Marsha, you write a lot about ‘The View’ a lot. Isn’t that on
during the day time? Hey, I work for a living. I hear about
‘The View’ by way of David Letterman’s wisecracks during his
monologue (I used to watch ‘Nightline’ but it has deteriorated
a great deal with celebrity stories and other fluffy stuff).
I only watch Letterman’s monologue then channel-surf (usually
some gruesome crime show or football crap). Many years ago,

I watched Letterman and got turned off by him because he would have some ditzy actress as a guest and he would mercilessly make fun of her. I would think, “Okay, she doesn’t know much about anything. Why have her on as a guest just to be cruel?” It seems like Letterman has become a nicer guy.

Let’s have a discussion of “entertainment” or “infotainment”
TV? I don’t watch much. Usually watch PBS. Don’t get cable so I miss Stewart and Colbert…Did watch ‘Law and Order’ but I can’t get that channel very well now.

I do blame Oprah and Jay Leno for helping to elect Ahhhnold
the Terminator as governor of California (who started out
saying super free market economist Milton Friedman was his
hero and now has morphed into a sort-of Clintonian Democrat..
the only way he could have survived probably).

I watch Charlie Rose’s interview show on PBS if he has a
guest I am interested in. His attitudes are so Beltway and
conventional that it is annoying. But he did have Noam Chomsky on for an hour once and he was very respectful…actually asked intelligent questions…and let Noam speak.

Rose’s program competes in Denver with Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” on the other public TV station (which is
more leftwing and hippie). I end up watching her more often
but sometimes it can be boring because I know all of the
stuff…if Charlie Rose has a novelist or film maker on who
I am interested in, I watch his show.

How many of you around the country can get Amy Goodman’s show on TV and/or radio? She is great…

Yours,

Mark

Dateline: 5.13.07

Re: “They eat horses, don’t they?” May 13 Ed Quillen column.
Ed Quillen’s column about the slaughter of horses in the United States for consumption by Asians and Europeans was shocking. Is it “cultural arrogance” to stand by our companion animals and wild stallions? We keep dogs and cats for our pleasure. It’s our ethic not to cram those dear companions into overheated trucks without food or water to be shipped to a slaughterhouse at the end of their lives. That’s unconscionable and barbaric behavior. The same standard should apply to horses. People ride horses and use them for work. It’s a betrayal to sell them to a slaughterhouse when their guardians no longer want them.
Our wild horses and burros are part of our Western heritage, and the vast majority of people want them to run free. If it’s “cultural arrogance” to protect these beautiful animals, then I am guilty and proud of it. I’m glad not to be counted among the barbarians who cruelly kill these magnificent creatures for food.

The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act must be passed to save these animals and show the world that we are a compassionate nation. If we follow Quillen’s logic (letting slaughter be a choice), we’ll have to make murder legal.

Valerie Traina, Centennial

BY BENJAMIN ROSS | Originally in Dissent Spring 2007

Newly elected Senator Jon Tester, reports the New York Times, is “your grandfather’s Democrat—a pro-gun, anti-big-business prairie pragmatist whose life is defined by the treeless patch of hard Montana dirt that has been in the family since 1916.”

Virginia’s new senator, Jim Webb, is an ex-marine who served as Ronald Reagan’s secretary of the navy and writes novels celebrating the fighting heritage of the Scots-Irish. He writes that “The most important—and unfortunately the least debated—issue in politics today is our society’s steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century.”

Pennsylvanians elected Senator Bob Casey, who is as much anti-abortion as he is pro-union. Former National Football League quarterback Heath Shuler of North Carolina won election to the House on a similar program, and joined the next day in a press conference with the new Ohio senator, Sherrod Brown, to denounce unfair trade agreements.

It is not an undifferentiated Democratic tide that swept these candidates into office, but a distinctly populist one. The strategy urged on the party by establishment opinion—an appeal to upscale suburbs that couples firmness on national security with economic and social moderation—repeatedly fell short. Both Webb and Tester won primaries against business-oriented opponents backed by party leaders before going on to defeat Republican senators. And the only Democratic Senate candidate in a close race who ran as an economic centrist, Tennessee’s Harold Ford, was the only one to lose.

The trend toward populism was visible among voters as well as candidates. Rural and blue-collar voters swung toward Democrats, most notably in the economically distressed belt stretching from upstate New York to Indiana. The party also picked up House seats in Kansas, Iowa, and western North Carolina.

The populist temper of the electorate has an obverse side; signs appear that the half-century-long swing toward Democrats among the wealthy and well educated may be coming to an end. From 2000 to 2004, George W. Bush gained more votes in the affluent coastal belt from southwestern Connecticut to northern Delaware than almost anywhere else. Similar phenomena appear in the 2006 returns, with Republicans holding contested House seats in upscale suburbs that had been leaning Democratic. Districts that bucked the Democratic tide contain the hedge fund havens of Greenwich and Stamford in Connecticut, the home of Microsoft outside Seattle, and some of Chicago’s wealthiest suburbs. In the strongly Democratic state of Maryland, Republican governor Bob Ehrlich improved on his 2002 performance in many affluent suburban precincts of Anne Arundel and Montgomery counties while running 10 percent behind his previous score in heavily blue-collar Baltimore County.

WHAT ACCOUNTS for the populist resurgence? Unquestionably, Democratic voters in 2006 responded to the mounting economic costs of globalization and the human costs of the Iraq War, and those who bear a disproportionate share of those costs responded most strongly. Conversely, the relatively strong Republican performance among affluent cosmopolitans is hard to explain in any other way than as a reflection of the country’s growing economic and social stratification.

But these shifts in the electorate are too slight to be the full explanation. The range of views to be found among the Democratic Party’s newly elected representatives and senators has moved much further than that of the party’s voters. Public support for a higher minimum wage and opposition to trade agreements are only marginally greater than they were a few years ago, and it is doubtful that there has been any shift regarding gun control or abortion rights. Opinion has, to be sure, turned vehemently against the war in Iraq, but although support for the war has fallen further in rural blue-collar communities than elsewhere, that is in part because it had further to fall. The drift toward populism in public opinion is one of degree, and a modest degree at that, while the wave of populist, socially conservative senators is a change of kind.

The economically liberal and socially conservative have always been a large segment of the electorate. A 1999 Pew Research Center survey categorized one-third of all Democrats in a “socially conservative” group. Together with the “partisan poor” who had similarly traditional attitudes on religious and social issues, they made up the majority of all Democratic voters. Nearly a third of Republicans fell into a “populist” group that had decidedly anti-business views. Yet in the Congress of that year there were few Democrats, and certainly no Republicans, with such combinations of opinions. What caused the severe underrepresentation of populist voters in Congress, and what changed to enable populists to arrive with such sudden force?

The answer to this question lies in the enduring inequalities of class. Numbers do not translate automatically into political power. For one thing, the media are dominated by elite opinion, in its divisions over social issues and in its agreements about economics. On issues such as trade and the minimum wage, where elite and mass diverge most sharply, the views of the great majority of the American people are presented as the fringe of the debate. The fundamental human right of workers to organize earns hardly a mention.

An even more important factor is the financing of political campaigns. The cost of campaigns has skyrocketed since the 1970s; a serious challenge for a House seat costs upward of a million dollars, and Senate races often exceed ten million. Economic progressives have found it hard to keep pace with the rising price of politics. Unions, with their membership stagnant, were unable to compete in the financial arms race; the Catholic and Jewish ethnic networks that helped pay for New Deal-era campaigns moved to the right on economics as memories of immigrant generations faded; and the generation of progressive political donors formed by the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War had less inclination to Democratic partisanship than the generation formed by the New Deal and the Second World War.

By the 1990s, Democratic campaigns relied heavily on single-issue contributors motivated by noneconomic issues—feminism, the environment, gay rights, gun control, and others. The party also drew its funds from relatively friendly business interests in such sectors as entertainment, finance, and computer software. Between these two groups there was considerable overlap in views, and frequently in membership, with the business people inclined toward social liberalism and the social liberals often sharing the globalist views of the businesses. An across-the-board progressive like Paul Wellstone could still mobilize social liberals to finance his campaigns. But candidates of the stripe of Jim Webb and Heath Shuler were largely shut out of the process.

IN THE WANING years of the George W. Bush era, the politics of campaign finance has changed entirely. Money floods into Democratic coffers driven by outrage at the Iraq War, the erosion of civil liberties, and the influence of a religious right that has become part of the Republican Party machine. Although most of the individual contributors probably hold more or less the same opinions about questions of public policy as the single-issue donors of the 1990s, they are motivated by a profoundly different political outlook. Democrats have become thoroughly partisan. Their overriding objective is to end Republican control of the government. To that end, any Democrat with a chance of winning will be supported—and in most of the places where seats can be gained, that means populists.

