I won’t pretend to know for certain whether any of those claims are false. Borlaug clearly made more of an impact on the world than almost any of his contemporaries in any field of study. But it also seems important to remember that he had critics, and their arguments weren’t always wrong.

Nick Cullather, an Indiana University historian who is currently writing a history of the green revolution, points out that Borlaug’s legacy is inextricably linked to theories about overpopulation that were popular in the 1960s but have been largely debunked since.

Borlaug believed the process of high-yield agriculture would change the mentality of farmers. The dwarf wheats required cultivators to precisely regulate water and chemicals, to set aside beliefs in nature and custom and put trust in technology. It made peasants into scientists. He expected this new attitude to affect their relations with their leaders, each other, and their families. They would follow the profit motive, and he hoped, have fewer children. The link between the new seeds and state birth control and sterilization programs was so plain that in many countries it was rumored that the seeds caused impotence. “If only that were true,” Borlaug sighed. “We would really merit the Nobel Peace Prize.”

Cullather also says that Borlaug’s goals were as much about geopolitics and preventing the spread of communism as they were about biology or agronomy:

Seen from Washington in the 1960s, rural Asia was the most dangerous place on earth. Guerrilla wars in Southeast Asia and separatist movements in India and Pakistan drew strength from the fierce anger of peasants, whose sudden restlessness mystified American leaders. The spike in the birth rate of the domino nations after 1945 foreshadowed bigger crises to come. Aid programs, land reforms, the Peace Corps, counterinsurgency teams, and village development all aimed to transform this traditional rural world into stable, urbanized, modern societies, but there was little to show for the millions invested until Borlaug came along.

In addition, Cullather argues that the weather pattern that we now know as “El Nino” could have contributed to the bumper crops in Asia that Borlaug’s seeds have been credited with. His whole analysis is worth reading, if only because it’s so different from what you probably read about Borlaug earlier this week. You can find it here.

Although six decades have passed since Truman began the debate, echoes of his arguments, as well as those of his opponents, continue to reverberate across the country. But the back-and-forth between supporters of universal health care and those who call the idea ’socialist’ has evolved. A consensus is emerging in support of reform, and the Truman-era specter of socialism doesn’t pack the same political punch.

In response, conservatives are injecting a new values-based argument into the mix, arguing that hidden within the current national debate on health care reform is a proxy battle between supporters and opponents of abortion rights.

Every year since 1976, Congress has approved the Hyde Amendment, which bars the use of federal ‘Title X’ funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of the woman’s life. Although roughly 90 percent of all private insurance plans cover abortion services, there are additional federal mandates barring funds for abortion for women in the military, women using American Indian health services and women covered by government-run insurance plans.

Regardless, conservative abortion opponents are stoking concerns that the current debate over health care reform could result in a bill that, without a specific exclusion, might usurp federal mandates barring the use of government funds for abortion services.

Just hours before he addressed Republican activists in eastern Iowa last Friday, U.S. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) stood on the floor of the U.S. House and argued, as he has previously, that taxpayer dollars should not be distributed to Planned Parenthood of America, a family planning organization that provides abortion services, among many other things. Though federal law already prohibits federal money from directly funding abortions, Pence argued that all of Planned Parenthood’s funding should be stripped no matter what services the money is earmarked for, because funding any part of Planned Parenthood allows the organization to free up other resources to pay for abortions.

Pence’s proposal, offered as an amendment to an appropriations bill, was soundly defeated on a 247-183 vote. As expected, the vote went primarily along party lines with Democrats voting against and Republican voting in favor.

That is not always how the issue breaks down. Some Democrats, like U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Michigan), are working with the GOP to ensure that any new health care reform measures enacted by congress do not end up subsidizing abortion services at Planned Parenthood or anywhere else.

“I was disappointed that Congressman Stupak did not vote for my amendment denying federal funding to Planned Parenthood,” Pence told The Iowa Independent following his public remarks Friday night.

Stupak, who co-chairs the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, was co-author of a letter, signed by 19 Democratic members of Congress and delivered to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in late June, that called for an explicit exclusion of abortion services in any health care reform. Stupak has also threatened to stall debate on health care reform in the House if the reform bill does not include such an exclusion.

