Years ago, an agriculturist told me that all hunger was political. "There is enough food to feed the entire world," he asserted, knowledgeably. "If people are going hungry, it's because their leaders are using food as a political weapon."
The statement was made in the context of hearing yet another report about the 'starving children in Africa.'
Now, I have to wonder what my friend would say when he reads about hunger right here in America. We are a nation that has a cable network dedicated solely to the preparation and consumption of food. Even as general readership declines, the publication and purchase of cookbooks abound. True, some of this may be nothing more than the beauty of a well-framed food picture in a book, artfully placed on a coffee table, but it also says something about our almost insane obsession with eating.
Yet even as we see the affluent, or at least those who can marginally afford it, engage in various forms of foodaholism, we also know that people are dumpster diving because of how much edible food is discarded. Lines at soup kitchens have lengthened, and appeals to restock food pantries have come with more frequency as shelves empty more quickly than at any other time in recent history.
If hunger in a society is a gauge of that nation's leadership, what does hunger in America say about us?
First, it says we have our priorities greatly skewed. Visitors to food pantries will tell you that given the choice of rent, utilities, medicine, and food, they will cut the food to assure that they aren't homeless, freeze, or get even sicker. Housing that is safe isn't always affordable, but given the choice, I guess I, too, would go with hunger pangs over the fear of gun violence in my neighborhood. We have no competitiveness in the provision of utilities, and anyone who has completed Economics 101 can tell you that monopoly pricing is the highest type of per unit pricing for a good or service. I'll address medical care below.
Second, we believe that people who are facing financial hardship have brought their problems on themselves. The Great Recession, an interesting euphemism for what is really and truly a serious economic depression, should tell us otherwise. Many of those who are out of work followed all the rules - got up every morning, went to work, invested in the recommended 401Ks, and believed that home ownership was the way to go toward long-term security. We bailed out the banks, and bailed out on individuals. So, how do we punish them for their failure to be 'productive' in society's eyes? We make it difficult for them to eat.
Third, let me return to health care. We are the only industrialized nation that does not ensure proper, preventive care for every single citizen. We reward people with chronic diseases by covering the costs of their treatment more than we reward young mothers for taking their infants to the medical provider for routine check-ups and vaccinations. We punish people who contract diseases that have nothing to do with lifestyle (certain types of cancers being a case in point), and then bend over backwards to provide treatments for conditions that are potentially preventable. (Viagra, anyone?) Obamacare, for all of the excoriations from the right, still does not move us in the direction we need to go with regard to providing complete, affordable, preventive care. I'm not even sure it's a stable baby step. In the meantime, would those who are receiving care under Medicare or Tricare or Medicaid or are covered under the care offered to Members of Congress please stand up?
Congress is currently targeting for cuts programs that provide food stamps, overseas food aid, subsidized meals for preschoolers and their mothers, and although the subject of this blog is food, I will add that cuts are targeted for heating assistance as well.
If, as my friend pointed out years ago, leaders either provide or withhold food as a show of political power, what do the current proposals in Congress say about our leaders?