The last few years have been a time for putting party before issues. Iowa Caucus-goers of 2004 rejected Howard Dean in the hope of defeating Bush, and the bloggers of 2006 promoted the insurgent primary candidacies of social conservatives Webb and Tester. Among donors, similarly, partisanship trumps economics. The paychecks of thousand-dollar campaign contributors will surely not be enlarged by a higher minimum wage, yet they cheer Nancy Pelosi’s determination to put this vote-winning issue at the top of her agenda. Democratic candidates, assured of the funds needed to run a campaign, are set free to represent voters rather than money.

It is this rapid change in the temper of the political class, and of its campaign-contributing subclass specifically, that fueled the sudden populist surge of 2006. When this partisan temper cools, as it will if Democrats recapture the presidency in 2008, the populist tide will inevitably recede with it. That is not because populist voters will be less numerous, but because the conditions will be less favorable for translating their numbers into political power.

The tide will recede, but it will not likely fall back to its previous ebb. Political motion develops its own momentum, and especially so when it carries a previously excluded group into the halls of power. Once included in the political debate, populist views will be hard to shut out. Democratic contributors educated by the 2006 election returns will remain open to supporting populist candidates. The loss of economic security in an era of globalization will continue to draw voters’ attention to social inequalities. And, we may hope, Democrats will seize this populist moment to enact structural reforms in campaign finance and union rights, so that the votes of the many carry a little more weight against the campaign contributions of the few.

Benjamin Ross is a community activist in Maryland. He writes frequently for Dissent.

BY DANNY SCHECHTER

[D]espite the many scholars who have validated it, even with some nitpicks, their “model” is ignored in most journalism schools and newsrooms because its real focus is on the powers behind the media…

Twenty years ago, a professor of finance at the Wharton School in Philadelphia and a far better known professor of linguistics at MIT set out to come with a way to explain how our media really works. Rather than offer a case study of coverage of one issue, or an analysis of this or that flaw or media “mistake,” they set out to try to make sense of the way the media functions as a “system” what rules govern the behavior of media institutions in reporting on crisis abroad. They didn’t call it a theory because they believed they were not being speculative but factual.

They came up with what they called a “model,” not of journalism, but of propaganda.

The ambitious book, since revised, explained their “Propaganda Model.” It’s called, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. It became a best seller among a public angry with the news we are getting and popular with media students worldwide who saw that there was now a systematic way to analyze media performance in a structural way. It’s still in print and still provoking controversy.

The author’s names are Edward Herman, and Noam Chomsky, both considered intellectual heroes and heavyweights among generations of rebels and critics worldwide.

At the same time, despite the many scholars who have validated it, even with some nitpicks, their “model” is ignored in most journalism schools and newsrooms because its real focus is on the powers behind the media and how they shape it to serve their own interest.

Many of the mainstream journalists who even know about it dismiss it as a “conspiracy theory,” even though Chomsky is a well-known critic of conspiracy theorizing. (This is like that old joke in which someone says they are an “anti-communist” only to be told, “I don’t care what kind of communist you are.”)

This past week, I spoke at a conference in Canada, not the US of course, where its impact is widely appreciated, still debated and updated. Still, there was only one mainstream corporate journalist there, Antonia Zerbisias, the always insightful media columnist of the Toronto Star who explained the “model’s focus on the “filters” that much news has to pass through.

“Stripped down for purposes of, as Chomsky would say, typical media “concision,” they are: ownership interests, advertiser concerns, the nature of journalists’ sources, flak (or negative feedback) and ideology.”

In a talk to a conference plenary, Zerbisias smiled before pronouncing that the model is “true.” There it is– a media veteran said it!

True-but not necessarily up to date in this new ever changing media era of diverse technologies, major outlets losing audience and credibility, increasing top-down control by conglomerized monopolies, vast information available on the internet, increasing media production by citizens and media makers, and growing disenchantment with a media that does more selling than telling.

Of course, media outlets have an ideological orientation that usually conforms with the interests of their governments. Journalists who challenge it are often marginalized, ignored or fired. I have documented that in my books and film WMD about the deplorable media coverage of the Iraq war. I am not the only one to argue that there was complicity and collaboration between a servile press corps and the Bush Administration that we both cheerleading for war.

There are two other aspects to this that needs to be examined including top-down coercion as when politically motivated moguls like Rupert Murdoch or Silvio Berlusconi or Conrad Black buy a media outlet and discharge journalists with whom they disagree.

There has just been a worrisome recent development at the one media outlet in the world known for its independence, AlJazeera where a new board has been named with a gutsy independent journalist replaced as managing director by a former Ambassador to Washington. You just know what that will result in–Foxeera, was the formulation coined by one reader.

In some countries, media dissenters are jailed or even killed. That’s why it was suggested at the conference that the title Manufacturing Consent today should be modified for “Manufacturing Compliance.” Increasingly governments don’t care what people think at all– or if they consent-just that they go along with the program by hook, crook or club. Most prefer that we don’t vote at all. That’s why elections are treated as sports events. The non-voters increasingly outnumber whose who cast ballots.

Even more distressing is the trend towards the depoliticalization of politics through the merger of showbiz and newsbiz to assure that much of the media agenda is noisy and negative, stripped of all meaning: superficial, often celebrity-dominated with little in-depth explanatory or investigative journalism. They would rather market American Idol as the American Ideology. To them, the only “hegemony” in Canada is its beer and hockey.

The people who run our media are, after all, in the end, promoting a culture of consumption, not of engaged citizenship. They want eyeballs for advertisers, not activists to promote change. The sound-bytes presented as substance are there for entertainment, not illumination. It’s heat, not light, all the way.

So truth be told, the real propaganda in an era where with more pundits than journalists, is less real coverage. It is pervasive and invisible at the same time–omission more than commission. They want to dumb us down, not smarten us up. They foster passivity, skepticism and resignation. Forget beliefs of any kind–just buy, buy, buy. Why even use deception when distraction works just as well?

Yes, the lack of coverage of East Timor that Noam Chomsky railed against was atrocious, as is today’s war coverage. but so is the absence of reporting on the devolution of democracy and much of the suffering in our own country.

Perhaps the more appropriate title in what Detroit calls a “new model year,” is “Manufacturing Indifference.”

News Dissector Danny Schechter is “blogger-in-chief” of Mediachannel.org. His new film is IN DEBT WE TRUST (indebtwetrust.com). Comments to

BY LAURIE DAVID | Dateline: 05.18.2007

Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson said about global warming in January, “It is clear that something is going on. It is not useful to debate (the issue) any longer.”

If that’s the new company line, Mr. Tillerson, then how do you explain the $2.1 million that ExxonMobil and its corporate foundation spent in 2006 to fund dozens of global warming denier groups?

According to a new analysis by Greenpeace for the Exxpose Exxon Coalition, Exxon funded 41 climate skeptic groups last year, with the biggest checks going to fill the coffers of notorious denier groups including the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, Annapolis Center, Frontiers of Freedom and others.

This ‘Carbon Cabal’ has worked for a decade to mislead and confuse the public about the urgent threat from global warming due to manmade CO2 pollution. These groups gladly accept Exxon’s support, which enables them to keep churning out misleading reports, to flood newspaper op-ed pages with bizarre arguments against action to curb rampant carbon emissions, and to appear on right-wing TV and radio where they’re invited by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to tick off blatant distortions of climate science without challenge by actual climate experts.

ExxonSecrets.org has tallied nearly $23 million spent by Exxon since 1998 to fund this denial machine, and there’s no real indication that the company plans to stop.

Exxon’s blatant hypocrisy in continuing to cut checks to these groups while claiming to have changed its ways is pathetic. They’re talking out of both sides of their mouth, just as the tobacco industry did for years.

It’s time to stop lying to the public, Mr. Tillerson. Exxon should apologize for its key role in delaying action on global warming over the past decade, and stop funding all of the skeptic groups immediately.

Laurie David is devoted to stopping global warming. She has recently launched a year long, Stop Global Warming Virtual March on Washington that is engaging religious leaders, labor unions, elected officials from all sides of the aisle, business leaders, and every day Americans to force the United States to address the ticking time bomb that is global warming.

