Reflections From Venice, Part 3
By Richard McCarthy, Slow Food USA Executive Director
March 2018
How apropos that the International Executive Committee meeting was held in the very city that sat at the center of a successful, human-scaled existence, the 1,000-year republic of the Venetian city state. Italy has only been Italy for a century. Beforehand, the region was home to small, human-scaled republics such as Venice. Commerce thrived. Craftsmanship thrived.
So, what did I find upon arriving to Italy? For one, our Slow Food colleagues busily processing the disturbing results of the recent Italian parliamentary election. The streets were filled with the remnants of wheat-pasted political posters illustrating a “Defense of Europe” campaign by Italy's Green Party (they have railed against EU agricultural policies and centralization for ages but now recognize the equally alarming fear of losing Europe).
On one hand, this looks to be a pivotal moment in Italian politics and society. And yet on the other hand, life goes on. Street vendors fill the streets with life and produce, coffee drinkers of all ages clamor around café bars and pastry shops. Who knows? Maybe the Italians are better prepared we Americans to manage this period of political instability.
In conversation with Arrigo Capriati of Venice’s famed Harry’s Bar, at 89 years of age he describes with great pride how he has worked diligently to keep an iconic and independent restaurant institution alive for so many years. But, here’s what really excites him today: cultivating artichokes on the nearby island of Torcello. Nothing puts a smile on my face more than to hear an octogenarian restaurant owner speak passionately about investing in farmland and the future.
{{ image(5859, {“class”: “fill round”, “width”:640, “height”:340}) }}
Conundrum of the Age
I have long looked to European food and consumer policies for inspiration. For instance, consider its devotion to the precautionary principle (the idea that we should take precaution before fast tracking every “next big idea” in technology). In this regard, Europe matters. It is an idea that defends civil society, solidarity, and sanity. Yes, the EU has also serves up terrible ideas, largely aligned with the neoliberal policies cooked up in American think tanks: deregulation, homogenization, centralized rules, etc. And herein lies the quandary: Globalization brings both good and bad: While the architects of global trade regimes seek the free flow of goods, they also open the space for the flow of ideas (like ours at Slow Food). While I would not be keen to defend much of EU monetary or agricultural policies, I do defend the idea of Europe — the idea that complex problems can be solved. By contrast, populists aim to reduce complexity. In a world defined by populists versus globalists, where do we stand?
As was the case with the 2017 French elections, populism is split between expressions on the Left and Right. In this past Italian election, we saw the Five Star party on the Left and The League on the right. Regardless of who cobbles together a government, it is assured that the Eurosceptics will rule. While this Italian electoral result may hold a particular fascination for those of us in Slow Food (who cherish our organization’s geographic and intellectual origins), it matters in other ways too. Italy has been one of the EU’s greatest beneficiaries and also its champions. If you have traveled to the once-impoverished Southern Italy, you may recall marveling at the EU investments, thus improving infrastructure and quality of life.
Globalization brings both good and bad. While the architects of global trade regimes seek the free flow of goods, they also open the space for the flow of ideas (like ours at Slow Food). While I would not be keen to defend much of EU monetary or agricultural policies, I do defend the idea of Europe — the idea that complex problems can be solved. By contrast, populists aim to reduce complexity.
This is the unfortunate conundrum of the age. Populists thrive on crisis (real and perceived), whip up fear, and place those of us who reside in civil society in a difficult position. We defend the status quo (in the form of EU and federal policies). We defend normalcy (even if we were there first to describe the crisis and exclaim that these are not normal times) because normalcy is the ecosystem that allows for pluralism to live. This is tragic, especially considering that by “we” I don’t mean the Center Left. I mean civil society. One of the great treasures of the food movement is the pluralism that assembles beneath tents and umbrellas with a shared sense that together something new flourishes: libertarians and liberals, vegans and paleo. It is these bridges we must defend. It is these bridges that populism seeks to remove.
