Is Matthew Scully a Traitor?

I used to be Matthew Scully. As a ghostwriter, for about six years I wrote for people with whom I strongly disagree, and it was the most lucrative time of my career. I understand the mentality that you can change a client's views if you're around them enough.

But I’ve altered the way I do things because there was simply too much conflict for me/in me to continue. It just wasn’t right for me to work with certain people who, say, were from families responsible for enormous environmental destruction and generations of worker abuse.

Meanwhile, I had to draw the line somewhere, as I’ve yet to meet a prospective client with whom I agree on the most important issues, and if I only worked with or associated with people I agree with, I’d never work with anybody.

The line I draw is customized for the individual. Each case is examined on its own merits. I can't say I've never worked with someone who (I later found out) hunts. I can't say I've never worked with someone who owned fur coats or bought only pure breeds. After all, every client I've ever had except one ate animals and wore their skins.

As you might imagine, I make a lot less money than I used to, and there's one reason for that: I find it increasingly difficult to work with people who've made their money or their name by exploiting others or destroying the planet, regardless of what their book is about. I don't want that money.

If I think I can positively influence someone I sometimes take a job and tell the person that I'm giving 50% of my net income from the project to service to animals (or whatever issue the person has benefited from by causing harm, either directly or not). That makes them realize how serious I am about what's important to me, and how important it is that they think about that.

After having written and edited for two decades, and because I have the beliefs I have, I can say that in 2008, I could never do what Matthew Scully has done. I could never pen a speech for someone who enjoys killing.

But Scully and I don’t share beliefs. We have only two things in common: we write for others and we're vegans. I’m not anti-choice or pro-war, and the environment is too important to me (and that's just a short list). So it’s apples and oranges.

Is Matthew Scully a traitor? That depends on how you look at it. If I were to look at this single-issue (from a pro-animal perspective), I'd have to say yes. But I don’t look at it that way. He’s FOR his party and what it represents, and evidently his veganism isn’t as important as his party. Now, you can easily say that his party stands for repression, destruction, control and speciesism, which makes him a traitor to the people, the planet and the animals. What I'm saying is that he is being true to his party, and therefore not a traitor to it.

Because I was a "new" welfarist a scant two years ago, I understand the impulse to say that Scully might be able to reach people I'd never reach on a large scale (Republicans), and even though his message isn't about animal rights, if he can get some people to think about what/whom they're eating, that's great. But Scully's message is about duty and mercy, both of which imply the person who is dutiful and doling out mercy is in a position of power over those who are lesser (the person above has "dominion"), and that makes me very uncomfortable. And when I think about the notion of America's duty (god-given, of course) to conduct our current war, I see that the theme of dominion doesn't relate only to animals. And I realize that when it comes to the idea of dominion, Scully isn't a hypocrite at all. He believes in it and he writes about it, for himself and others.

Steve Best has a different view.

What do you think?

Comments

[Kelev]

It IS puzzling as to why Scully would accept the job of drafting/writing Palin's speech, in terms of animal welfare/protection/rights. His book, DOMINION, touched my soul, specifically in his personal "visits" to the gigantic (powerful) Agribusiness Animal Factories and Slaughter facilities in our nation - will be haunted by a number of his descriptions that take the reader into the despairing souls and hearts of the doomed animals. The ONLY potential, hopeful - against hope - for his writing the speech is that somehow, by his example, he can speak to Palin's conscious and soul, as she says, "I want to do the Right thing!" - to extend compassion to the most vulnerable among us, the creatures of our planet. (Sadly, she, Palin, probably hasn't EVEN heard of his book or his stance on our obligations as moral people (??) to animals.

[Roger]

Are all animal welfarists traitors? Is that the question being asked?

Scully is a welfarist - he certainly seems to use the terms 'dominion' and 'stewardship' interchangeably, and Steve Best points out the implication of his subtitle. Exploring Jim Mason's concept of dominionism, I suggested in my thesis that stewardship sounds an awful lot like animal welfarism.

So, is MS a traitor to animal welfare? I doubt it. Still does not answer the wider question about whether all animal welfarists are traitors to nonhuman animals.

btw, while looking at Scully information, I cam across this gem: http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory120602.asp which contains the question: 'When people — conservatives — hear "animal rights" they often think of Peter Singer. Are you in part attempting to get the arguments away from the likes of Singer?'