BY A. ALEXANDER | May 19th, 2007

How did so many American people allow themselves to be shamed by the label “bleeding heart Liberal?” That, of course, was the original Republican label for anybody who disagreed with their policies of war and greed. “Ignore the ‘bleeding heart Liberals’ protesting against our war,” Republicans liked to say, “and forget about those other ‘bleeding heart Liberals’ demanding food for the poor. They’re just a bunch of anti-American, Commie-loving ‘bleeding heart Liberals!’ ”

The ‘bleeding heart Liberal’ - the person who hoped to stop nonsensical wars being perpetrated for no reason other than creating safe new markets for corporations to either sell their product in, or to enslave the population so that they could sew cheap clothing designed only to increase profits and CEO annual salaries. The ‘bleeding heart Liberal’ was the person who hoped to end global poverty and feed hungry Americans. The ‘bleeding heart Liberal’ who had warned of global warming long before it became fashionable and even before EXXON and other corporations began paying propagandists to refute its existence. The ‘bleeding heart Liberal’ was the person who fought to protect drinking water, rivers, lakes, and wetlands from unnecessary corporate pollution. The ‘bleeding heart Liberal’ was the person who fought for living wages, vacation time, and medical benefits for America’s workers. The ‘bleeding heart Liberal’ was the person who fought for programs to feed the elderly and ensure, after retirement, that they had affordable healthcare.

Indeed, the ‘bleeding heart Liberal’ was the extremist Republican movement’s original ‘evil-doer’.

And every American that actually tried to make the world and his or her country a better place for all “God’s children”, as Martin Luther King JR had so eloquently said; eventually those Americans bought into the extremist Republican’s perversions and came to view themselves as being somehow “un-American” and ashamed for daring to care about someone and something other than themselves. Nearly every American who believed in something greater than themselves came to surrender their very real and Christ-like morality and instead, latched onto the radicalized and extremist Republican Party’s perverted and greed-based “Christian” morality of hate and intolerance.

Perhaps, most worrisome in America today, isn’t that Mister Bush and the radicalized and extremist Republican Party have nearly completely undermined and destroyed the U.S. Constitution and democracy; what is most disconcerting is that Americans have lost their humanity. We don’t care that our government started a war based on lies…and we seem to care even less that those lies have resulted in the needless slaughter of 650,000 Iraqi people. We don’t seem to care that our children are being massacred by our children with guns that could easily be controlled and kept out of the hands of maniacs. We don’t seem to care that our children’s education is being neglected, so that we can build bigger and better bombs.

At this very moment more than 45 million Americans are without healthcare. Why? So that some corporation can have enough money to build the next generation killing machine…and Americans don’t care! Children, American children, are going to bed hungry and living in rundown and dangerous neighborhoods so that EXXON and other corporations can enjoy massive tax-breaks that they can use to pay their CEOs $400 million salaries, and we don’t care. America’s infrastructure was crumbling, while Republicans provided massive tax-cuts to Bill Gates and other billionaires…and Americans didn’t care. Genocide wracks Darfur and ethnic cleansing sweeps around the globe as a solution to peoples’ problems and we don’t care. Government officials use their power and position to enrich their friends, while other American citizens do without and we don’t care.

The so-called bleeding heart Liberal was shamed into near extinction by thugs and snake oil salesmen, so they could clear the way for an America without humanity. Feeling terrible for ever having dared to care, the ‘bleeding heart Liberal’ surrendered without so much as a fight. That’s too bad really, because there was a time ‘bleeding heart Liberals’ were willing to fight for what was right. What could be more right than America’s humanity?

Originally published in the Progressive Daily Beacon

BY A. ALEXANDER | May 20th, 2007

By mid-2006 it looked like the DC Democrats had learned their lesson. It appeared they had finally realized that the Democratic Leadership Council’s (DLC’s) political playbook, was little more than the perfect recipe for becoming an irrelevant political party. During the last election cycle the once spine-challenged DLC smitten Republican wannabe DC Democrats, had actually embraced their base and began confronting the GOP’s failed anti-working class policies. The result was electoral victory.

To their credit, for the first two or three months, the DC Democrats governed the nation with the enthusiasm that they had co-opted from their thriving political base. Democrats opened meaningful investigations into the Bush administration’s many illegal activities; they fashioned and passed a minimum wage increase; Reid and Pelosi worked together to close holes in domestic security; Democrats formulated legislation designed to reduce corporation representing lobbyist influence; and they formulated plans to end the Iraq War.

One by one the Republicans managed to stall the passage of the Democratic agenda and the Democrats immediately reverted to their inside-the-beltway, guaranteed to lose DLC playbook. Instead of continuing to confront the administration over Iraq, Democrats entered negotiations that will eventually yield them nothing and bring the war’s end no closer than the day it began in 2003. Instead of continuing to pressure the White House and Republicans to end the war, Pelosi and Emanuel hitched their political fortunes to the DLC inspired “free trade” agenda and immediately went about the business of selling out the American worker.

That single act, selling out the American worker in favor of enriching corporations, is proof that the DC Democrats have sidled up, again, to the failed approach and agenda of the DLC. Incredible as it may seem, it appears to have taken the Democrats all of five months in power to forget that it had been the DLC’s failed policies that had kept them in the political wilderness for all those years. And, too, Democrats seem to have forgotten that following their base had returned the Party to political power.

The Democratic Congressional leadership would do well to be rid of the DLC and, perhaps, have Senator Webb of Virginia school them on something called “populism”. Senator Webb understands the wave of discontent that is sweeping across America. He understands that the American worker is sick and tired of always getting the short end of the stick and that more policies designed to benefit corporations, won’t win any elections for the Democratic Party. Corporations, if the Democrats hadn’t noticed yet, have a Party…the Republican Party. Webb senses that Democrats could, if they had the courage and wisdom to align with the working people, establish a political dominance that would last into the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately, DC Democrats have no interest in what Senator Webb might have to say. The DC Democrats have already turned their back on the base - on the working American and have realigned themselves with the guaranteed-to-lose DLC. The proof of the DC Democrat re-conversion can be found in the recent corporate coddling and selling out of the American worker - eh-hem - “fair trade bill” that Congressional Democrats secretly negotiated with the Bush administration.

BY DAVID SIROTA | Dateline: Sunday, May 20, 2007

The term “triangulation” in politics means a set of leaders trying joining with their opponents to pass measures that run counter to those leaders’ own supporters. Typically, triangulation is practiced by presidents against their own parties in Congress, with the master of triangulation being President Bill Clinton who, among other things, rammed welfare reform and NAFTA “over the dead bodies” of rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers and the progressive movement. Can congressional leaders can pull the same move? Unfortunately, we’re going to find out very soon, as congressional Democratic leaders are very clearly attempting to triangulate against their own party on the three issues the party ran on to win Election 2006.

TRADE - TRIANGULATING WITH A SECRET DEAL IN PURSUIT OF WALL STREET CASH

On trade, Public Citizen has shown that the Democratic Party relied on candidates who ran against lobbyist-written trade deals in order to win many of the crucial conservative-leaning districts that were necessary to win the congressional majority. Yet, as we’ve seen over the last week, a handful of senior Democratic leaders are joining with the Bush White House in an attempt to ram an ultra-secret free trade deal through Congress, acknowledging that in order to be successful, they will rely on all Republicans and just 25 percent of Democratic lawmakers. As rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers and organizations representing millions of workers, farmers and small businesses have raised objections to the deal, Reuters reports today that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is digging in, saying that if he knew what he knew now about how serious rank-and-file Democratic opposition to lobbyist-written trade policy was, he would have tried to negotiate the deal in even more secrecy than it was negotiated in in the first place.

On Bill Moyers’ terrific PBS report on Friday about the secret deal, author John R. MacArthur says the motivations for the triangulation on trade are obvious. “This is like the NAFTA campaign of the ’90s, an attempt by the Democratic leadership - in those days it was the Clintons - to raise money from Wall Street.” You can watch Bill Moyers’ entire piece on the secret deal here.

This drive to triangulate on trade has now reached a point where the handful of Democrats who made the deal are publicly attacking those rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers, labor, environmental, health, human rights, religious, consumer protection and agricultural groups raising questions about the deal. On Friday, Reuters reported that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) “offered no apology” for negotiating the deal in secret or for continuing to conceal the legislative text of the deal. Instead, he went on the attack, saying the only thing he would do differently would be to “ignore a lot of people that really were just wasting my time.” He claimed innocently that “I cannot see how anybody would be upset” by the deal, even though as Public Citizen shows today, the list of reforms to current trade policies that fair trade groups forwarded to Democratic leaders many months ago was almost entirely brushed aside by Rangel, as were proposals for a whole new framework for global trade deals.

TRIANGULATION STRATEGY: The dynamics set up a situation whereby the Democratic congressional leadership and less than half of all Democratic lawmakers (as during NAFTA) join with all Republicans to ram a free trade package through Congress over the objections of the progressive movement and rank-and-file Democrats who ran against lobbyist-written trade policies in 2006.

