Getting Political for Animals

I regularly guest lecture to graduate students at the University of Denver’s Institute for the Human-Animal Connection (IHAC) with a presentation I call "Getting Political for Animals." The focus of the presentation is to point out that if we really want to bring about significant and lasting change in animal welfare and protections laws it can only be accomplished through the legislative process. There must be laws, and they must be enforceable. As part of my presentation, I offer up actual examples of protests, boycotts, and petition initiatives, pointing out that while these efforts are both needed and important, most do not actually result in making new laws, and I contrast this with the laws I have helped to make through the political process.

Advocates may protest against a store selling clothing that contains fur, and as a result that store may agree to no longer sell fur products. But because that pledge is not a law there is nothing to prevent the store from reneging on its promise, nor prevent a competitor from moving in to fill the void and offer its own fur products. Consider the results of a members' protests where Costco agreed to only source eggs from free range producers. That promise later changed to cage free. And there is a big difference. Free range hens must have continuous access to outdoor space for more than 51 percent of their lives (a meaningful provision, if not as good as it sounds, as the USDA doesn't specify the quality or size of the outdoor area—it could be a small screened-in porch, attached to a shed holding tens of thousands of chickens), whereas “cage free” simply means hens are not confined in individual cages. You could have 1,000 hens in a room ten feet by ten feet, and legally claim they are cage free. If there were a law stating all hens must be raised in a free-range environment that is something that is enforceable with consequences for noncompliance. But you need the law to make change permanent.

Boycotts can face similar hurdles. In one recent attempt to boycott an event where participants try to catch pigs slathered in mud, the negative publicity generated by animal welfare activists resulted in a record turnout of those wanting to catch a pig, arguably causing even more distress and suffering to the animals.

As for petitions, they may have some positive effect, but not always. If you tell a store you will never buy from them again, there is no incentive for the store to change – they’ve already lost you as a customer. And a store probably doesn’t know if you are an actual customer, so may not give a lot of weight to complaints. In fact, with today’s AI, a single person can generate hundreds of complaints coming from seemingly different people with different email addresses.

Which gets us back to getting political.

I often joke with students saying lawmakers are only interested in three things, getting elected, getting elected, and getting elected. But there is a kernel of truth in that mantra. As a constituent you have something lawmakers want and need, and that is your vote. As citizens we can put a lawmaker in power, or remove them from it. As a result, lawmakers are willing to listen to their constituents, even when the constituent's position on animal issues may not align with that of the lawmaker's.

We cannot save animals if we do not make laws that protect them.

Former U.S. Senator Robert Smith said: "The animal protection movement… fails to immerse itself in the hard work of electing candidates to office by endorsing individuals, distributing leaflets, donating dollars, and turning out animal protection voters. It cannot achieve major successes without getting involved in candidate campaigns."

Unitarian Norm Phelps once said: "We must never forget that the most important arena for the struggle to secure rights for animals is the political arena. In order to win lasting change, we must work within the political process, exerting pressure on politicians, bureaucrats, and other decision makers to support animal-friendly legislation."

Understandably, today many people want nothing to do with politics, and that has consequences. As Catholic nun and activist Dorothy Day put it: “Our problems stem from our acceptance of this filthy, rotten system.” Having worked in the legislative arena for over twenty years, I agree it’s often dirty and rotten, but one can either stand on the sidelines, stay “clean” and do nothing, or jump into the muck and start making change. 

Perhaps this is what Kim Stallwood, the former national director for PETA was thinking when he said: "Animal advocates may not wish to hear it, but it should be obvious that...the later stages of creating social change are likely to require balancing the pragmatic politics of animal welfare with the utopian vision of animal rights. I don't discount how hard this task is. Perhaps that is why so many of us would prefer to breathe the clean air of a moral crusade for personal change rather than wade through the muddy and often turbulent waters of pragmatic public policy."

Stallwood makes an important point. Many animal rights advocates are absolutists, not willing to make compromises or concessions. But that does little to advance the cause. Piggybacking on Max Weber's "Politics as a Vocation," feminist historian Aileen Kraditor labeled absolutists, those pursuing the “ethics of ultimate means” as the agitators, while labeling those willing to compromise based on the “ethics of responsibility” as the politicians. Kraditor concluded “Agitation is the art of the desirable. Politics is the art of the possible.” Do we as animal advocates pursue the desirable, or the possible? The possible is getting political for animals.

So how do we get political? It really is as easy as writing to your elected officials, identifying yourself as a constituent, and voicing your concerns over animal welfare and protection. While many people feel intimidated by the process, most lawmakers will be receptive, and some even welcome the opportunity to learn more about the issues. At least half of the bills I have worked on began as a conversation identifying a problem, which then led to the lawmaker agreeing to become a sponsor.

Sadly, many people don’t even know who their elected officials are and based their voting decision on a political party rather than the individual’s qualifications. We should ask ourselves when was the last time we wrote a letter or sent an email thanking a lawmaker when he or she supported an issue whose value we similarly shared. When was the last time we asked a lawmaker where he or she stood on issues of animal welfare? How about the last time we submitted a letter to the editor of a local paper pointing out a problem or issue? When was the last time we testified at a hearing on an animal related bill, or at least submitted testimony?

These things do take time, thought and energy, but we must be mindful that every minute we remain inactive is another minute that fails to advance animal welfare and protection.

-Roland Halpern

Member, UUAM Board of Trustees