Roger

[Adam]

I don't think Scully initially had any idea who the vice presidential candidate would be. In the reports I have read, he was contracted to write the speech before anyone was named. Being that Palin was a choice out of left field, he probably was expecting someone more moderate--I mean his whole speech appeals to the more moderate demographic, shying away from Palin's pro-life position and such. Whether or not he still would have written the speech if he knew that one of the most "anti-animal" Republicans would be chosen, i can't say. Still, I guess he could have chosen to not adapt the speech for Palin once she was chosen.

I think it's more complicated of an issue than Scully being a traitor or not. So many people from the "abolitionist side" of our movement seem to just be on the lookout for any "new welfarists" to attack, just as many vegans enjoy judging lacto-ovo vegetarians. I like Best's and Francione's work, but I think their rhetoric can be very obnoxious. Before we reduce Scully to the category "traitor," let's reserve judgment until his next words and move. In the end, what difference does it make if he is/is not a traitor anyway? What's done is done.

[Mary Martin]

Adam,
The Time Magazine article Bea directed us to a couple of days ago (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1838808,00.html) does confirm that Scully was brought on board before Palin. But once he knew, if it was important enough to him, he could have refused to continue rather than tailoring his speech to her, as the Time article says. Something could have occurred that we don't know about, and I'd be interested to know if he did indeed voice any kind of objection. Time says "don't be surprised, though, if the combination continues." I wouldn't be surprised, but I'd be disappointed.

[Elaine Vigneault]

I think you're right to suggest that "when it comes to the idea of dominion, Scully isn't a hypocrite at all. He believes in it and he writes about it, for himself and others." Scully believes in moderation, not abolition.

But I think Norm Phelps, quoted by Steven Best, is completely accurate when he wrote:
"the fact that Matthew Scully wrote her convention speech [...] should give us all pause about the notion that conservatives will ever be serious animal advocates. I used to think that AR [animal rights] was a non-political issue and that we should keep it that way in the interests of converting as many people as possible and having the greatest impact on society. I no longer think that. I now believe that the mindset that leads conservatives to pursue policies that are hostile to the well-being of most of humanity (everyone except themselves and those to whom they are close) almost invariably leads them to policies that are hostile to the well-being of most animals (everyone except those to whom they are personally close, such as their companion animals)."

[Bea Elliott]

I searched "Dominion" hoping to find some reference to Alaska and it's wolf gunning policies. MS never directly addressed this controversial topic. However, I did find this on page 100: "Sport hunters operate in a subculture, like pornographers, and are tolerated by 93-95 percent of folks who don't hunt for much the same reason. In conservatives, even the more religious conservatives, questions of animal welfare bring out the libertarian streak".

Given the words and opinions Scully has on "sports hunting" he's the one who needs to judge if he has betrayed his own values and beliefs. Fate handed him an opportunity to live up to his convictions. Tragically, in my eyes he has renounced them.

[Bea Elliott]

Some people just aren't letting the subject (or disappointment go) - guess I'm one of them... so is this journalist here:
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/animal_rights_and_wrongs/7282/

In Scully’s words, “Cruelty to animals is not simply unkind behavior, it is unjust behavior, and the prohibition against it is non-negotiable.” Does he actually believe that he can work to put this cruel woman in power and then talk her out of her cruelty? How is his writing her speech not “negotiating”?

“Little wrongs, when left unattended,” he once wrote, “can grow and spread to become grave wrongs.” True, but a little wrong can also grow and spread to become a grave wrong when a sell-out hypocrite helps lift the little wrong out of relative obscurity and pushes her toward a position of extreme power.

On a personal note here's my say:
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0jxzo/banthisbook/

[Mike]

Elaine Vigneault's mindset (to try to officially connect veganism/animal rights with socialism and atheism) has made me very hesitant to support vegan groups.
I would never support one she is the head of.
I would never support a group that officially favors atheism, abortion rights, race-based affirmative action, slavery reparations,progressive taxation, banning of gun ownership, lowering the age of sexual consent, etc. just because the group favors animal rights.
I single her out since she is the only one so far to overtly say that a liberal agenda is inextricably linked with veganism. Though, I am sure she is not the only one who thinks this.
She can talk about how destructive my politics are to humanity, but that is because her definition of "destructive to humanity" is wrong.

[Brandon Becker]

Mike,

I don't know if you support nonhuman animal rights, but if you do, you should think about the interlocking connections between the oppression of humans and the oppression of other animals. We will never bring justice for other animals while we are still subjugating humans and vice versa.

An excellent book on this topic is "Animal Rights/Human Rights" by David Nibert: http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com/isbn/0742517764

Check out an interview with Nibert: http://www.abolitionist-online.com/interview-issue05_animal.rights.human.rights-david.nibert.shtml