Pence is skeptical of those efforts. “I think [Friday's] vote bodes ill for pro-life Democrats in the Congress who are hoping that a government-run health insurance plan will not cover abortion services,” he said. “We brought a bill to the floor that essentially said no federal funding will go to Planned Parenthood in Title X, and we were only able to get 183 votes in the House.”

The 1,018-page health reform bill currently before the House makes no mention of abortion or any other specific medical services. This has prompted some anti-abortion advocates to claim that the bill contains a hidden “abortion mandate.”

“I think pro-life Americans and my pro-life Democratic colleagues should be very concerned about the president’s insistence on creating a government-run insurance option,” Pence said. “My belief is that — if they offer a new government-run insurance option for all Americans — that it is almost inevitable that it will eventually cover abortion.”

Pence’s sentiments echoed the fears expressed by many activists last week during a national anti-abortion webcast called “Stop the Abortion Mandate.”

“What you probably haven’t heard is that the health care bill being advanced by Democrats is the abortion industry’s dream come true. In fact it is the most disturbing piece of pro-abortion legislation in recent memory,” James Dobson of Focus on the Family told webcast participants.

Speakers who took part in the webcast painted a grim picture for those who oppose abortion: Passage of health care reform not containing a specific exclusion for reproductive health services will result in the closure of Catholic hospitals, the refusal of “pro-life” individuals to enter the medical field and the collapse of Crisis Pregnancy Centers due to the lack of medical personnel who oppose abortion.

“This is quite literally a defining moment for us,” said Charmaine Yoest, president and chief executive of Americans United for Life. “If the abortion lobby succeeds in defining abortion as health care, it will have shifted the entire debate.”

Despite national news of potential health care compromises, presenters on the anti-abortion webcast made clear that such negotiations were unwelcome and mostly imagined.

“Do not depend on the mainstream news media to keep you accurately informed about developments on this critical issue,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.

“Just today a major cable network gave airtime to a congressman named Tim Ryan of Ohio who is working closely with abortion advocacy groups such as Planned Parenthood and Third Way. This network allowed Congressman Ryan to pose as spokesperson for our side of the issue, misrepresent the content of the Obama bills and lie about our policy goals.”

Ryan, a Democrat who opposes abortion rights, and U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat who supports abortion rights, partnered to sponsor the bill titled “Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act,” which creates a national adoption campaign, tax incentives for adoption and increased availability of ultrasound equipment.

Although the bill has been able to attract a wide variety of supporters from both the “pro-choice” and “pro-life” movements, socially conservative activists reject it in part because it provides funding for birth control and comprehensive sex education.

Jim Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League and executive director of STOPP International, described by the webcast moderator as “an expert on Planned Parenthood,” described why the current battle actually goes far beyond what the public identifies as abortion to encompass nearly all reproductive health services.

“Over the last 15 years, [Planned Parenthood] has figured out that what it needs to do is put abortion and abortifacient birth control products into national health care,” he said. “They are the operator of the largest abortion chain in the nation … plus they kill millions more with their abortifacient birth control. We don’t want abortion as a part of health care. We don’t want abortifacient birth control as a part of health care.”

Sedlak and his supporters consider emergency contraception, birth control pills and some other contraceptives as equivalent to abortion, leaving little room for compromise. Any health care reform bill that pays for coverage of virtually any women’s reproductive health services, regardless of their legality and widespread acceptance, will be morally unacceptable to them.

Among Iowa’s elected officials, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley plays perhaps the most important role in the ongoing national health care reform debate. A staunch opponent of abortion rights, he signaled in March that any sort of government funding for abortion services was one of the only ideas that he would never accept in negotiations.

“Senator Grassley is opposed to mandating abortion coverage in health care legislation,” Jill Kozeny, a spokeswoman for Grassley told Newsweek. What the article does not detail, and what Grassley has yet to tell the public, is whether his definition of abortion services includes contraceptives.

Health care reform has eluded a generation of politicians already, so no one expected President Barack Obama’s proposed public health insurance option to be an easy lift in Washington, D.C. Under the added weight of a riled-up anti-abortion movement, it could be even harder than expected.

