On Elections and Animals

Over the weekend, my husband reminded me of my success with converting Republicans away from eating animals. (I can't say to veganism, as I think they are all still buying cars with leather interiors and wearing wool pants in winter, but luckily that lasts 10 minutes down here so they have only one or two pairs. In most other areas, they have changed their behavior.) I've even seen fur-wearers donate their coats.

And you all probably have had similar moments where, against all odds, someone realized what they were doing was wrong and stopped.

Because of this, my husband thought we should be concentrating our efforts on Republicans, which I would have thought was a ridiculous idea had I not been hearing so much about it elsewhere.

Here are my thoughts, particularly as they related to the two months we here in the US have before the election:

• On an individual level, we each have our own sphere of influence, and I assume we approach each receptive person we meet with equal enthusiasm, ready to debate, answer questions, direct them to other sources, or bake some vegan cupcakes at a moment's notice.
• On a more macro level is where I see a much bigger problem. I don't understand why the "Progressive Left" continuously takes on causes of injustice, and continuously fails to take the interests of animals seriously. The only reason some species might be included at all in Obama's platform is by default as climate change appears to be important to him. Of course animals are included elsewhere, but in a different way. See Obama's Support for the Rights and Traditions of Sportsmen, which has a section entitled "Expanding Access to Places to Hunt and Fish."
• I voted for Ralph Nader twice (and here's what he says about factory farming; I can only assume that he wouldn't support animal rights). Even vegan Dennis Kucinich wasn't for animal rights, and his site oddly has one of the most conflicting statements I've seen in a while:

Animal Rights

Congressman Kucinich is a strong advocate for animal rights, believing that nature should be treated with the greatest respect and animals deserve the utmost protection. In his commitment to animal welfare, he continually works to promote animal rights legislation in Congress and resist programs that sponsor cruelty and the abuse of animal lives.

(Here's the whole page. So much to deconstruct, so little time.)

• My point is that there hasn't been even a (viable) third-party candidate who is an advocate of animal rights in this country, and for this election there still isn't one. Why don't they consider the one population more used and abused than any other?
• The big question is: Are you going to vote for Obama because he appears to be the lesser of two evils? Particularly considering McCain's choice, of whom Priscilla Feral commented: "Palin acts like she has never met an animal she didn't want shot," I agree with my husband that for the first time in at least my lifetime, I think some voters might actually vote against a Vice President (not to mention against McCain, but Palin's ideology is more dangerous).
• If you'd be for Obama regardless of McCain or Palin because you want him to be the next president of the US, why is that?

There's something to be said for voting for the lesser of two evils this time around. In other elections, I didn't see much of a difference between the candidates from the two major parties. But when I think of the prospect of someone who's anti-choice, anti-science, pro-censorship, has ties to secessionists, thinks Alaskans are self-reliant frontierspeople when they're all subsidized by the lower 48, and thinks there's a god who has sanctioned our latest war, I can't vote for Obama fast enough. Especially when I consider that the polls (for what they're worth) say the race is tied.

What are your thoughts?

Comments

[Tracy]

I will be voting for Obama. As with other recent elections, I feel that not to vote for the Democrat is to give my vote to a Republican. The Green Party stands more for what I believe in than the Democratic one, but McKinney doesn't stand a chance of winning.

Also, I don't vote strictly on animal issues. Setting aside that issue, Obama stands for more of what I believe in. McCain (regardless of his running mate) is bad for animals and is bad for other issues I feel strongly about.

[Adam]

"I don't understand why the "Progressive Left" continuously takes on causes of injustice, and continuously fails to take the interests of animals seriously."

Mary,
What we know to be justice in our heads and from our hearts doesn't translate very well into societal/cultural change.The Left has a strong base made out of the working class who *generally* hold onto strong traditional values and sometimes religion as well. Because the Western tradition has always posed the ration individualized human above the collective material animal, it's difficult to tap into the moral intuitions of labor leftists to regard nonhumans significant intrinsic consideration.

At the the same time, most other "liberals" regard human equality first and foremost: humans shouldn't be imposed upon, oppressed--they should be able to author their own lives. The intrinsic authenticity of humans is stunted by repression of self-expression and capitalism. Telling people what to eat, to have less *choice*, is anti-humanistic. As long as animals are treated well, lack of intentional cruelty, so will humans be treated well and be more "humane" and less like "animals."

