Big Sugar’s Gall

Posted on by

This is the first time I have ever written a blog post to comment on a newspaper advertisement, in this case in The Washington Post, on March 6th. I assume that there is no way to link to it. The ad says:

Big Candy’s Greed
[picture of a suit pocket stuffed with cash next to a picture of a farm with a foreclosure sign]
Jeopardizing 142,000 U.S. jobs and America’s food security isn’t a game. It’s a travesty.
So why are Big Candy executives lobbying Congress to outsource America’s sugar production?
To boost their already bloated profit margins at the expense of American farmers, workers and consumers.
Winners: A few corporate executives.
Losers: America
Support Current Sugar Policy–It Works for America
American Sugar Alliance
Backing America’s Beet and Cane Farmers

Why did the trade association executives choose to run this ad? Consider these possiblities:

1. They do not actually believe the oppressor-oppressed narrative they have concocted (to support sugar tariffs, of course), but they think that they can fool people with it and thereby influence policy.
2. They do not believe the narrative will influence policy, but they believe that they can fool the donors who sponsor their organization into thinking that they are getting something valuable for their contributions.
3. Actually, they are not trying to fool anyone with this narrative. In fact, they believe it themselves, even though to everyone else it is transparently ridiculous.

I lean toward (3). When you cash your paycheck from a pure rent-seeking organization, you want to convince yourself that you are actually a good guy, and in the process you make someone else the bad guy.

7 thoughts on “Big Sugar’s Gall”

  1. I vote for 1. with a smattering of 3., ie they hope to fool people out there into believing the US cane producers are being oppressed, but there may be a minority of them who actually believe it. I think you greatly overestimate the American public if you think “it is transparently ridiculous” to even a majority of people. Such subsidies don’t go unchallenged for decades if they’re so disliked. There’s a large majority of people who favor such interventions because they favor US producers over all else, including common sense.

  2. I was thinking they really shouldn’t hire ex-Daily Show writers to create their advocacy campaign.

    “Big Candy”? Is it April Fools already?

    This isn’t a joke. I googled it and got this at the sugar alliance website
    http://www.sugaralliance.org/the-sugar-beat/big-candys-big-scheme.html

    With this byline
    “Jeff Landry, a Republican and Tea Party member, is the former U.S. Representative for Louisiana’s Third Congressional District.

    Editor’s note: Rep. Landry’s article originally appeared on RedState.com on Feb. 25.”

    I feel sad now.

  3. Well then, why did they pick the WaPo?

    To indicate to the Beltway Boys that there could be a “move” made on public sentiment?

  4. It is straight #1. They do not actually believe it, but they think that they can fool people with it and thereby influence policy. And, they have fooled people.

    Henry Hazlitt:  A group may benefit greatly from certain policies. It will hire the best buyable minds to argue plausibly and persistently for them. It will either convince the public or so befuddle the argument that clear thinking becomes next to impossible.

  5. I’d say closer to #1. But to be more precise, they don’t even ask whether it’s true or not. They just know the buttons they need to press to get more food pellets.

  6. In other news, Big Soda has struck a blow today with the injunction against the NYC ban on big sodas. Not directly related as long ago, they cut Big Sugar out of the mix, aligning themselves with Big Corn.

Comments are closed.