From Plow To Policy: How Agriculture Lost Ground In U.S. Congress

RANDY P. KROTZ

CEO – AGWIKI, INC.

In the 1960s, agriculture wasn’t just a topic discussed in Washington; it was a lived experience for many members of Congress. Elected officials from rural districts across the country brought firsthand knowledge of farming, ranching, and rural economies to the table. Today, that dynamic has changed dramatically. The number of members in the U.S. Congress with direct ties to production agriculture has dwindled, reflecting a broader national shift from rural to urban representation.

The United States was still a predominantly rural country during the postwar era. Farming was a common occupation, and rural districts held significant influence. Legislators with agricultural backgrounds held powerful committee positions and ensured that rural interests, including farm subsidies, water rights, and land conservation, were well-represented. Lawmakers like Sen. James Eastland of Mississippi or Rep. Jamie Whitten, who chaired the House Appropriations Committee, wielded considerable clout in shaping farm policy. Their expertise helped craft landmark legislation, including the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965, which expanded support for farmers and the role of government in steadying the agricultural economy.

Fast forward to today, and the picture looks very different. Less than 2% of Americans are involved in production agriculture, which is reflected in the composition of Congress. Urban and suburban districts now dominate, and the number of lawmakers with personal experience in agriculture has plummeted. Those who represent rural areas often come from backgrounds in law, business, or education rather than farming. While they may advocate for agricultural issues, they usually lack a comprehensive understanding of farmers' challenges.

This shift matters because agriculture is deeply complex. Issues like water rights, conservation, seed genetics, livestock regulation, crop insurance, and trade policy require technical knowledge and practical insight. Without firsthand experience, legislators may struggle to grasp the real-world implications of the laws they pass. For example, debates over the Farm Bill – once a cornerstone of bipartisan, rural-focused policy – now often revolve more around nutrition assistance and environmental policy than production agriculture. While these are important elements, many farmers feel sidelined in discussions that directly impact their livelihoods.

Still, rural advocates haven’t given up. Organizations like the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Farmers Union, and many others work to educate lawmakers and bridge the growing divide between urban policymakers and rural constituents. They encourage farmers to invite legislators to their operations, testify before committees, and stay engaged in the political process.

The decline in agricultural representation in Congress doesn’t mean rural voices are gone, but it does mean those voices must speak louder, more strategically, and more often. As agriculture continues to evolve – with challenges like climate change, global trade, and technological transformation- having lawmakers who genuinely understand the industry is more critical than ever.

Engagement is key to keeping agriculture visible in Congress. Farmers and ranchers must continue building relationships with policymakers, advocating for their communities, and ensuring that America’s foundational industry has a seat at the table – not just in history but in the future.   ∆

RANDY P. KROTZ: CEO – AGWIKI, INC.