LOBBYING - TRIANGULATING TO PERPETUATE THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION

Most observers agree that outrage at the Republican’s corruption scandals and Democrats promise to clean up the “culture of corruption” helped Democrats win in 2006. Yet, late last week, The Politico reported that Democrats on the House Judiciary committee yesterday “scrapped a beefed-up provision of the Lobbying Reform Bill that would have prohibited former lawmakers and senior staff from lobbying their former colleagues during their first two years out of office.” The original bill would have extended the revolving door ban from one to two years, but the amendment eliminating that provision passed by a unanimous voice vote. AP reports that “several days of backroom deal-making where some of the toughest proposed reforms were left on the cutting-room floor.” The shenanigans come just as freshman Democrats announced their demands for a much stronger anti-corruption bill.

TRIANGULATION STRATEGY: The dynamics set up a situation whereby the Democratic congressional leadership would join with all Republicans to ram a sham lobbying “reform” bill through Congress potentially over the objections of many of rank-and-file Democrats and the progressive movement.

IRAQ - POTENTIAL TRIANGULATION TO KEEP THE WAR GOING

Finally, Iraq - the big issue that helped Democrats win in 2006. The Associated Press reports that congressional Democratic leaders may be backing away from using their power to oppose the war, floating the possibility of an Iraq War supplemental bill that “would allow the president to waive compliance with a deadline for troop withdrawals.” The New York Times says that the “likelihood that any final agreement will specify no withdrawal date for American troops from Iraq raised the possibility that antiwar Democrats will not support it, particularly in the House, and that the measure will need substantial Republican support to pass.”

TRIANGULATION STRATEGY: The dynamics set up a situation whereby the Democratic congressional leadership would join with all Republicans to ram a blank check Iraq spending bill through Congress potentially over the objections of many of rank-and-file Democrats and the progressive movement.

***

Where is the motivation for triangulation coming from? As MacArthur says, at least some of it comes from money - especially the issues like trade and corruption that deal directly with Wall Street’s power over the Democratic Party. But I’d also say it comes from the psychology of those who the Democratic Party elders in Washington have grown used to listening to. Remember, Washington is a place dominated by David Broderism - that is, the religion that says bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake should be the ultimate goal of politics, regardless of the policies being pushed in bipartisanship’s name. The Democratic Party - far more than the Republican Party - often seems to play to the opinions of the David Broder, rather than the opinions of the vast majority of the American people.

That has more than a little something to do with the kinds of people who have dominated the Democratic Party: Washington insiders, many of whom are former Clinton officials. Many of these people really do believe that making David Broder happy is more important than making America happy, and thus that making any deal, even a bad one, is better than fighting for things.

We see this with, for instance, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) - the Clinton aide who helped triangulate the White House against congressional Democrats to ram NAFTA “over the dead bodies” of the progressive movement, as American Express’s CEO bragged at the time. He is running around bragging about working to pass the secret trade deal over the objections of 75 percent of congressional Democrats, and he has been using his position as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus to try to prevent an open debate on the still-secret deal.

Then there is Leon Panetta, a former chief of staff to Clinton. He is quoted in the New York Times vomiting up a rancid bucket of Broderism:

“Leon E. Panetta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, said he had been concerned, once the Democrats took control of Congress, that “an awful lot of blood in the water” would prevent the parties from coming to terms on ‘low-hanging fruit’ like immigration and trade. In Mr. Panetta’s view, the talks [over trade and immigration] are a good sign. ‘Whether it can go into bigger areas like the war remains to be seen,’ he said. ‘But it clearly helps build at least a rapport that you absolutely need if you’re going to try to come to a deal.’”

As you can see, Panetta doesn’t care about what’s being talked about, or the substance of whatever deals are made on issues - all he seems to care about is making a deal. This same kind of attitude is spewed by the Beltway press, as evidenced by its trumpeting of the secret trade deal without ever having seen the actual legislative language of the deal. It is a psychology that prioritizes any deal on any issue - even one that sells out the Democratic Party’s agenda and the interests of the vast majority of the American people - is good.

Thus, we get Democratic leaders who just months after election to the majority are attempting to triangulate against their own party and the progressive movement. That this strategy helped destroy the progressive agenda, the Democratic Party, and Democrats’ electoral prospects for the better part of a decade seems of no concern to the people trying to perform these acrobatics - all they seem to be focused on is bringing a smile to David Broder’s face and a truckload of Wall Street cash to their campaign coffers. Whether their triangulation defies political history and brings them electoral success in 2008 is less important than what the actual real-world consequences of such behavior is for the country - and if the current trend continues, those consequences could be severe.

David Sirota writes often on the opportunism of the Democratic Party apparatchiks and their “Third Way” strategy, a new coinage for social democratic surrender to business elites.

EXCERPTS FROM CHAPTER 1 OF TOM REGAN’S BOOK EMPTY CAGES

Tom Regan wrote the seminal work A Case for Animal Rights. He is a professor of philosophy at NC State and has written or edited more than twenty books and numerous articles on animal rights amongst his many other talents. Regan is viewed as one of the early pioneers of the animal rights movement. His interest in animal rights and vegetarianism came about from his study of Gandhi. In 1986 he received the Farm Animal Reform Movement’s Mahatma Gandhi Award for Outstanding Contributions to the animal rights movement.

NOTE: We are happy to present this discussion not only because it offers a lucid analysis of some of the issues affecting progress in the animal liberation field, but, just as importantly, because it sketches out the Establishment’s criminalization via unrelenting propaganda of a legitimate strong dissenting sector of society. Studying and learning from the system’s tactics to defame the character of the animal rights movement is something that no person seriously involved in social change should be indifferent to.

Do animals have rights? Different people give different answers. Sometimes people give different answers because of a disagreement about the facts. For example, some people believe cats and dogs, chickens and hogs do not feel anything; others believe they do.

Sometimes different answers are given because of a disagreement over values. For example, some people believe animals have no value apart from human interests; others believe the opposite. Disagreements of both kinds are important certainly, and both will need to be explored along the way. As important as these kinds of disagreements are, neither touches a third, more basic source of division, this one concerning the idea of animal rights itself.

Some people think this idea is synonymous with being kind to animals. Since we should be kind to animals, the inference is obvious: animals have rights. Or they think animal rights means avoiding cruelty. Since we should not be cruel to animals, the same conclusion follows: animals have rights. Given either of these two ways of understanding animal rights, it is hard to explain why the idea is so controversial, with animal rights advocates on one side, and animal rights opponents on the other.

The heated, often acrimonious controversy that pits advocates against opponents tells us that these familiar ways of thinking (we should be kind to animals; we should not be cruel to them) fail to capture the real meaning of animal rights. Its real meaning, as it turns out, is both simple and profound.

Animal rights is a simple idea because, at the most basic level, it means only that animals have a right to be treated with respect. It is a profound idea because its implications are far reaching. How far reaching? Here are a few examples of how the world will have to change once we learn to treat animals with respect.

1. We will have to stop raising them for their flesh.
2. We will have to stop trapping them for their fur.
3. We will have to stop training them to entertain us.
4. We will have to stop using them in scientific research.

Each example illustrates the same moral logic. When it comes to how humans exploit animals, recognition of their rights requires abolition, not reform. Being kind to animals is not enough. Avoiding cruelty is not enough. Whether we exploit animals to eat, to wear, to entertain us, or to learn, the truth of animal rights requires empty cages, not larger cages.

UNTRUTH IN LABELING

Opponents think animal rights is an extreme idea, and it is not unusual for them to pin the label “extremists” on animal rights advocates. It is important to understand how this label is used as a rhetorical tool to prevent informed, fair discussion; otherwise, chances are we won’t have an informed, fair discussion.

“Extremists” and “extremism” are ambiguous words. In one sense, extremists are people who will do anything to further their objectives. The terrorists who destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center were extremists in this sense; they were willing to go to any lengths, even if it meant killing thousands of innocent human beings, to further their ends.

Animal rights advocates (ARAs) are not extremists in this sense. Let me repeat this: ARAs are not extremists in this sense. Even the most militant advocates of animal rights (the members of the Animal Liberation Front, say) believe there are absolute moral limits to what can be done in the name of animal liberation, acts that should never be performed, they are so bad. For example, the ALF opposes hurting let along killing human beings.

In another sense, the word “extremist” refers to the unqualified nature of what people believe. In this sense, ARAs are extremists. Again, let me repeat this: ARAs really are extremists, in this sense. ARAs really do believe that it is always wrong to train wild animals to perform tricks for human amusement, for example. But in this sense, everyone is an extremist. Why? Because there are some things all of us (one hopes) oppose unqualifiedly.