COUNCIL BLUFFS – Berkley Bedell, who served western Iowa in the U. S. House of Representatives for 12 years, will serve as General Chairman of the Hubler for Congress Committee, it was announced today by the Hubler campaign.

Bedell, who founded Berkley and Company in Spirit Lake in 1945 after returning from World War II, will join Hubler on Wednesday on a six-city swing the campaign is calling the “Bringing Back Real Representation Tour.”  Hubler, the Democratic nominee for Congress in Iowa’s 5th district, has used “Real Representation” as his campaign slogan.

Their tour will include stops at Council Bluffs, Atlantic, Denison, Storm Lake, Le Mars and Sioux City.

“I am thrilled that Berkley has volunteered to assume this important leadership role in our campaign,” Hubler said, in making the announcement.  “No congressman in Iowa’s history better exemplifies the spirit of our representative democracy” than Bedell, he added, pointing to the former congressman’s record of holding regular “open-door” town hall meetings with constituents to ascertain their viewpoints.

Bedell, who served in the House of Representatives from 1975 to 1987, said he prided himself on the teamwork that existed during his tenure among citizens of all political persuasions to accomplish important objectives for the district.  “I would like to see this district returned to where we work together as a team again and discuss our differences in a civil manner,” Bedell said.

“I believe that Rob Hubler will help restore the people’s faith in Congress that has been lost because of extreme partisanship that his opponent has helped to fuel,” he added.  “Rob gives us a chance to return to those times when we debate issues, but then put aside our differences and work as a team for the good of the whole district,” he said.

Along with the Bedell appointment, the Hubler campaign announced that Sioux City attorney Al Sturgeon, a former state senator, and Linda Nelson, a teacher and former state legislator from Carter Lake, have been named Co-Chairs.

“I am grateful to have the support of Al and Linda, who have both served the people of western Iowa with great distinction,” said Hubler.  Sturgeon served three terms in the Iowa House and two terms in the Iowa Senate, a total of 14 years.  He founded the Al Sturgeon Law Firm in 1991.  Nelson, a fourth grade teacher at Carter Lake Elementary School in Council Bluffs, recently completed two terms as president of the Iowa State Education Association.

The schedule for the “Bringing Back Real Representation Tour,” which will include a press availability at each location, on Wednesday, Sept. 3, is as follows:

COUNCIL BLUFFS – 8:00 a.m.

Pottawattamie County Democratic Headquarters, 722 Creek Top

ATLANTIC – 9:45 a.m.

Farmer’s Kitchen, 319 Walnut St.

DENISON – 11:45 a.m.

Cronk’s Restaurant (Black Angus Room), 812 4th Ave. S.

STORM LAKE – 1:45 p.m.

Buena Vista County Democratic Headquarters, 805 Flindt Dr., Suite 2

LE MARS – 3:15 p.m.

Lally’s Eastside Café, 125 Plymouth St. N. E.

SIOUX CITY – 4:15 p.m.

Woodbury County Democratic Headquarters, 506 Nebraska

Iowa’s other two Democrats, Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack, voted against the bill but were on the short side of the 293-129 roll call. (Loebsack was back in Washington after missing some votes to deal with flood issues in his 2nd District.) Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King joined all but one Republican in support of passage.Boswell was one of 21 “Blue Dog” conservative Democrats who signed a Jan. 28 letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsing the Republican version of the FISA bill. The issue was mentioned in Ed Fallon’s primary challenge to Boswell, but got buried in mountains of mailings attacking Fallon for backing Ralph Nader in 2000.

The bill now moves to the Senate where a similar bill has passed. The House leadership version passed its own version in November which did not include retroactive immunity, but it stalled in the Senate under threats from President Bush, who has said he will veto any bill without the immunity provision.

More Iowa women need to consider running for political office.

That’s the message the Iowa Commission on the Status of Women and other advocacy groups tried to drive home Tuesday at the State Capitol.

“Even though we have a record number of women in the Iowa Legislature — 34 — the bar keeps on getting raised, but we’re still below the national average,” said Dianne Bystrom, director of the Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University, during a press conference attended by 35 people.

“If you know a great woman,” Bystrom said. “Ask that woman to run.” 

