October
2000
Animal
Advocates: Get Out the Vote
By Wayne Pacelle
|
|
|
We vote with our dollars every time we buy clothes,
household products or cosmetics. Every purchase of vegetarian food,
a garment without fur or leather, or a product not tested on animals
boosts the health of the industries marketing the non-animal products
and, consequently, contributes no revenues to their less enlightened
competitors. Just 15 years ago, for example, vegetarian "meats" had
no place in mainstream grocery stores. Now companies from Archer
Daniels Midland (ADM) to Yves sell their products in these venues.
In
the 1970s, just a handful of household product and cosmetic companies
did not test their products on animals. Now there are hundreds. This
outcome was largely the force of collective consumer action.
We now need to bring the sweat and spirit of collective action for
animals to the political sphere. Animal advocates must become involved
in candidate
elections at all levels. It’s time we recognize the importance
of political action in shaping laws to protect animals.
Congress allocates $600 billion in federal spending. Almost every animal-use
industry gets Congressional pork—from more than $10 million a
year for lethal predator control, to billions on animal research, to
hundreds
of millions spent to aid animal agriculture industries. Animal-use
industries receive this largesse because they have made it politically
advantageous
for politicians to make these spending choices.
Animal advocates can halt spending that harms animals, and they can
push policies to shield animals from abuse. The current Congress has
bills pending to, for instance, ban canned hunts, steel traps, validate
alternatives to animal tests, protect downed animals at stockyards,
and dozens of other important measures.
It is an axiom of American politics that organized minorities command
the influence of politicians. Look at the National Rifle Association
(NRA). It has three million members—a small percentage of the voting
electorate. But, from a politician’s vantage point, a voting block
of three or five percent may be enough to tip a Congressional or presidential
election.
Humane USA PAC, the first major national political action committee
for animals (see Nealon in Satya, September 2000), and a half dozen
state political organizations are working to organize animal protection
voters. Humane USA has endorsed nearly 200 candidates for Congress based
on their voting records or their pledges on animal protection (see www.humaneusa.org
for a listing of endorsements).
An Animal-Friendly President?
In the race for president, the choice for animal advocates is clear:
vote for Al Gore for President.
Certainly, the Clinton-Gore Administration has offered up its share
of disappointments to the animal protectors. Its promotion of "free" trade
has hurt our efforts to protect dolphins from tuna fishermen and served
to undermine a European Union regulation barring the import of
fur from countries still using the leghold trap. On the other hand,
the Clinton-Gore Administration has urged the largest-ever increase
in funding for the Animal Welfare Act, and it has endorsed a range
of
animal protection bills, including national anti-cockfighting legislation
and the Bear Protection Act, which seeks to halt any trade in bear
parts.
Vice President Gore changed course on his highly controversial High
Production Volume testing program, and put money into validating alternatives
to animal tests.
Gore’s selection of Senator Joe Lieberman as vice presidential
nominee should make animal protection advocates more comfortable. Senator
Lieberman scored 100 on the annual legislative scorecard of The Humane
Society of the United States and The Fund for Animals. He has been a
leader in condemning any resumption of whaling and has urged U.S. sanctions
against Japan’s whale killing.
An examination of the major alternative makes the choice for president
even clearer. Texas Governor George W. Bush took time from his busy
campaign to go dove hunting on opening day in Texas; VP nominee Dick
Cheney is also a hunter. Earlier this year, Bush received the Governor
of the Year Award from the Safari Club International, a group that
promotes
awards competitions to kill rare mammals throughout the world. And
Bush is strongly backed by the NRA and the American Farm Bureau, which
is
hostile to almost every major animal protection objective. Bush shares
Gore’s views on trade, although he is perhaps less inclined to
include provisions in future trade agreements to protect animals and
the environment.
Ralph Nader’s run on the Green Party ticket offered initial excitement—and
the prospect of a real alternative—for animal advocates. But that
hope faded as Nader chose not to address animal protection issues constructively
in his campaigns. In fact, his most notable comment on animals was
his
expression of support for treaty rights to whale for the Makah Indians
in Washington state.
Nader’s campaign has largely been restricted to an economic critique
of corporate influence. He has offered precious few remarks on social
issues, such as animal rights, gay rights, or civil rights. He has been
a hero and a champion to many—including me—but animal protection
just isn’t on his radar screen. A vote for Nader brings us one
step closer to President George W. Bush.
It is time to develop and flex our political muscle. We fail in our
efforts to protect animals if we choose not to.
Wayne Pacelle is chairman of Humane USA PAC, the nation’s
first major political action committee for animals. He has directed
more than a dozen successful statewide ballot initiatives to protect
animals, from cockfighting to trapping to hound hunting. Contact: P.O.
Box 19224, Washington, DC 20037; Email: HumaneUSA@aol.com.