For example, everyone reading these words is an extremist when it comes to rape; we are against rape all the time. Each of us is an extremist when it comes to child abuse; we are against child abuse all the time. Indeed, all of us are extremists when it comes to cruelty to animals; we never favor that.

The plain fact is, extreme views sometimes are correct views. That being so, the fact that ARAs are extremists, in the sense that we have unqualified beliefs about right and wrong, by itself provides no reason for thinking that we must be mistaken. So the question to be examined is not, “Are ARAs extremists?” It is, “Are we right?” As we shall see, this question is hardly ever fairly asked let alone fairly answered. Collusion between the media and powerful special interests sees to that.

THE MEDIA

One barrier to fair discussion of animal right is the media. As so often happens today, our perception of the “real world” is based on what we see on television or read in the newspaper. This should raise a red flag immediately. Think about it. The media loves a plane crash. Safe landings? Not newsworthy. As the first axiom of news reporting states: ”If it bleeds, it leads.” The second? “Good news is no news.” So if something happens and it doesn’t bleed or isn’t bad? Well, it’s probably not worth reporting, at least not in depth. Any doubts about this, just watch the news tonight or read the paper tomorrow.

Because the media looks for what is sensational, there is a strong tendency for them to cover animal rights only when something unlawful or outlandish occurs. Members of the Animal Liberation Front firebomb a lab. An anti-fur activist throws a pie in Calvin Klein’s face. These are the sorts of stories judged to be newsworthy. As for the peaceful protest that took place outside a fur store yesterday, or the lecture on animal rights given at the law school last night? Forget about it. Non-sensational news is not news; it doesn’t “bleed” enough for the media’s tastes. No wonder the general public views ARAs as a band of merry pranksters and social misfits. With rare exceptions, this is the only message that works its way through the media’s filters.

SPECIAL INTEREST POLITICS

That the general public tends to have a negative picture of ARAs is not the result only of the media’s appetite for the sensational; it is also due to what the media is fed by the public relations arms of major animal user industries. By “major animal user industries” I mean the meat industry, the fur industry, the animal entertainment industry, and the biomedical research industry, for example. The people who work in these industries speak with one voice, tell the same story, even use the same words to denigrate their common enemy: animal rights extremists.

The origin of the most recent chapter in this story is not hard to find. It begins in 1989, with the publication of the American Medical Association’s white paper, “Use of Animals in Biomedical Research: The Challenge and the Response.”(1) Among the AMA’s recommendations: People who believe in animal rights “must be shown to be not only anti-science but also (a) responsible for violent and illegal acts that endanger life and property, and (b) a threat to the public’s freedom of choice.” ARAs must be seen as people who are “radicals,” “militants,” and “terrorists,” who are “opposed to human well being.” By contrast, sane, sensible, decent people must be shown to favor animal welfare, understood as humane, responsible use of animals by humans, for humans.

The AMA’s strategy was both simple and inspired. If the public’s perception of using animals in research could be structured as a contest between know-nothing animal rights extremists who hate humans and have an insatiable appetite for terrorism, on the one hand, and wise scientific animal welfare moderates, true friends of humanity, on the other, ARAs would be repudiated and the ideology of humane, responsible use would prevail.

Since 1989, a steady stream of press releases, memos, email messages, press conferences, and web site miscellany, denouncing ARA extremists and lauding reasonable animal welfarists, has flowed from the AMA’s and other biomedical research industry’s public relations offices straight into the hands of reporters, news directors, and editors. How does this work? Here is one example.

The Foundation for Biomedical Research describes itself as “the nation’s oldest and largest organization dedicated to improving human and animal health by promoting public understanding and support for the humane and responsible use of animals in medical and scientific research.” FBR’s web site includes a page entitled “Journalist Resources,” featuring three links. One is “Expert Opinion,” which is described in this way. “FBR works to bring scientists and journalists together to inspire exceptional, outstanding and ongoing news coverage that contributes to public understanding and appreciation for the humane and responsible use of animals in medical and scientific research. When you need to quote an expert from the American research community, contact us first.”

“To inspire exceptional, outstanding . . . coverage.” That’s positive and appealing. Who could be against that?

A second link is “FBR News Tips,” described as “a monthly tip sheet for journalists that promotes story ideas that will strengthen public understanding and respect for the humane and responsible use of animals in medical research. It provides a summary of the latest medical discoveries, as well as reliable contact information. In every case, the research described demonstrates the essential need for lab animals in medical research.”

“Humane and responsible use of animals in medical research,” which is “essential.” Hard to be against that, either.

And the third link? This one is “Animal activism,” where FBR presents (quoting) “a record of all known criminal activities committed in the name of ‘animal rights’ since 1981.”

Let’s see, now. “Animal activism” equals “criminal activities committed in the name of ‘animal rights’,” which equals “illegal and violent acts.” If that’s what ‘animal rights’ involves, who (except those who support criminal, illegal and violent acts) could possibly be for it?

There we have the basic story: Animal welfare moderates versus animal rights extremists. Wise scientists who treat animals humanely versus know-nothing, emotionally overloaded ARAs bent on destruction. This is the message special interest groups like FBR spoon-feed the media. Does it work? Does the media slant its coverage because of efforts like FBR’s? Before we answer, let’s do some imagining. Here we have Clark Kent, reporter for the Daily Planet. His beat includes biomedical research. On a monthly basis, he receives FBR’s tip sheets. On a daily basis, he receives the latest installment of authoritative quotes from “experts” who support research using animals. And on a timely basis, he receives an up-to-date inventory of “criminal activities committed in the name of ‘animal rights’.”

So let us ask ourselves: what are the odds of Clark’s giving an impartial, fair story about the “latest medical break-through using animals”? Might the odds be just a tiny bit skewed in one direction rather than another? Should we mention that among the Daily Planet’s biggest advertisers are major animal user industries, including economically powerful interests (major pharmaceutical companies, for example) represented by FBR? Or that Clark’s 401(K) is heavily invested in these same industries, as are those of the Daily Planet’s publisher and editorial staff? Can we really think, when we think about it objectively, that the odds of an impartial, fair story about the “latest medical breakthrough using animals” are even-steven?

There may be some people who will answer yes, but my experience tells me they would be in the minority. Most people, once they understand how the cards are stacked, understand why the news is dealt the way it is. Remember the old adage: “Those who pay the piper call the tune?” Its truth did not pass away when paid pipers became an extinct species. The plain fact is, many people have a negative image of animal rights because the media relentlessly presents ARAs in a negative light.

And the media relentlessly presents ARAs in a negative light because the media is relentlessly fed a negative image by the financially powerful and influential spokespersons for the major animal user industries. It’s not all that surprising, once we stop to think about it.

ALL ABOARD!

With so prestigious a group as the AMA having raised the sails, it did not take long for other major animal user industries to come on board. The meat industry. The animal entertainment industry. Sport hunters and rodeo enthusiasts. The story is everywhere the same. Animal welfare moderates versus animal rights extremists. Law-abiding citizens versus law-breaking terrorists. By way of example, consider the following discussion of animal welfare and animal rights from the Fur Information Council of America. First, we have a description of the sane, sensible position of those who favor animal welfare.

Animals enrich our lives in many ways. They provide food, clothing and companionship. Animals used for medical research have given us important advances in medicine that have saved millions of lives. Most people today recognize that the use of animals under humane circumstances is important.

Animal welfare organizations also support the wise use of animals under humane conditions. The animal welfare ethic has been promoted over the past century by many groups, including the fur industry. Working with the government and the veterinary community, industries that involve animal use have adopted high standards for the treatment of animals. For instance, today there are strict regulations governing livestock; guidelines have been implemented for the care of animals used in medical research; and humane care standards have been implemented by the fur industry.

Next, we have a description of the “out-of-touch-with-reality” extremists who favor animal rights.

In the past few years, however, an extreme movement called “animal rights” has emerged. The basic philosophy of these groups dictates that humans have no right to use animals for any purpose whatsoever. These groups oppose the use of animals for food, clothing, medical research, and in zoos and circuses . . .

The majority of Americans support animal welfare groups, but do NOT support [any] out-of-touch-with-reality, publicity-hungry animal rights groups . . . Animal welfare groups support humane treatment and responsible care of animals while the animal rights philosophy not only condemns the use of all animals for any purpose but it also is known for its increasingly terroristic tactics. The current mindset of the animal rights movement is, “Believe what I believe . . . or else.”

