"What is the Government Doing to Make Us Self-Sufficient?"

...So asks a teacher and resident in Oaxaca State, Mexico, "after a decade of free trade that has all but depopulated the Mexican countryside." This is the question that every town, every city, and even every neighborhood around the world should be constantly asking. In "Science vs. Culture in Mexico's Corn Staple" (NY Times, March 27, 2005), Elisabeth Malkin describes the destructive effect of bioengeneered corn on the residents of Oaxaca, the birthplace of maize.

A panel of international experts found that the risks to health, the environment, and biodiversity from genetically modified corn were so far very limited. But after a public forum here in Oaxaca State, the panel gave special weight to social and cultural arguments about protecting corn. It recommended that Mexico reduce corn imports, clearly label transgenic corn, and mill genetically modified corn as soon as it enters the country, to prevent farmers from planting it.

But the U.S. opposes any restrictions or even labeling for the corn. It is another classic case of American arrogance dictating the rules of the game - everyone has to accept our corn without restrictions, but we'll tariff the hell out of your steel or cattle because that "protects American jobs." Free trade is great, as long as you only trade freely when it's convenient for you.

"There is a systematic strategy to finish off the countryside," said Aldo Gonzalez, an advocate on farm issues from the town of Guelatao. Scientists have echoed those concerns, saying that the threat to the crop and to the rural population cannot be separated. "The most important cause of the loss of genetic diversity to the maize varieties is the loss of people, their departure from the countryside for California, New York, and Texas," said Jose Sarukhan, a respected professor of ecology at the National Autonomous University of Mexico who led the panel.

What is our government doing to make us self-sufficient? Other than, you know, increasing our dependence on foreign bankers, the Chinese economy, and transnational corporations.

Thoughts on Regional Federalism

As organizations like the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank increase their power through trade agreements and other multinational accords, communities and states are beginning to understand that the federal government is not going to protect them from those agreements. For instance, as Jeffrey Kaplan wrote in 2003,

In the case of GATT (the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs), a WTO member country can sue another member country on behalf of one of its corporations, on the grounds that a country's law has violated GATT trade rules. The case is heard by a secret tribunal appointed by the WTO. State and local officials are denied legal representation. If the tribunal finds that a law or regulation of a country -- or state or township -- is a "barrier to trade," the offending country must either rescind that law or pay the accusing country whatever amount the WTO decides the company had to forgo because of the barrier, a sum that can amount to billions of dollars. In short, practitioners of democracy at any level can be penalized for interfering with international profit-making.

This is fundamentally anti-democratic, anti-American, and facistic. If large corporations are ceded this kind of power, the local implications in Grand County could be drastic: could Yamaha or Suzuki force the U.S. government to relax BLM restrictions on the use of ATV's because it impedes their ability to maximize sales? Or could Exxon-Mobil sue to overturn environmental regulations on oil and gas drilling because those regulations were an "unfair" barrier to free trade?

Yet, as argued over at westerndemocrat, recent efforts to "localize" decisionmaking through a collaborative stakeholders-oriented approach can be another smokescreen for commercial interests, not local interests, which is why national environmental groups have been very leery of such a process:

...to what point and for what reasons [do] Western GOPers support cooperative efforts[?] I would argue that their support only goes so far as to use collaborative efforts as a battering ram against federal control of lands, not to supplement that control with local and regional control.

By removing the federal government from the scene, and not allowing any real control by local communities, governments and watershed groups to fill in the vacuum, the space would eventually be filled by commercial interests. Westerners still would not control their landscape, the control would have moved from Washington DC to New York City.

Regional federalism - the notion that the balance between local, regional, federal, and international governance is seriously out of balance - seeks to return power to as local of a level as is appropriate.

"Out here, we prefer blue collars to blue bloods"

True. Yewell's op-ed piece in the Salt Lake Tribune explains the electoral success of Montana's Democratic governor last November:

How did a pro-choice Democrat win in a state where Bush beat Kerry by 20 points?
Part of the explanation has to do with the lingering stench from the scandals of Montana's outgoing Republican governor, Judy Martz. But there was more to it: People liked Schweitzer's straight talk and Montana roots.

Liberal Federalism (Or The Balkanizing of the Empire)

I've been meaning to post this link for a long time. Dan Kemmis, former mayor of Missoula and Speaker of the House in Montana, has advocated for a regional-type federalism, along the lines of Kirpatrick Sale's ideas of bioregional autonomy (but without the economic and cultural isolation implicit in Sale's vision).

Secession of the Colorado Plateau is something I've half-facetiously advocated for years now; whether those are the right (no pun intended) lines to draw or not is less the issue than if, essentially, a Balkanization of the U.S. is inevitable and/or desirable.

From slate.com

Federalism doesn't suit the typical liberal's self-image, but one of the most persuasive defenders of decentralizing political power was that ultimate object of liberal cosmopolitan admiration (and conservative scorn), a French intellectual: Alexis de Tocqueville argued that the strength and dynamism of American democracy were found in its local communities. He was right: Local and state governments can be more innovative, daring, and proactive—in short, more progressive—than even the liberal Congresses of distant memory. A growing number of state courts and legislatures have pioneered public-school finance reform, working to ensure that kids from poor neighborhoods are not stuck in inferior schools. Many states have civil rights guarantees that are stronger than those under federal law, especially with respect to sexual orientation discrimination, which federal law does not prohibit.