Thursday, January 30, 2014

I Vote For My Dogs

I Vote For My Dogs
Carlotta Cooper

When you share your opinions with people as much as I do, you tend to get a lot of feedback from readers. Some of it is quite nice and I'm grateful. Those responses usually come from people who read DOG NEWS. I get messages that are much more hateful from animal rights people when I post online about animal rights issues or reply to a news article about dog breeding or animal legislation. If I listened to some of these people I would have various broken bones and/or be dead by now. One person told me that I was “pretending to be a humane person” because the avatar photo with my online reply was a picture of my dog. It seems that only animal rights people can love their dogs.

One kind of message always leaves me a little confused. If I state an opinion disliking AR-inspired regulation for dog breeders, I often get approving messages from people who assume that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool conservative or Tea Party person. They're ready to take me to the next meeting and tell me all about the horrors of the Democratic party.

I should say right here that I don't really have a party anymore. I'm a dog person. I vote for my dogs. Property rights, regulation, finances – for me everything comes down to how things are going to affect me and my dogs. When someone runs for office, I want to know if HSUS owns them or not. Actually, if HSUS can buy a politician, someone else can probably buy him or her, too, but that's the issue that concerns me. I no longer care which party someone is in. I think there are good and bad people in both parties. One of the things I do in my state each election is help the Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance send out and analyze questionnaires about animal issues for candidates running for office so we can make endorsements. They have volunteers in many states who work on this project and it's a good way to know where candidates stand on animal issues.

However, my best friend is a liberal Democrat who does just as much to fight bad dog legislation as I do. I know that it drives her crazy when people assume that you have to be a conservative Republican to oppose animal rights. The tone of many e-mail lists about dog legislation IS conservative or Republican-oriented and that's too bad in some ways. I think it makes Democrats and liberals feel under attack or responsible for some of the things that animal rights people do in the name of “helping” animals.

Why is animal rights linked to liberals or the Democratic party? Well, it's a social issue. At one time, in the 19th century, improving care for animals was linked to improving care for children in our society. The idea that people are brutish and it requires government intervention to make them behave better and live the way they “should” live is a liberal idea. Plus, we live in a time when increased government regulation is associated with the Democratic party. And, it's the Democratic party that includes a caucus for animal rights at their Convention. Animal rights is just one of a long list of ways the party wants to make the world better, even if people object.

Please hold your letters. I began life as a Democrat, from generations of Democrats. FDR was a saint in my parents' home. My great-grandfather was named after Thomas Jefferson. I love the ideals of the Democratic party. I get them. I really do. But what began as a rural party with an affinity for farmers is more of an urban party now. When you look at polling data in any election now, you usually find that Republicans and conservatives win in rural areas – where there are more likely to be farmers and other people deeply involved with animals. Democrats and liberals are more likely to win in the cities. So, while today's Democratic party still shares some of the ideals of yesteryear, the demographic has changed to a large extent.

As you might imagine, this is a problem for dog owners, whether they are Republicans or Democrats. While HSUS donates to both Republican and Democratic candidates, they are far more heavily invested in Democratic candidates. They have a much stronger base in cities and universities and among young people. Many animal rights people today are located in cities and when they speak about animal issues they are speaking from ignorance. If they have pets they have probably only had a spayed or neutered animal. They don't know anything about breeding or whelping. They don't know about most health issues. They don't think in terms of generations. And they are usually completely ignorant of normal farming practices, even mistaking some ordinary things for “cruelty.” It's not easy to convince a 20-year-old college kid in the city that they don't know everything there is to know about animals. Afterall, you've only spent your entire life breeding and raising dogs. They have read an article online. All of this makes them easy prey for a manipulative group like HSUS to brainwash them.

It's easy for HSUS and ALDF (the Animal Legal Defense Fund – an animal rights legal group) to recruit young kids on colleges in urban areas. They can appeal to a natural urge to help animals and portray breeders and farmers – older people who live out in the sticks – as the bad guys. For these organizations and their recruits, they can subtly promote animal rights as a war on an older generation; as an attack on people whose values they despise – people who defend their property and claim their animals are part of that property by law. Because of the urban/rural party split, for many people it's also an attack on conservatives and others who believe the government is engaging in overreach and too much regulation. “These breeders must be regulated! They are doing terrible things to animals! Without government regulation, they will _____.” Fill in the blank. It's whatever HSUS and their allies can come up with to scare Congress and the public.

All of this happens without reference to the people who are most knowledgeable about dogs, of course, because, according to this paradigm, they can't be trusted.