True to the spirit of the AMA’s white paper, the debate over fur is here framed as a contest between animal welfare moderates, who favor “humane treatment and responsible care of animals,” and animal rights extremists who, like the criminals who blew-up the twin towers of the World Trade Center, resort to “terroristic tactics.”

But (you might well ask) is this true of all ARAs? Do we all favor terrorism and intimidation? This is what the Fur Information Council is saying. They presume to tell us what “[t]he current mindset of the animal rights movement” is, not what a small handful of ARAs think. The mindset of the movement is, “Believe what I believe . . . or else,” where the “or else” carries with it the threat of one “terroristic tactic” or another. ARAs must really be terrible people.

“THEY WOULD NEVER DO THAT, WOULD THEY?”

Having adopted a pro-active strategy, one pillar of which is the depiction of ARAs as lawless terrorists, the major animal user industries face a daunting challenge. For their strategy to work, there has to be illegal, terroristic activity attributed to ARAs. And not just a little. What is needed is a lot. It did not take long before anti-ARA forces decided that they would need to do a little free lance terrorist work of their own.

Consider this possible scenario.(2) Why not hire someone to infiltrate the animal rights movement, as an agent provocateur, with one main purpose: to find a malleable person in the movement who could be “encouraged” (shall we say) to try to do something that would really discredit ARAs. Like, maybe this person could be “encouraged” to try to murder someone. And not just anyone. No, the “someone” should be a pillar of the community, someone who (what an odd coincidence) just happened to be a leader in a major animal user industry, someone who just happened to have been famously outspoken in his criticisms of ARAs. An attempt on his life would be perfect. It would show the public that ARAs really are extremists who will stop at nothing to further their ends. It is not hard to visualize the headline: “Animal Rights Terrorist Attempts to Murder Pillar of Community.”

A few problems would have to be solved. It takes time to find the right person for the job. It takes money to pay all the players. Who is going to come up with the necessary cash? Well, suppose the pillar himself could pay for the attempt on his life. Suppose the pillar himself (such is his influence) could arrange to have the local police on hand to arrest the would-be murderer. “Nah,” you might say, “This is too fanciful, too conspiratorial. I don’t think anyone in a major animal user industry would ever do anything like this.” Think again.

Leon Hirsch, president of the Norwalk, Connecticut-based U. S. Surgical company, played the role of the pillar of the community. Hirsch’s company manufactures staples used in place of ordinary sutures in many operations. Physicians receive training by practicing on live dogs, who are vivisected, then killed. ARAs (led by Friends of Animals, also located in Norwalk) mounted an in-your-face campaign against Hirsch and his company back in the late 1980s. His ingenious way of getting even was to put-up the necessary money to arrange for an ARA to try to murder him.

On November 11, 1989, a man on the payroll of a firm Hirsh had hired drove a young woman named Fran Trutt, a self-professed ARA, along with her two recently purchased pipe bombs, from New York City to Norwalk. When she placed the bombs adjacent to Hirsh’s parking space, Hirsh’s friends in the Norwalk police department just happened to be on hand to arrest her.

The resulting story (not the bombs, which never exploded) was the real bombshell. There it was: “Animal Rights Terrorist Attempts to Murder Pillar of Community.” As John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton observe, “Normally, of course, company presidents do not arrange their own murder, but Hirsch was neither crazy nor suicidal. He was trying to engineer an embarrassing scandal that would discredit the animal rights movement.”(3)

Hirsch would have succeeded, too, except for one thing: the ensuing trial brought to light extensive tape transcripts that implicated everyone, from Hirsh on down, who had hatched the plot to discredit ARAs. Friends of Animals sued Hirsh, but their suit was unsuccessful, and he never faced any criminal charges. Perhaps not surprisingly, Fran Trutt was the only person to serve time (a year in prison, followed by a year on probation). She seems to have left the movement.

IT ONLY GETS WORSE

This is not the only case where people in major animal user industries have taken on the job of trying to make sure there is enough “ARA terrorism” to go around. Books, not just people, can be deceiving. The infamous Ku Klux Klan leader, David Duke, knows this. One of his books, African Atto, is a manual written for violent black street gangs, supposedly authored by an “insider” (that is, a gang member). Another of his books (like the first, this one was not published under Duke’s name, for obvious reasons), is a sex manual written by and for the “liberated” woman. You know the type: mindless of “family values,” lusting after sexual adventures with the next guy to turn the corner.

In both cases, Duke’s books were written to reinforce prejudicial stereotypes of the sort Duke wants his constituency to fear: the predatory black male, in the one case, the “liberated” woman (whatever her race), in the other. Given the familiar stereotype of ARAs as misanthropic violent law-breakers who are anti-science, anti-reason, anti-American, anti-everything any decent human being values, one might expect to find a fraudulent animal rights expose written by someone posing as an ARA insider.

This expectation was fulfilled with the publication of A Declaration of War: Killing People to Save Animals and the Environment, written anonymously by an author identified only as “Screaming Wolf.”(4) A real charmer, Screaming Wolf makes it clear that there is no limit to the violence real ARAs (“liberators”) are prepared to carry-out. It is not just the university researcher who uses animals in harmful studies, not just the furrier, not just the hunter, whose lives are at risk; it is the researcher’s children, the furrier’s rabbi or minister, the hunter’s friends or business associates. In short, anyone can be chosen as a legitimate, justifiable victim by the army of “liberators” who have decided the time has come to kill people in order to save animals and the environment.

Haven’t the major animal user industries been saying as much? Screaming Wolf (a liberator “insider”) is only confirming what these industries have been saying about ARAs all along. The industries could not have done a better job of discrediting ARAs if they had hired some fictitious “Screaming Wolf” to write this book for them. (5)

Which is precisely what happened. At least this is the finding I believe the available evidence supports. In my judgment, A Declaration of War is nothing more than a work of fraudulent provocation, a work of fiction disguised as fact. And a clever work of fiction it is. For liberators, you see, will rarely take credit for their actions. In general, they prefer to remain anonymous.

Consider the illogic of this logic. Suppose a researcher’s car is blown up. Or she dies or disappears mysteriously. Or strangers rape her daughter. Then either liberators will take credit for this or they will not. If they do, then they did it. If they don’t, then they probably did it anyhow. Here, most assuredly, is a strategy that cannot fail to create the appearance that animal rights terrorism is on the rise.

And the moral of the story is? The moral of the story is simple. The next time the media shows or tells a story about “animal rights terrorism,” we should all think twice before buying into its veracity. We do not know how often violent, unlawful acts that the media attributes to ARAs actually were paid for by someone trying to do what Leon Hirsch tried to do: discredit the animal rights movement by encouraging an impressionable ARA to break the law. And we do not know how often violent acts that the media attributes to ARAs actually are carried out by people who, paid or unpaid, have nothing to do with the movement. What we do know is, all this happens some of the time, which should be reason enough to make us raise a skeptical eyebrow when we open tomorrow morning’s paper and read “Animal Rights Terrorists“ do one bad thing or another.

NORMAN ROCKWELL AMERICANS

Let me be perfectly honest. My wife Nancy and I have been involved in animal advocacy for more than thirty years. During this time, we have met some people we would not want to watch our children. Misanthropic people, mean-spirited to the core. People who hate hunters, hate trappers, hate butchers, hate every living, breathing human being, even themselves. We have also met ARAs who could be described (to speak charitably) as weird, kooky, or strange, and others who have had no respect for reason or science. More, we have known ARAs who believe violent, criminal acts, as well as personal threats made against animal users or their family members, when done in the name of animal liberation, are morally justified. Yes, some ARAs are prepared to go this far.

For a variety of reasons, the attitudes and values of the ARAs I have just described are regrettable. One reason concerns the public’s perception of animal rights. The violent, lawless behavior of a few, the hateful attitudes of a handful, is grist for the opponents of animal rights’ mill. Representatives of the meat and fur industry, for example, want nothing more than to have the general public accept the accuracy of the stereotype of ARAs as misanthropic violent law-breakers. Fortunately for industry spokespersons, some ARAs cooperate by actually being this way. They don’t have to be invented.

If I have learned anything from my years of involvement in animal rights, it is that the ARAs who fit the stereotype are the rare exception, not the rule. The great majority of ARAs are just ordinary folks: neighbors and business associates; the family that runs the print shop or cleaners down the street; the guy next to you on the exercise bike at the gym; students and teachers in the local schools; the woman who sings solos in the church choir; teenagers who belong to Luther League or Wesley Fellowship; the couple that volunteers for Meals on Wheels; homemakers, nurses and physicians; counselors and social workers; whites, blacks, browns, reds, yellows, of every shade and hue; rich, poor, middle class; the old and the young; Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and every other faith, including those with no faith; political liberals and conservatives; people who love family and country, who work hard, mow their lawn, and pay their taxes.