The high-profile presidential race between Democratic rivals Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has heightened awareness of gender and race in politics. The campaigns of Clinton, a woman, and Obama, an African-American, can serve as an inspiration for women and minorities to run for political office, officials said.

“There’s going to be an historic nominee on the ticket no matter who that is,” Bystrom said.

Woman are underrepresented in all levels of government, said Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro. The United States ranks 66th in the world for female elected officials, he said. Between 1945 and 2005, there were 37 female prime ministers and 34 female presidents of other countries, he said.

“We can do better,” he said.

Lt. Gov. Patty Judge urged women to give politics a try.

“I hope you will seriously give it a shot,” she said.

Having more women in government makes it more likely that attention will be paid to issues of domestic violence, health care, child care, rape response, family leave and family well-being issues, Mauro said.

“Women emphasize and understand women’s issue,” he said. “Many women’s issues are marginalized when there is inadequate female representation.”

He added: “Women bring a new perspective to the debate. Many of the issues that women address are important to everyone.”

State Sen. Staci Appel, a Democrat from Ackworth, said she had four kids and was pregnant during her campaign. She said women can run and win.

“Decide in your mind and heart that you will make a difference,” she said. “And then full steam ahead.”

States that elect women tend to be more urban and liberal and have a changing population, Bystrom said. But, that doesn’t mean Iowa can’t boost the number of women politicians, she said. The center she manages is doing just that by encouraging and training women for leadership and political careers.

“It’s a great year to run,” she said. “Change is still in the air.”

The deadline to file papers to fun for state and federal legislative offices is March 14. Filing  for county offices opened this week; the deadline is March 26.

The Iowa Association of School Boards, Iowa Department of Human Rights, Iowa League of Cities, Iowa League of Women Voters and Iowa State Association of Counties co-hosted the bi-partisan effort. 

Photo, from L to R: Mary Ann Spicer, president of Sisters on Target; Connie Boesen and Patty Link, both members of the Des Moines school board; Lt. Gov. Patty Judge and Courtney Greene, spokeswoman for the governor’s office.

Many in the ag news biz are now speculating that there is no way that the 2007 Farm Bill can be completed in the Senate before December. Steve Kopperud at Brownfield Network has reported that as many as 75 amendments to the bill have been filed. If even a small portion of those amendments come to the floor, it could take a long, long time to resolve them all. The Des Moines Register's Philip Brasher is wondering if the bill will even be finished by the end of this year.

But Dan Looker of Successful Farming Magazine reported that Harkin has said, "Yes, we'll have a bill before Thanksgiving." Looker's article details the frustration of Democrats regarding the threatened Bush veto.

Chris Clayton over at DTN Ag News is betting that the Farm Bill won't be finished until April 5 of next year.

Dan Owens, over at the Blog For Rural America, has been providing a running commentary all week about the Senate's Farm Bill action…and inaction.

 

In other news the U.S. House Agriculture Committee has been holding hearings on food safety, specifically talking about the recent E.coli problems in the American meat industry.

Iowa Farmer Today has an interesting article about dried distiller's grains (DDGs), a co-product of the process of making ethanol from corn. Apparently, feeding DDGs to hogs reduces the amount of phosphorus in the hog manure. That can change the impact of applying the manure to fields as fertilizer.

The enormous corn crop projections from the USDA are still enormous, but they've been downgraded a bit. Corn production is still expected to be the largest on record. The crop is now expected to yield about 13.2 billion bushels, and Iowa is still expected to remain the top corn-producing state.

But the true sign of doom seems to be looooooong Senate service. No candidate has ever – and I mean back to George Washington ever — turned a long career in the Senate into the Presidency. The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who tried. John Kerry and Bob Dole got nominations. But other men who are widely respected elder statesmen in DC have failed miserably in the chat and chews of Iowa: Richard Lugar, Orrin Hatch, Ernest Hollings, Alan Cranston, even back to Ed Muskie and Henry Jackson. Ted Kennedy’s 18 years of Senate experience at the time he ran for President in 1980 dwarfed his older brother’s eight.

