Daren Bakst’s conservative credentials include roles at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the John Locke Foundation, and the Federalist Society. According to the Heritage Foundation, he “has appeared in or been quoted by a wide range of media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Washington Times, CNN, Fox Business News, Al-Jazeera America, and U.S. News and World Report.” In keeping with the conservative complaint that conservative views are being censored, the oft-cited, well-published Bakst complained before Congress that “the chilling of speech is too often a reality. There are regular ad hominem attacks, such as the inappropriate label, ‘climate deniers,’ for those who do not follow the climate narrative.”
E&E reports that at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Bakst succeeded Myron Ebell, who gained fame as a climate denier.
In the Mandate for Leadership, Bakst is the author of the chapter on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). In keeping with the book’s partisan leanings, Bakst criticizes the Biden administration, taking issue even with the USDA’s mission statement. According to Bakst, the department’s mission statement is this:
“To serve all Americans by providing effective, innovative, science-based public policy leadership in agriculture, food and nutrition, natural resource protection and management, rural development, and related issues with a commitment to delivering equitable and climate smart opportunities that inspire and help America thrive.”
Predictably, Bakst finds two troublesome terms in this seemingly innocuous statement: “equitable” and “climate.” Merriam-Webster defines “equity” as “justice according to natural law or right, specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism.” What is wrong with equity? Allsides.com has this to say: “Some conservatives [argue] that giving special treatment to historically disadvantaged groups is more than unfair; it’s actually harmful to those it’s trying to help.” YouTuber Leeja Miller offers a more thorough examination of the problem that conservatives have with equity.
As for “climate,” Project 2025 makes denial of climate change and rejection of climate change mitigation efforts a matter of policy.
Also predictably, Bakst does not like feeding the poor, stating: “the USDA’s mission was and is too broad, including serving as a major welfare agency through implementation of programs such as food stamps.” Further, in keeping with Project 2025’s zeal for deregulation, Bakst writes: “farmers, and the food system in general, should be free from unnecessary government intervention.” A review of the USDA’s history reveals how the department was created and grew in order to remedy problems that the free market did not address, including trade in diseased livestock, “filthy conditions” at meatpacking plants, and other ills. In short, laws and regulations typically have a reason to exist, even though they cost businesses (and therefore consumers) money to adhere to them.
In an opinion piece for the conservative news organization the Washington Times, Bakst argues against “government interference” that he alleges contributes to food price inflation and food shortages. In keeping with Project 2025’s enthusiasm for fossil fuels, Bakst writes that “Policymakers need to end restrictions on natural gas extraction and use, including on federal land and the Outer Continental Shelf.”
Bakst also states that the USDA should allow “farming of idled land” by halting a program that pays farmers rent on land that is left fallow. Bakst implies that the USDA penalizes farmers who grow crops on land that otherwise would be idle; a search turned up no sign of a penalty for putting idled land to use other than the loss of the payment that Bakst argues against. Bakst may be referring to a letter written by USDA Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack that convincingly argues against putting the idled land under the plow. (Among other things, Vilsack claims that the amount of land in question is “only 1.3 percent of prime farmland.”) At any rate, while one may argue against subsidizing the practice of letting land remain idle, the practice has long been part of farming. The Bible (which many conservatives consider a guidebook) mentions the practice, which has been a part of farming through history. In short, Bakst in the opinion piece may be trying to score a political point by making the issue of the best use of a relatively small amount of land more controversial than it is.
In sum, Bakst, like other authors of the Mandate for Leadership, is a climate denier, opposer of regulations, partisan, and extensively connected to the network of conservative organizations intent on pushing American law and policy far to the right.
