Divisionary Tactics

Not a typo.

Perhaps certain trends among environmentalists present opportunities for the kind of locally controlled, small business growth that conservatives hold up as the ideal in market structures. Witness the growth in "farm-to-table" restaurants and the locally grown "movement."

As they anxiously calculate the carbon footprint of their own existence, eco-centrists have returned to a consumption model that seeks to minimize emissions related to food distribution. The vegan in Chicago, for example, wonders how much diesel exhaust was spent so that he could have California tomatoes in his winter salad. He makes spending choices then based on how far his food has travelled before landing in his local market. In response, savvy restaurateurs and grocers have committed to buying as many local goods as possible, pledging to ensure, for instance, that none of their wares have travel more than 250 miles to market. Others have created the farm-to-table restaurant where the menu follows the seasons and all the produce you consume is field fresh, picked that morning from the garden out back. Such commitments limit food options (turnips, not asparagus, in November), but the consumers holding those commitments feel better about the options they do have.

Some of us may scoff at the notion of intentionally limiting options in order to shop more locally. Nonetheless, the people who do make those decisions constitute a market for -- guess who -- small businesses, namely local farmers and the retailers that carry their product. What short-sighted conservatives may dismiss as a piece with "whacko liberalism" has resulted in some fairly capitalistic market growth and entrepreneurialism, be it ever so small.

But let us not despise small beginnings. Why not press the logical extensions of farm-to-table thinking to give new energy, not only to localized agriculture, but also to localized industry?

My Dad works for a textile company in eastern North Carolina. Several years ago his company began to shift their product focus from yarns for clothing manufactures to specialty yarns for crafters. Since then, they've expanded their presence in all facets of the crafting market, moving beyond textile based crafts into stamping, scrap-booking, and now more deeply into stationary products. Not a poor-mouth story, in the least. Rather, a fine example of entrepreneurial manoeuvring.

The most relevant part of the story here, of course, is the impetus for the change. I remember a conversation with Dad around the time his company first began to look into stamping and scrap-booking as a good product shift. He remarked that the last maker of men's shirts in America had just moved their operations overseas.

Now, I'm no expert on the state of the American textile industry. Nor have studied all the circumstances that have contributed to its decline. But I'm pretty sure that the costs of doing business have had something to do with it (duh). And I'm equally sure that government regulations drive up the costs of doing business for everybody.

So then, while the Chicago vegan has created a market for local farmers, I'd guess that the preponderance of other products that he purchases -- clothing, appliances, housewares, etc. -- burn beau-coup oil tramping across the Pacific, through the desert and over the plains to end up in his neighborhood Target, World Market or Best Buy. Why not extend the farm-to-table mentality to encourage and develop more markets for (rank patriotism, alert) American-made products? After all, socks made in St. Louis leave a smaller footprint than socks made in Honduras (pun intended). A blender made in Detroit travels less than one made in China.

I realize that these matters are complex and that there's a combination of factors that drive industries overseas. However, recent trends among eco-centrists have offered new life to the local farmer based on concerns about the fossil fuels expended to get an ear of corn on my plate. Why not consider the same in regards to the shirt on my back? Without doubt, there's a strong case that government regulation hurts business. Could there be an argument then that government regulation consequently hurts the environment as well? What consequences would arise if it were shown that the ideal of government-regulated industry hurts the ideal of earth-friendly commerce?