The Promise of Plenty: Surplus, Symbolism, and (Food) Security in the Early Cold War

Saturday, January 6, 2024: 1:50 PM
Continental Ballroom 8 (Hilton Union Square)
Kaete O'Connell, Yale University
In 1955, the editor of the Des Moines Register wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning editorial that invited Nikita Khrushchev to send a delegation to Iowa where they could “get the lowdown on raising high quality cattle, hogs, sheep and chickens.” Surprisingly, the Soviets accepted the invitation and an agricultural exchange took place. The editorial was more than Cold War bluster, it came on the heels of a calculated effort by the U.S. government to rally farmers in pursuit of foreign policy objectives. This paper traces the growing significance of American agriculture in foreign affairs during the early Cold War, from the Marshall Plan to passage of PL 480 Food for Peace to the 1955 agriculture exchange.

Gifted to allies or withheld from adversaries, food is a compelling and powerful instrument of U.S. foreign policy. This paper studies the role of agriculture in foreign affairs and, significantly, food’s role in shaping national security. Food was—and remains to this day—a valuable source of soft power; it bridged cultures, fostered new alliances, promoted democracy, and reinforced notions of American exceptionalism. Surplus, repackaged as abundance, demonstrated the merits of freedom, democracy, and capitalism to populations across the globe. Yet within the United States, the commodities surplus vexed farmers, elected representatives, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The administrations of both political parties pursued foreign policies that eased the domestic burden of the commodities surplus. This meant, however, that they championed continued overproduction, relying on rhetoric and imagery that celebrated the American cornucopia. Food had to exist in abundance if it was to be used for aid, trade, and propaganda. Incorporating archival material from the USDA, farming organizations, and Congress, this paper analyzes the political motivations and economic incentives behind policymakers’ mobilization of the American farmer as Cold Warrior.