Moreover, while the ARA message the public receives is one of negativity (ARAs are against greyhound racing, against sport hunting, against rodeo, for example), the other, positive side of the story never gets told. With rare exceptions, ARAs are for love of family and country, for human rights and justice, for human freedom and equality, for compassion and mercy, for peace and tolerance, for special concern for those with special needs (children, the enfeebled, the elderly, among others), for a clean, sustainable environment, for the rights of our children’s children’s children–our future generations.

In a word, the vast majority of ARAs are Norman Rockwell Americans, straight off his famous Thanksgiving cover for the old Saturday Evening Post, only with this noteworthy difference. We’ll pass on the turkey, thank you. We don’t eat our friends.

So let us put an end to the untruths that the major animal user industries spread about “animal rights extremists.” Not all ARAs are violent law breakers, and “[t]he current mindset of the animal rights movement” is not “‘Believe what I believe . . . or else.’” This is just special interest propaganda meant to forestall fair, informed discussion. That said, it has to be acknowledged that ARAs are, well . . . we are . . . different than most people. Especially if you’re a Muddler, you have to wonder how we got that way. Answering this question is a good place to begin the discussion.

INTERVIEWED BY CLAUDETTE VAUGHAN

Tom Regan wrote the seminal work A Case for Animal Rights. He is a professor of philosophy at NC State and has written or edited more than twenty books and numerous articles on animal rights amongst his many other talents. Regan is viewed as one of the early pioneers of the animal rights movement. His interest in animal rights and vegetarianism came about from his study of Gandhi. In 1986 he received the Farm Animal Reform Movement’s Mahatma Gandhi Award for Outstanding Contributions to the animal rights movement. Susan Finsen said that “Tom Regan is a master of clear argumentation, and (in his latest book — “Defending Animal Rights”) he expresses his views more clearly and incisively than ever…”

Professor Regan has graciously agreed to speak to Vegan Voice for the first time. Almost without exception a common problem of being interviewed is being misrepresented in print and by the media. Unfortunately Tom Regan has this same ground for complaint as well. We asked him to defend his “Rights” position and he does so admirably. Here are the results of that interview.
(originally published in Vegan Voice)
�
Claudette: Do philosophers have a grip of what the grassroots issues are? Are they aware of the difficulties involved with “on the ground” work? I was out moving our rescued pigs the other day and the thought did occur to me “I wonder if philosophers ever get their hands dirty?”

Tom: Not all philosophers do the same things or live the same way. For example, Susan Finsen, who teaches philosophy in California, oversees a veritable Noah’s Ark of rescued animals on her land. And Bernie Rolland, a philosopher who teaches courses in veterinary ethics at Colorado State University, deals directly with animals everyday. Among philosophers in general, though, Susan and Bernie are the exception, not the rule. Most philosophers involved in the animal rights movement (ARM) are not hands-on activists. That is my experience anyway, and it certainly is true in my case. Like most of my philosophical peers, I try to make a contribution of a different kind.

Here’s an example of what I mean. Thirty years ago there was not a single philosophy department in a single American college or university (some 4,000 altogether) in which animal rights was discussed. Today, judging from my experience, I would say that there is not a single philosophy department in America’s colleges and universities in which animal rights is not discussed. This quiet revolution has occurred because ARM philosophers have done the necessary hard work, work that has made the animal rights debate as respectable and important as the contemporary debates about physician assisted suicide, abortion, and terrorism, for example.

Doing this kind of work is not the same as getting your hands dirty the way hands-on activists do. Still, I don’t think this means that the work done by philosophers is unimportant, any more than I think philosophers think the same of the good efforts of those doing hands-on activism. I have never met a philosopher who did not regard hands-on activists in anything but the highest esteem, and the dedicated work of activists I know personally (for example, those who devote themselves to Trap/Neuter/Release programs involving feral cats) know they have my admiration, because I never tire of expressing it. But this is not the form my activism has taken. ARM moves forward because of the efforts of many hands pulling on many oars. There is strength in our diversity and room enough, I think, for everyone to acknowledge the contributions of others even as they do their best at what they do best.

Claudette: Are we winning any friends over to our side when you say things like, when asked which you would save, a dog or a baby, if the boat capsized in the ocean: “If it was a retarded baby and a bright dog, I’d save the dog”. What is so wrong with being differently abled in any case?

Tom: I have heard the quote attributed to me but it is not something I have ever written so I assume it is something someone says I once said. With what evidence did they say that I said this? Where, when, and in what context? Obviously, I don’t know. But my guess is the context would be something like the following:

Different people make different judgements about what should be done in extreme, tragic cases, cases (philosophers call them “life boat cases”) where we must choose to save one life rather than another, lest both lives should be lost. Discussing such cases can be interesting no doubt, but we should never lose track of their limited importance. For example, your house is on fire and so is your neighbour’s. You can either save your daughter or your neighbour’s daughter. What should you do? I have never met anyone who says, “You should save your neighbour’s daughter” or “You should flip a coin”. However, no one thinks that choosing to save your daughter in this extreme case commits you from doing flame retardant research on the other children in your neighbourhood. In other words, the judgement we make in an extreme case never serves as the basis for what we should do in normal cases — what we should do as a matter of everyday practice.

So we imagine various possible scenarios. You can either save a young child or a comatose human. You can either save a young child or a senile human. You can either save a normal adult human or an old, infirm dog. You can either save a profoundly retarded baby or a bright dog, etc. Throughout this exercise one asks whether some general principle can be applied in all the different cases so that one’s judgement in the different cases is not arbitrary or capricious.
The basis I use views the harm of death as variable. Everyone who dies loses everything in terms of the life they had before them, because everybody loses every way of relating to and being in the world. But some individuals who die lose more than others. For example, the young child loses more than the comatose or senile person. I believe the same would be true if we considered the deaths of a profoundly retarded child and a bright, healthy dog. In death, the latter loses more than the former. Of course some people might offer a different appraisal and use a different general principle. This is to be expected.
The important thing to keep in mind, though, is what I mentioned earlier: the judgement we make in an extreme case never serves as the basis for what we should do in normal cases — what we should do as a matter of everyday practice. And as for whether what I may have said on some occasion is “winning any friends over to our side”: I would rather reformulate the question to ask whether I think that the books I have written, the papers I have published, and the talks I have given have done this. I think this would be a fairer way to judge my own or anyone else’s work over a lifetime, rather than to make such a judgement on the basis of what someone says that that person said, somewhere, some time, in some unspecified context.

Claudette: Would you agree or disagree with the statement that part of the problem of the ARM lies in the overwhelming negative way both the movement and nonhuman animals continue to be defined?

Tom: Like most things, the public’s perception of ARM is a product of the media. And the media is no friend of ARM. With rare exceptions, the media is not interested in truth, not interested in justice, not interested in compassion, not interested in educating the public. It is interested in selling it’s wares to a public with a thirst for plane crashes and violence. Which is why the media loves to cover disasters and confrontations, especially if they include good photo-ops. As the saying goes, “If it bleeds, it leads”.

To get the media’s attention, therefore, ARM (with few exceptions) needs to do something that is either outrageous or unlawful. An activist throws a tofu pie in someone’s face. That might get covered. Other activists torch a lab. That might get covered too. So, with a steady diet of such media coverage, what’s the public to think? It thinks, naturally enough, “These ARM folks: what they do is always outrageous or unlawful”. In either case, it’s understandable why most people have a “overwhelmingly negative” view of who we are and what we believe. A negative view is what the movement feeds the media and what the media in turn feeds the public. Nothing will change in this regard until we create opportunities for media coverage that do not perpetuate this negative pattern. Unless we do this, our public image will continue to turn more people off than it turns people on.

Claudette: You have said that what is fundamentally wrong with the way animals are treated isn’t the details of the abuse — it’s the whole system. I wonder why then you don’t appear to support the actions of the ALF because they work outside of that morally bankrupted system that you are also against?

Tom: I have never questioned the depth of commitment ALF activists bring to their work. If someone were to say that these activists display more courage than I ever have, I could not disagree. Obviously, they run risks in their activism that I do not run in mine. No less obviously, some of them have spent, and others are now spending, years in prison. I don’t think any of us should ever underestimate the price these activists have paid and are paying in pursuit of animal liberation.
Why, then do I not support their form of activism? Not because I think that it is always wrong to break the law. I don’t think it is, and I don’t think I have done any wrong when, using classic forms of civil disobedience, I have broken the law in the name of animal rights. So my differences with the ALF go deeper than whether it is always wrong to break the law. They concern the role of violence in a movement that purports to have ARM’s values.