Of course, Dan Quayle learned the hard lesson about comparing one’s experience to JFK, and Ted gave himself the added challenge of trying to oust an incumbent of his own party. But none of this bodes well for Joe Biden’s ears of experience or Chris Dodd’s white hair.

Four years ago, writing in Reason, Jonathan Rausch proposed the “Law of 14″:

With only one exception since the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, no one has been elected president who took more than 14 years to climb from his first major elective office to election as either president or vice president.

Rauch defines “major office” as a Congressional seat, governor, or big city mayor. “The rule is a maximum, not a minimum. Generals and other famous personages can go straight to the top. But if a politician first runs for some other major office, the 14-year clock starts ticking.”  Those aren’t ears of experience — they’re stale milk cartons.Looking to the Hall of Presidents, soon to appear on dollar coins near you, we see:

President	First Major Office	Year	Shelf life
Bush 43	Governor	1994	6
Clinton 42	Governor	1978	14
Bush 41	House	1966	14 (to VP)
Reagan	Governor	1966	14
Carter	Governor	1970	6
Nixon	House	1946	6 (to VP)
Kennedy	House	1946	14
Johnson	House	1937	23 (to VP)
Eisenhower	President	1952	0
Truman	Senator	1934	10 (to VP)
Roosevelt	Governor	1928	4
Hoover	Cabinet	1921	8	="middle">
Coolidge	Governor	1918	2 (to VP)
Harding	Senator	1914	6
Wilson	Governor	1910	2
Taft	Cabinet	1904	4
T. Roosevelt	Governor	1898	2 (to VP)

(Note: I included cabinet posts for Taft and Hoover, whose first elected office was the Presidency, but either way they’re under 14.)

Even the one exception helps prove the rule. LBJ lost the 1960 nomination to fresher face JFK, then got the vice presidency as a consolation prize because they needed to win Texas really, really bad.

Where’s Gerald Ford on our roll call? Down below. With the losers. His decades in Congress were no match for that Jimmy Carter grin.

Loser	First Major Office	Year	Shelf life
Kerry	Senate	1984	20
Gore	House	1976	16
Dole	House	1960	26
Dukakis	Governor	1974	14
Mondale	Senate	1964	12 (to VP)
Ford	House	1948	27 (to VP)
McGovern	House	1956	16
Humphrey	Senate	1948	16 (to VP)	ight="25">
	Mayor	1945	19

Fast forwarding to the present, this significantly narrows our field of potential winners. Oh, not nominees – the gallery of the defeated will show you that, and for recommended reading on those men, find yourself a used copy of the long out of print “They Also Ran” by Irving Stone, a wonderful collection of biographies of the defeated candidates.

Note that on the Democratic side, the freshest faces are the leaders, and while Richardson cites his gubernatorial credentials, his House tenure could cause some problems.

Candidate	First Major Office	Year	Shelf life
Obama	Senate	2004	4
Clinton 44	Senate	2000	8
Edwards	Senate	1998	10
Richardson	House	1982	26
Kucinich	Mayor	1977	31
Dodd	House	1974	34
Biden	Senate	1972	36
Gravel	Senate	1968	40

It’s yet to be determined: if First Lady constitutes a “major office.” (These sorts of rules can always be tweaked retroactively.)

On the GOP side, again note the rough correlation between freshness and success, though Tancredo messes with that a bit. And Rudy Giuliani is getting to the edge of his sell-by date.

Candidate	First Major Office	Year	Shelf life
Romney	Governor	2002	6
Tancredo	House	1998	10
Huckabee	Governor	1996	12
F Thompson	Senate	1994	14
Brownback	House	1994	14
Giuliani	Mayor	1993	15
T. Thompson	Governor	1986	22
McCain	House	1982	26
Hunter	House	1982	26	er="0" src="http://home.mchsi.com/~jdeeth/milk.gif" width="18" height="25">
Paul	House	1976	32

The really funny thing, though, is that Ron Paul, supposedly the “fresh” face on the GOP side, was actually the first of the Republican contenders to win an election, back in the disco era.

