Log In | Register
This past weekend, a new endorsement was added to the luminous list of Barack Obama supporters. Joining Ted Kennedy, Colin Powell, Ron Reagan, Bruce Springsteen, former Bush secretary Scott Mclellan, and no less than 61 Nobel Laureates, amongst others, is a new voice joining the chorus for "change": the animals of America.
Ok, so maybe we can't actually poll the animals via Gallup or Zogby, and they can't announce their endorsement in a press conference. But the Humane Society announced the news this morning on behalf of animals who can't speak for themselves. Accompanied by photos of Sen. Obama cuddling the cutest little white fluffball poodle you ever laid eyes on while Abe Lincoln's memorial statue sternly but benevolently looks on from behind, ( https://community.hsus.org/humane/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=27497157 ) the press release states that while the HSUS generally avoids taking any sort of partisan stance and evaluates candidates based solely on where they stand regarding animal rights/welfare, for the first time in their history the board has unanimously voted to give full endorsement to Mr. Obama.
At first glance, one might presume that this is a cloying, manipulative case of substituting a cute pup for a cute baby in a cheap bid for public sentiment and "visceral votes". But apparently Sen. Obama has a long standing history of taking a hardline stance against cruelty to animals. As senator of Illinois, he backed more than twelve bills to protect the rights of animals, from banning the sale of horse meat for human consumption, to providing incentives for pet owners to spay/neuter their cats and dogs, to harsher penalties for animal cruelty of any type and greater fiscal support for shelters. On the federal level, he has co-sponsored numerous bills against puppy mills and animal fighting, and for stricter humane standards of slaughtering methods.
And as it turns out, the cute little fluffball he's cradling in the press photo, ironically named "Baby", isn't some random pooch--she is in fact a three-legged puppy mill survivor who suffered ten grueling years imprisoned and constantly forcefully impregnated in the bowels of a hellish California mill, her vocal cords sliced so that the brutal owners didn't have to hear her endless whimpers of pain, and the fourth leg having been so badly mangled by the sharp metal cage door where it was trapped that it had to be amputated. Baby's story is heartbreakingly sad, but thanks to Sen. Obama's close friend Jana Kohl, an animal rights activist who found the suffering dog and rescued her, today Baby is living the high life--hanging out with not only the leading presidential candidate, but also rubbing her three paws with A-list glitteratai including Lindsay Lohan, Bill Maher, Alice Walker, Moby, and Judge Judy. You can read more about Baby's inspiring story in Kohl's book A Rare Breed of Love, which also prominently features Sen. Obama's stellar record on animal rights.
Does a candidate's stance on animal rights issues belong on the campaign trail? In the past, it was never an issue that made it into that arena, though there was some demand for it to be addressed, mainly from PETA. In 2000, PETA ran their Gore-No-More campaign, attacking the former vice president for his support of the EPA's High Protection Volume (HPV) program, a crude and redundant chemical testing program first set up in the 1920's that PETA charges is obsolete. Did the 6-ft. 'Gore-y' bunny that followed him at several key campaign events contribute to the loss of those few votes that got siphoned off to Ralph Nader and made it possible for Bush to (literally) steal the presidency from under his nose? We'll never know.
Then again, PETA's motives might be questionable. Watching PETA demonstrators as they stood in the pouring, freezing rain outside the White House that fateful January morning of 2001, holding signs congratulating Bush on his "victory" and urging him to "not forget the animals", one might have thought of Mr. Bush's infamously cavalier attitude towards execution back home in Texas, and felt the urge to retort back, "Don't forget the humans!". PETA's moral standing was further complicated when the shocking news was uncovered in 2005 that the organization, which possesses an annual income of roughly $29M, regularly puts healthy unwanted cats and dogs to sleep ( http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/16/acd.01.html ). And as Bush spent the next eight years signing bills like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which widened the State's ability to prosecute animal rights activists by labeling them as 'terrorists' for interfering with companies' profits through property damage and targeting them for hate campaigns, and by signing into action plans to kill both endangered species of wolves and wild horse by the thousands in aerial attacks, it became more and more apparent that this cowboy not only forgot the animals, but targeted their defenders as well.
PETA aside, however, animal issues have been largely ignored by both public and candidates alike in previous elections. In future elections, this could change, for a variety of reasons. The most obvious one, of course, is that many animal rights issues are indistinguishable from environmental issues, and as the environment moves to the forefront of national concerns, so too will the accompanying animal rights issues. We may not be able to drill our way out of foreign oil dependency, but we can certainly drill the polar bears out of their natural habitat, a fact that doesn't sit well with many eco-conscious voters. Also worth considering is that certain animal rights bills, such as California's Prop. 2 that guarantees the right of farm animals to enough space to be able to move around and stretch, also tend to benefit struggling small family farmers who naturally provide more space for the few animals they have, whereas over-packed corporate factory farms are the perpetrators of the notorious cramped animal pens. Since family farmers represent large voting blocs in many swing states, animal welfare stances that also benefit them could hold appeal for a would-be president.
But one reason that isn't being discussed much, and which Mr. Obama may or may not be aware of, could become much more prominent in the coming years. While supporting legislation that protects the rights of animals is the right thing to do, and it seems inarguable that Sen. Obama has a genuine concern for the treatment of animals (he even stated in a recent interview that when his own family selects a dog, he will make sure that it's one from a shelter) it could also prove a very shrewd political move. Why, since animals don't vote, would supporting their rights be politically astute? Because it's an issue close to the heart of a highly coveted, perennially elusive voting bloc: the 18-29 year old youth vote.
It's no secret that animal rights causes resonate most deeply with this demographic, and that even those young people who are not politically motivated often take a different attitude when animal issues come into play. The BBC caught onto this trend in Britain as early as 2001, suggesting for political candidates to create a platform discussing the philosophical reasons for animal rights in a bid to attract young voters. Here in the U.S. the mainstream and even alternative media is ignoring this issue as usual, but the evidence speaks for itself--animal rights groups flourish on college campuses across the country, youth activist websites rank animal rights as one of their top issues, and a 2007 USA Today article confirms what most of us already suspected; that nutritionists are seeing a dramatic spike in the number of teenage and young adult vegetarians/vegans over the last ten years.
In prior years the youth vote was considered too small to be worth much effort. But in 2008, a year that marks even the youngest members of Gen Y as approaching or reaching voting age, young voters are a force to be reckoned with. This is a factor that will only continue to grow in the coming years, as Gen Y represents the largest age-related demographic since the Baby Boom.
So how much impact will the Humane Society endorsement make on this prickly demographic? It's difficult to tell by traditional poll methods, as these tend to favor stable, long term residents with landline phones over transient young dormitory and rental residents with mobile phones. But one new method of tracking voter opinions could hold a clue in these critical last days. Since the internet tends to attract mostly younger, tech-savvy users, the "buzz" tracking method used on www.perspctv.com ( http://www.perspctv.com">http://www.perspctv.com ) , which measures the level of interest each candidate is generating by keeping track of how many times his name is mentioned in both the media and the blogosphere, might be one of the best ways to ascertain how young people are responding.
No, the animals can't vote. But some of their staunchest supporters, the young voters who normally sit out elections, can. That's something that even the Governor of Alaska and former "Miss Fur" of Wasilla, who delights in bragging about her moose hunting adventures and her father who drives a truck emblazoned with a "Vegetarian--Old Indian word for 'bad shot'" bumper sticker, might want to sit up and take notice of. As should any candidate of 2012 and beyond--that is, if s/he wants to win.