Finally, the whole democratic process involves compromise and consent. To win an election, one must aggregate the support of (generally) half the votes. Liberals, thus have to appeal to a very wide demographic who cares predominately about either jobs, wages, abortion, civil liberties, sustainability, etc--this is why they seem to always "flip-flop." It's a lot easier to have a consistent more monolithic conservative base (who all agree on conserving the status quo rather than each having their own idealic vision of the future). Because of this and the fact only 1-2% of the population sincerely cares about "animal rights," this population is very marginal, especially when most of these people are more concerned about foreign policy and pro-choice in terms of candidates. No one will ever admit to a full animal rights stance because they will be considered 1) elitist, 2) out of touch with main stream America, 3) unpatriotic, 4) insane, and 5) fascist.

The problem, thus is institutional speciesism, as well as the lobbying power of agricultural groups who give significant funds to both Republicans and Democrats to represent their interests and get subsidies. Take a look at the "red states," more or less they are rural, Christian, agricultural centers. Marginalizing these people would cost a politician 25% or more of his electoral votes. In other words, the SYSTEM is the problem. ***Unless we change the political and socioeconomic system we live in, it is unlikely we'll change animal consideration. (Hence, why animal welfare became a movement after people moved to cities and were no longer dependent on animals for survival)...
--Adam

[Elaine Vigneault]

"Are you going to vote for Obama because he appears to be the lesser of two evils? "
Yes, I am.
Generally, I think that's the wrong way to vote. I think we should vote our conscience and vote for the best candidate, even if there's no hope of them winning, or not participate at all, but in this case I'm choosing to use my vote as one almost entirely against McCain/Palin.

[Bea Elliott]

I would have voted for Obama anyway - I think this country has lost international credibility, personal liberty and finacial security during the last 8 years of the Bush/Republican administration. McCain/Palin only represent more of the same... only worse.

[Jukezz]

Maybe you should try to convert some Democrats to vegetarian life style, as well as the Republicans. However, your overall "style" doesn't seem very attractive. Stick to animal concerns if you are an Animal Person. Our elected officials are no friends to animals, either party.

[Bea Elliott]

Hello Jukezz, you're right that neighter party is a "friend" to animals. But certainly there's a difference between those that are in every sense of the word "enemy". I would call someone who wakes up at 4 in the morning - to spend the day in knee deep snow, who carries a gun then aims and pulls the trigger at an animal with the intent to kill it - an "enemy".

[Patty]

Is there a measureable difference between those that hunt nonhuman animals and those that pay others to breed, torture, and kill nonhumans and wrap chunks of their flesh in cellophane?

[Charlotte Laws]

I will vote AGAINST Sarah Palin. I love McCain and even worked on his 2000 campaign. I agree with McCain on may issues (much more than Obama). I secretly hope McCain is elected and the day after the election, Palin has to leave the VP post. Then McCain could select Lieberman (his true first choice). I understand Lieberman has a pretty good record on animals.

Can anyone confirm what many blogs say: that Michelle Obama is a spokesperson for vivisection?

I will probably vote a third party candidate or maybe just write in a name. It is sad to not be able to support John McCain due to his animal killer VP.

[Bea Elliott]

Hi Patty, I do think there is a (small) difference in actually "hunting" an animal and "paying someone to breed, torture, and kill".

Hunting requires full awareness, an actual "will" to carry out the "killing deed" to render the "fatal blow". One must ignore face-to-face a living being's right to their life. That is the "thrill" of their conquest - that they by their hand, extinguished a life. The death of the animal is their "trophy".

I don't think most people who wheel their shopping carts around the meatcases have that same mind-set. Thanks to the whole institutional process, the packages arrive so pretty and neat - and unrecognizable as an animal. People find it easy to divorce themselves from the actual "being" who's flesh it was.

It becomes easier still, when others are wheeling around their carts filled with body parts, or when your out dining on the same animal pieces others are munching on. Culture recognizes all this as quite "normal" and only a few give it much thought.

Hunting however really requires "dedication" and full "personal" responsibility for the act of killing. It requires direct decision making - kill the animal or don't.

It is often said if people had to kill their own "food" most would become vegetarians. Hunters illustrate that they are the exception.

[Roger]

Did someone mention vehicles and leather?

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-rainbow-5-using-leather-for-there-seats

[Bea Elliott]

Here's an informative podcast at Compassionate Cooks:
"Leather Not an Innocent By-Product"
http://www.compassionatecooks.com/podcast.htm

I've seen enough video of "hide-pulling machines" to haunt an eternity of nightmares. I think it should be "required viewing" for all those who wish to purchase the vulgar "luxury" item.