Obviously, this version of reality ignores the fact that HSUS raises millions of dollars annually by using sad photos of kittens and puppies in order to spend the money on lobbying, pensions, and other things of self-interest. It's called “conflict fundraising.” Create a problem so you can make money on it. HSUS is expert at it. You have to wonder how many young people might choose to go into animal husbandry because they love animals if they weren't being diverted by the conflict needlessly created by HSUS. We have already lost several generations to the AR movement when they might have been more productively involved in animal welfare instead of animal rights.

All of this is to say that whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, it doesn't matter. Our common enemy is still the animal rights movement and HSUS. I would just point out that you don't have to be a Republican or a conservative to hate the over-regulation of breeders. In fact, some Democrats and liberals can feel alienated by their more conservative friends on dog lists when these subjects come up. Bad legislation is just that – bad legislation. You don't have to belong to one party or another to be able to recognize it or hate it.

6 comments:

  1. Thank you for such a well written, sensible/logical view. too bad the ARistas aren't sensible nor logical. Seems these people need something to *pack on* to make them feel better about themselves. Its called witch hunting and burning at the stake.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As Anonymous said Carlotta's view is logical and it is where I was up until 3-4 years ago.

    NOW I believe that what happens to our pets will be determined by what happens to our country. The current situation -- prosperity in the face of astonishingly bad government policy in every area -- won't continue because it cannot, and when we lose the prosperity, most of today's world of pets will be lost too.

    A nation cannot run a deficit of 40% of budget year after year with a mixture of borrowing and printing the difference. We're doing it now, but it won't last. We're very close to a day when the personal income tax -- the largest single source of federal revenue -- will pay only the interest on the debt. My favorite graphic explaining where the money comes from and goes is this one.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/budget-2010/

    That's 2010 and the numbers have changed some but if you want to see what would be needed to get to a balanced budget play with this: The answer now is no easier.

    While the Democratic Party created most of the bad policy (and is expanding it at warp speed) Republicans started the ball rolling and have been utterly gutless in confronting President Obama and the Democrats. Now leading Republicans are signing on to an amnesty for illegal aliens which will at one stroke make all the problems worse and create a voting block that will give the Democrats majorities for
    the foreseeable future.

    One can think down that path for a while but beyond 'no happy ending' it's impossible to predict details.

    Our problem IS NOT our government OR either of our political parties: It is our own lazy and ignorant selves. The general belief that we can pay no attention to how things work or to government, take no risk, make nobody unhappy, and everything will be okay because hey, we're America.

    America is land mass. The nation that inhabits it is subject to the same social and political rules as any other and if we screw it up badly enough for long enough we will lose the things that gave us our greatness, our prosperity and our happiness.

    Learn. Educate others, ESPECIALLY your elected officials. If they won't listen to polite comments then stop being polite. If we don't fix 'Americans' pretty quickly it'll be too late and our much loved pets will be mere collateral damage.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rereading my comment above I see that it could be misunderstood as saying that defending our pets and other animals against the AR attack is unnecessary and perhaps hopeless: That's NOT AT ALL what I think.

    The problems we face in fighting animal rights are basically identical to those of Americans generally in dealing with a too powerful and too large government. Both campaigns are pushed with extreme cases and lies, both depend on claims of fixing things that will actually be made worse by the proposed action, both involve people who know little but consider themselves morally better, controlling those who are 'hands on' but have less money. Alinsky's Rules for Radicals are the playbook for elites running both campaigns.

    Defense of animal owner rights is thus valuable in two ways:

    1. It will help us keep our animals and our sanity: We will need both as the larger war progresses; and,

    2. It teaches us almost everything we need to fight that larger war effectively. In particular nobody who has spend a few years working against the AR movement will have to repeat that first year or two of bewilderment: "How can they believe any of that?" We already know that anything they say is just a tool for getting what they want.

    One reason our government has coped so poorly with the tactics of the current administration is that these tactics are completely new to most of them. Congress, the Supreme Court, higher ranking civil servants, and the media aren't used to personal attacks, lies, enemies lists, and an endless campaign completely detached from reality. They thought it was about GOVERNING and are having trouble understanding
    that the new purpose is WINNING.

    People who understand these things from hands on experience have a key role in explaining them to others. AND AS WE DO SO we help improve the future for both America and for our pets and other animals.

    Reality has won every war in the past; our job is to help her do so with the minimum of damage, this time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Walt, for me it's not a part of a larger war -- and the solution is certainly not to be found in your reactionary political and economic ideas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please make substantive comments and don't sling insults. They don't advance the discussion.

      Delete