There’s a sucker born every minute

I’ve been thinking about a famous quote attributed to various people, including the circus entrepreneur P.T. Barnum: “There’s a sucker born every minute.” It comes to mind as a growing number of animal advocates fall for what seems to me to be an obvious falsehood, which is that former President Donald Trump’s White House will in some way benefit other creatures, or be less harmful than Vice President Kamala Harris’ might have been.

Such advocates point to Trump’s cabinet selections. They cite Tulsi Gabbard’s veganism, Vivek Ramaswamy’s vegetarianism, Pam Bondi’s support for various welfare measures, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s past criticism of factory farming. The truth is, though, political parties are coalitions. Whatever the nominees’ personal views, they will be constrained by the broader Republican Party, which is hostile to nonhuman progress.

That said, I don’t mean to concede the aforementioned nominees actually have pro-animal perspectives. Take Kennedy, for example. Yes, he’s criticized factory farming. However, the conspiracy theorist has also condemned cellular agriculture, which I view as the most promising means of reducing nonhuman suffering and premature death. He’s even attacked plant-based alternatives as part of a secret plan to control the food system.

If any of these nominees truly cared about animals, enough to prioritize nonhuman interests, they would be working within the Democratic Party, which, as profoundly flawed as it is, is far more open to animal welfare than the Republican Party. I’d hope Trump’s reported selection of former Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler to head the United States Department of Agriculture would put misguided talk to the contrary to rest, but sadly I’m not confident.

The USDA director is arguably the cabinet official with the most influence on nonhuman treatment. So let’s look at what Loeffler’s record was during her brief time in the senate. The Humane Society Legislative Fund awarded her a zero-percent rating in the fall of 2020. I’ve mentioned before I don’t believe HSLF is measuring politicians’ stances on the most important nonhuman issues, but, nevertheless, the scores are instructive.

Earlier this year, Loeffler wrote on the fascist-captured social media site X there wouldn’t be many cows left if Harris was elected president. I wish this were an accurate reflection of the Democrats’ stance, but sadly it’s not. Still, Loeffler’s crazed opposition to any effort to shrink the size of animal agriculture in this country, real or imagined, tells us something important about what farm policy might look like during a second Trump presidency.

Part of the reason I’m not confident Trump’s USDA pick will dissuade those animal advocates who look on his potential cabinet positively is because I increasingly think these activists want to be fooled. Perhaps they prefer Republicans for reasons unrelated to nonhuman welfare or maybe they’re just attached to a bipartisan approach to advocacy. But it’s hard to take seriously those who see the incoming administration as a boon to animals.

Again, political parties are coalitions. The Republican Party, as currently constructed, is made up of a coalition more hostile to nonhuman progress than the Democratic Party. Most of those legislators who have zero-percent ratings from HSLF are Republicans and most of those who have 100-percent ratings are Democrats. Similarly, most politicians seeking to ban cellular agriculture are Republicans and most seeking to advance it are Democrats.