campaign contributions.