3 22 AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT 



In politics the term "bloc" is applied to a group of legislators who are 

 strong enough to pass laws favorable to their interest and by the very same 

 token to prevent the passage of measures held to be harmful. Their 

 strategy is both offensive and defensive. Usually party lines are discarded 

 and the combined strength of the bipartisan forces often is adequate to 

 "tip the legislative scales in their favor." 2 



Bloc politics was nothing new to the American political scene when the 

 farm group formed. We had had silver blocs, tariff blocs, big-business 

 blocs, a Pacific Coast bloc, an irrigation bloc, an ex-servicemen's bloc, and 

 even a "baby congressmen's" bloc. The big difference between the farm 

 bloc and the other interest groups was that the latter did not operate openly 

 and as such in the congressional debates, but secretly "through the manip- 

 ulation of the regular party machinery." As for the farm bloc, its leaders 

 openly stated that it represented the agricultural interests and came for- 

 ward with "a distinct program outside the regular legislative program 

 of either party." To many, this was not only a novel departure from our 

 traditional two-party system, but also a distinct threat to it. Events soon 

 proved that these apprehensions were unwarranted. 3 



The basic assumption of farm bloc theorists was that the prosperity of 

 agriculture was fundamental to the prosperity of the nation and hence 

 it was necessary to raise farming to a status of equality with industry. 4 

 To be sure, this was to be the basic theme of the McNary-Haugenites, of 

 the Federal Farm Board, and also of the Triple A. 5 The time had come 

 when it was politically expedient to demand parity for agriculture. 6 



Bloc leaders were insistent that the machinery of the federal govern- 

 ment had to be employed to end discrimination against farmers. It had 

 been used for the benefit of industry, finance, and commerce, and it was 

 only just that it be used for agriculture. If Congress gave protection to 



2. Congressional Digest, I (June, 1922), p. 4; ibid. (March, 1922), p. 18. 



3. "The Farm Bloc A Peril or a Hope?" Literary Digest, LXXI (December 24, 

 1921), p. 10; "Bloc Against Bloc," The Nation, CXIV (January 18, 1922), p. 58; 

 Phillips Bradley, "The Farm Bloc," Journal of Social Forces, III (May, 1925), p. 714. 



4. Arthur Capper, "The Agricultural Bloc," Ouiloo\, CXXX (February i, 1922), 

 p. 176. 



5. Congressional Digest, III (May, 1924), pp. 270, 276; see opening paragraphs 

 of the House Committee on Agriculture Report on House Resolution i, ibid., VIII 

 (May, 1929), p. 140. 



6. John D. Black, Parity! Parity!! Parity!!! (Cambridge, Mass., 1942), pp. 53-54. 