Of course, a year from now the Law of 14 could be as useful as the Washington Redskins Rule. Used to be if the Redskins won their last home game before the election, the GOP would win, but if they lost it was a Democratic year. This made me feel even more glee than usual when my Green Bay Packers beat the Redskins in October 2004, but it didn’t help John Kerry a bit. (Perhaps because Kerry famously called the Packers’ stadium, Lambeau Field, “Lambert” field while campaigning in Green Bay.)

But perhaps the Law of 14 reflects a certain reality.  Foreign service officers and the higher ranks of the military have "up or out" rules: you either get promoted in a certain time frame or you’re gone.  Maybe that’s an unwritten political rule as well.

And maybe more substantial reasons will cause the American people to kill off the Law of 14. After all, George Bush took office twice over the more experienced candidate, and look what happened.

Which presidency is the worst in history?

To lay the ground rules, Neu says it doesn't make sense to compare 19th century presidents with modern-day commanders-in-chief.

But if one goes with a modern time frame, say post-1945 where the context is somewhat the same in terms of powers of the office, President George W. Bush doesn't fare well.

"He's easily the worst – no contest," Neu said.

Worse than Nixon?

"Oh yes," Neu said.

Charles Neu, the brother of former Republican Lt. Gov. Art Neu and the son of former 26-year Carroll Mayor Arthur N. Neu, has been with Brown University for more than 30 years, including a stint as chairman of that school's history department. A professor emeritus at Brown, Neu is currently at work in Miami, Fla., on a book on the Woodrow Wilson administration for Oxford University Press, Charles Neu is the author of six books, including two on the Vietnam War.

Neu has dedicated his life to studying great men, and he finds no greatness in George W. Bush.

"He never had much of a serious purpose in his life," Neu said in a recent interview. "He never really even had much of a business career. He's not even well-educated though he had a chance to become well-educated, but not the will to do so. And this guy ends up leading the nation? He's doesn't even have good verbal skills. He's clearly a person who doesn't read very much. You just watch him speak and struggle to find words."

Asked in a separate interview if he agreed with Neu's conclusions, U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, immediately asked a question in return.

"Neu, isn't that a Republican family?" Harkin joked.

Then he quickly agreed with Neu's historical analysis.

"I think the people of this country are really beginning to realize that this president is just not up to it," Harkin said. "He's not up to the job. A lot of mistakes have been and he's kind of lacking the moral authority that people need to run this country. I kind of agree with Neu. I think Neu's on the right track."

In the interview Charles Neu recalled going to a number of state and even national GOP events with his father.

But history shouldn't be read through partisan lenses, Neu said.

"My larger concern is that I'm disillusioned not with just our political leaders but with the whole of national leadership, whether it's in corporate life or academic life," Neu said. "I think there's been a failure of leadership in this country. Leaders are not speaking out."

The system doesn't bring people of great talent or imagination to the top, he said.

"It's not getting our best people through the system, all the way to the top," he said.

Neu said money and media skills dominate, leaving little room for courage and conviction.

"I think so many of those things compromise a person's vision," Neu said. "I wish I could say we had another FDR on the horizon, even another JFK or LBJ, but we get people like George W. Bush who is, wow, talk about the decadence of the American elite."

Broadening the "worst president" debate clearly would bring Bush some serious competition. There's our own Herbert Hoover, the man on watch as the nation entered the Depression. Then we have James Buchanan, Lincoln's predecessor, and a chief executive who helped set the stage for the Civil War through what historian Sean Wilentz calls "dithering" when faced with Southern succession. After Lincoln we had Confederate sympathizer Andrew Johnson who was impeached.

Then there are obscure men whose most common mentions today are on the memorized lists of grade schoolers.

But there's a difference between bad and forgotten.

What's more, today a terrible president actually can be much more disastrous than, say, Johnson or Buchanan.

That's because the role of the presidency then was so small compared to today, Neu said.

"What the federal government did didn't affect most people," Neu said. "It was a very, very small operation until The New Deal began to kick in and then even more when the Cold War began to kick and we began to create this vast national security apparatus which is still with us today."

Woodrow Wilson's state department had around 300 people in 1913, and Wilson had a White Staff with only a few people.

"He typed out many of his own diplomatic messages on a little portable typewriter," Neu said.

Imagine where Bush would fall on the worst-in-history list, and where we'd all be, if the president did that today?