Animal issues aren’t nonpartisan — they’re prepartisan
Some grassroots animal activists seem fundamentally opposed to professionalized nonhuman advocacy. That’s not me. I think there are obvious benefits to paid activism. For instance, if I was financially compensated, I could justify spending a lot more time pressuring my lawmakers to support animal-friendly policies. I suspect that’s the case for many people.
Of course, not everyone can be paid. Any successful movement must rely on many more volunteers than professionals. But I’m glad the animal movement is able to support some activists financially, so they’re better able to dedicate themselves to the cause full-time, over the long-haul. I say this so what follows isn’t mistaken for blanket criticism of paid advocacy.
What bothers me about professional animal groups is they generally present nonhuman issues as transcending party politics. This simply isn’t true. I suspect the professionals making these claims know it isn’t true. Rather, it’s wishful thinking on their part, necessitated by what I gather are tax laws governing nonprofit organizations.
Whatever the reasoning, it’s a harmful fiction they’re passing on to their supporters. Animal issues aren’t nonpartisan. Perhaps they’re prepartisan. Ever since the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, I’ve read a number of histories of the anti-choice movement.
What’s fascinating is that prior to the ruling, and even in the years immediately after it, the issue was seen as primarily a niche concern. Anti-choice voters were spread across both the Democratic and Republican parties. It wasn’t until after years of partisan sorting that most of the pro-choice voters migrated to the Democratic Party and the anti-choice voters moved to the Republican Party.
I suspect if the nonhuman movement ever becomes a real threat to animal agriculture, perhaps with the emergence of cultivated meat, a similar partisan sorting will take place over the issue of slaughter for food. Obviously, we’re not there yet, but I’d argue some degree of partisan sorting has already begun.
Take a look at scorecards from the Humane Society Legislative Fund. I don’t think the group is measuring support of the most important animal issues, but even in their assessment, Democrats get far better scores than their Republican opponents. Most of the politicians with 100-percent ratings are Democrats and most of the politicians with zero-percent ratings are Republicans.
Consider the issue I focus on — increased government funding for cultivated-meat research. I chose the issue because I believe it has best chance of hastening animal liberation. So far as I’m aware, all of the senators and representatives who support such funding are Democrats.
But say there are certain Republicans who vote in animal-friendly ways on certain issues. For instance, HSLF encourages its supporters to vote for Vern Buchanan, co-chair of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, among other Republicans. Even if we believe an individual Republican is better on animal issues than a Democratic opponent, a vote for that Republican isn’t just a vote for him or her.
The individual Republican will be voting for a Republican speaker of the House or a Republican Senate majority leader. Due to the nature of the Republican coalition, a conservative speaker or majority leader can not be a friend to animals. In that sense, a vote for a hypothetically pro-animal Republican is a vote for Kevin McCarthy or Mitch McConnell.
We also have to consider the perilous times we live in. Democracy itself is on the ballot. Any politician who remains in the Republican Party now is either a fascist or someone willing to make common cause with fascists. Case in point: Buchanan was endorsed by former President Donald Trump, who, more than anyone else, represents the authoritarian threat we face.
We cannot make progress on any cause, including the plight of animals, in a fascist America. It’s simply untrue to say animal issues are nonpartisan. Most generously, they’re prepartisan, but I believe a significant amount of ideological sorting has already begun.