Both Andrew Sullivan and Nick Kristof have pointed attention to this proposal, to their great credit. And I don't want to be critical of their comments. But something struck me in both of their pieces, and it's emblematic of how animal rights issues are handled generally in the mainstream media.
Specifically, both had to caveat their positions in favor of these proposals by making it clear that they were not vegetarians and, in Andrew's case, that he does not agree with everything about the animal rights movement. Yet I wonder why commentary on civility and humanity towards animals has to have a qualification regarding discomfort with parts of the animal rights movement.
It is an almost universal phenomenon, apparently the accepted way of making any commentary acknowledging the basic rights of living creatures to some form of compassion and dignity in life. And whenever I read stories or posts regarding animal rights on the web, there is an outpouring of commentary on the evils of the animal rights movement or PETA, or, from the more obnoxious, just how delicious a slab of pork tastes.
However, regardless of the merits or flaws of PETA or other organizations, I am just not sure why any attempt to address inhumane treatment of animals requires one to distance from the excesses or perceived misdeeds of an organization that agrees with your position. I can hear all of the arguments why the caveat is needed - gaining credibility by showing an absence of extremism, placing the author in the mainstream, whatever.
But why does the so-called animal rights movement deserve a special type of distancing? Within every movement, there are extremes. Does any comment on every issue require distancing from the radicals within a movement that has taken some ownership of that issue?(Do I need to condemn Michael Moore if I comment on problems in the health care system?) Is it just perceived "liberal" causes? Is it because vegetarianism is seen as freakish and anti-American within the general community (what good American doesn't love a good steak and potatoes)?
The animal rights movement, as it were, is not PETA.
The pro-Israel Jewish community is not AIPAC, or Joe Lieberman, or Doug Feith. Nobody in their right mind inserts "I'm not a Jew and don't agree with everything in the Zionist movement" into articles on Israel.
The gay community is not the HRC. Andrew Sullivan would certainly never say "I don't agree with everything in the gay rights movement" in his posts on gay marriage. But of course, he understands as well as anyone that a wide range of attitudes and behaviors and perspectives exist in the gay community.
I could go on and on, but you get the point.
Look, I'm not an activist, but I do believe strongly in animal rights. I am offended by the cruelty to animals that exists in most commercial animal farming. That, along with several other issues, led to me become a vegetarian. Given what I have seen, the idea that you can produce and eat meat humanely is a fiction, which people can cognitively maintain solely because our society insulates us from the reality of the process of factory farming. But I, like most vegetarians and most people concerned with animal rights, don't attack non-vegetarians. I eat and drink dairy products, but others choose not to, and they often do it from a highly moral position. I am on the board of directors of a zoo, surely a position that would offend some PETA extremists who may object to caging wild animals. And I actually do see that point. Yet almost everyone at the zoo is a strong advocate for animal rights. My oldest daughter volunteers at the local SPCA. We support the Humane Society and the Jane Goodall Institute.
But the opinion makers in the media have decided that, in order to make a comment about humane treatment of animals, they have to make a concerted effort to distance themselves from the most extreme behavior of the most extreme organization in that cause. And then, as Andrew did today, follow that up with a post against PETA just to make sure we get the point. So they choose to marginalize the cause, to prove that they are not extremists.Nick Kristof did the same thing in his OpEd on Proposition 2 in the New York Times last week, saying:
My hunch is that in a century or two, our descendants will look back on our factory farms with uncomprehending revulsion. But in the meantime, I love a good burger.
I will set aside the question of the level of moral courage exhibited or missing from that statement.
But values are values, and shouldn't need a caveat.
What's also somewhat striking to me is that it seems so easy to be outraged by the antics of a silly and, frankly, marginal group of activists, empowered mostly by their ability to seek out celebrities. Particularly when most of the people who are associated with the animal rights cause are good people who care about the same thing that people like Andrew Sullivan and Nick Kristof claim to care about. At the same time, the general consensus view in our society is to not be particularly bothered by man's inhumanity to animals (or, too often, to man), and to ridicule those who do. As a vegetarian, I am well aware that it's rare that a vegetarian can go out with non-vegetarians and not be harassed and subject to ridicule for their moral choice.
So, what if a bunch of radicals choose to act stupid and make over the top comments?
And when compared to the daily moral outrage on the other extreme, is PETA's occasional or even frequent bad judgment really deserving of the routine condemnation it receives from the mainstream? Is it really better to condemn those who are trying to do something good, even though they may occassionally cross an invisible line and offend the oversensitive, just so you can keep face with those who don't want to be troubled with a painful truth?
Change doesn't come from those who are not willing to take action.
And that action starts with each of us.