Now, I know there are people who will say that ALF actions are always non-violent because they never hurt anyone, they only destroy or damage property. But I think this reflects a serious misunderstanding of what violence is. When, a few years ago, African American churches in the South were being torched by arsonists, no one was hurt but serious violence was done. People who would deny this, people who would say no violence was done because no one was hurt, simply would not be taken seriously in any open discussion of minority rights. Similarly, I think that people who insist that ALF sponsored arsons and other destructive acts are “non-violent” would not be taken seriously in any open discussion of animal rights. So the question is not, “Does the ALF engage in violence?” to which I think the answer is, “yes”. The real question is, “Are their violent actions justified?” to which I think the answer is, “no”.

Why? Fundamentally, because I believe that the ideals informing ARM concern the means used to achieve our ends, not merely the ends themselves. I believe these ideals appeal to what is best in humanity, our ability to be moved by non-violent, informed appeals to our shared moral sensibility, in particular. The ALF’s violent acts makes no such appeal. Just the opposite. And calling them “non-violent” does not change the fact that they are. Still, at the end of the day, the question remains: “Are ALF actions more useful than any moral arguments (including any moral philosopher) can give?” Here, obviously, different people not only can, they will give different answers.

Claudette: Are any more students in the States saying “No” to dissection in the classroom nowadays Tom?

Tom: All the available evidence supports the view that more and more students in America are just saying “No” to dissection. Several states, including Florida, California, Pennsylvania, New York, Rhode Island, and Maine have laws that provide students with a non-invasive alternative. And more states are passing similar laws. Short of that, it is possible to work at the local level. We have a policy at my university (we instituted this at least 15 years ago) that provides students with an alterative to dissection. We were able to institute this policy through the Faculty Senate on the basis of student rights, not animal rights. I think this kind of institutional policy is a realistic goal throughout the world of education, whatever the level. Of course, we all look to Italy for true leadership in this regard. The Italians have a national law that exempts any student, in any lab, in any course, at any level, from compulsory dissection. I don’t think we’ll have anything comparable to this legislation in America for a long time; but perhaps in other, more progressive countries, countries such as your own, this sort of legislation is achievable. The possibilities of forming alliances here, between animal rights, children’s rights, anti-violence, and religious progressives, for example, really are very strong. Incidentally, the best work on the subject, in my opinion, is Jonathan Balcombe’s The Use of Animals in Higher Education: Problems, Alternatives, and Recommendations.

Claudette: I hear on the grapevine that a formidable vegan challenge to yourself was Blue Vein and Stilton cheese. Give us the inside information here Tom.

Tom: Everyone has a different story about how they made their journey to where they find themselves today. Mine includes working as a butcher during my college years, only to turn to vegetarianism in the early ’70s. I was influenced in my thinking by Gandhi, who was not a practicing vegan. I think I must have assumed that if vegetarianism was good enough for the Mahatma, it was good enough for me. I always had a fierce liking for cheese, the stronger, the better. My picture of the absolutely perfect meal was, oh, about half a pound of the ripest cheese available, a loaf of fresh crusty bread, and a bottle of really good red wine, shared with friends. To my mind back then, in my early years as a vegetarian, this was as good as eating could be. If the ethics of diet rested on taste alone, I would think the same today.

Claudette: How did your latest book “Defending Animal Rights” come into being? Please sketch for us some of the main features and themes of the book.

Tom: Like any other writer, I have always been concerned about not repeating myself, about saying something new, or at least saying something old in a new way. During my lifetime, I have been fortunate because I have been invited to meet this challenge by speaking on a variety of animal rights topics, sometimes to ARM activists, sometimes to an academic audience, sometimes to the general public. I don’t know what the total is but I guess I have given several thousand animal rights talks by now.

“Defending Animal Rights” is a collection of some of my more recent presentations, a work that draws a map, so to speak, of where my thinking has lead me during the last decade. Of particular interest to ARM activists, I think, is a chapter entitled “understanding Animal Rights Violence” and a second, entitled “Patterns of Resistance”. In both I spend a good deal of time developing the parallels between the struggle for animal rights, on one hand, and other struggles for social justice, including the anti-slavery movement in America in particular. The parallels are amazing, something every ARM activist should know, I think, and something from which we can learn and take encouragement. I hope the same is true of an even more recent book, “The Animal Rights Debate”, co-written with the philosopher Carl Cohen. I think my contributions to this book represent my best animal rights position in the debate triumphs in every possible respect, and this against Cohen, the vivisection industry’s favourite philosopher. Which is why I hope the book will enjoy the widest possible readership. Folks who are interested in this book, as well as “Defending Animal Rights”, might check-out the reviews at Amazon.com

Claudette: Could you explain how your position differs from Peter Singer’s?

Tom: Singer has two main ideas. First, we should count everyone’s interests, and count equal interests equally. Second, after having done this, we should do what brings about the best overall balance of the interests of those affected. The first idea concerns procedure: what we have to do before we decide what the right thing to do is? The second idea concerns moral judgement: what is the right thing to do? I believe both his ideas are not only mistaken; they are fundamentally mistaken, in ways that are harmful to animals.

With respect to procedure: It is profoundly mistaken, I believe, to say that we should count the interests of rapists, or slave owners, or child abusers before we can judge that these people are doing something terribly wrong. Similarly, I believe it is profoundly mistaken to say that we should count the interests of people in the fur industry, or the vivisection industry, or the animal agriculture industry before we can judge that these people are doing something terribly wrong. My position could not be more opposed to this idea. You should never count the interests of those who violate the rights of animals (or humans) before you judge that they are doing something wrong because they are violating someone’s rights. Of course, many people will say, “Doesn’t Singer say the same thing? Doesn’t Singer believe in animal rights?” To which the honest answers are, “No, he does not say the same thing. No, he does not believe in animal rights.” And if someone asks, “What does he believe in, then?” the answer is, ” He believes in the two ideas I have just described”.

As for Singer’s second main idea (and here I will limit my comments to the issue of vivisection): Singer does not believe that vivisection is always wrong. On the contrary, he believes that it is sometimes right. If the consequences are on balance better than otherwise could be obtained, then his view is that there is nothing wrong with using animals in research. Let me repeat this: his view is there is nothing wrong with using animals in research. This is one way in which I think Singer’s ideas are harmful to animals. My position could not be more opposed to the idea.

Of course, I know that many people will find it incredible that Singer is not opposed to vivisection, not just some of the time but all of the time. But, in all honestly, I can only say: this is his view (see his by now infamous piece in Nerve.com) that having sex with animals is not always morally wrong. Provided the sex takes place in private, and assuming that the participants enjoy themselves, no wrong is done. This is perfectly consistent with Singer’s two main ideas: Indeed, this is required by his two main ideas. Again, my position could not be more opposed. In my view, bestiality is always morally wrong for the same reasons that nonconsensual sex with children is always morally wrong: the rights of those that cannot give consent are violated.

Our philosophical differences to one side, let me just say one thing about Singer’s position. The last thing animals need is for the exploiters of animals to insinuate that ARM activists are claiming rights for animals so that we can have mutually satisfying sex with them. I mean, my God! If that happened, ARM activists would be seen as dishonest at best, depraved at worst. In either case, what ARM activists say of behalf of animals would be totally disregarded. And if that happened, it would be very difficult even to begin to calculate the massive harm that would be done to animals. So while I acknowledge the important role Singer played in the early stages of the modern Movement, and much as I like Peter personally, I do not believe his ideas represent what ARM activists believe. I hope this becomes clearer as we move forward. It needs to be.

Claudette: Your moral position in A Case for Animal Rights rejects utilitarianism because it is committed to maximising the good with no prior commitment to how the good is to be distributed. So therefore Utilitarianism fails to respect the moral importance of individuals as individuals — but then you limit your individuals — “subjects-of-a-life” — to mammals. Why did you do that?

Tom: In one sense it is true that, in The Case for Animal Rights, I limit “my individuals” to mammals; in another sense, this is false. The sense in which it is true is rhetorical. What I do in The Case… is say (roughly), “Look, everyone knows there are all these line-drawing questions when we talk about what rights matter morally. I propose to set these questions to one side and say, “Wherever you draw the line, assuming you draw it rationally, mammals are above it. So let’s limit our discussion of animal rights to this classification of animals”. This is the (rhetorical) sense in which it is true that I limit “my individuals” to mammals. Why? In order to keep rhetorical control of how the argument develops, in order to insure that it does not get bogged down in divisive debates about whether mollusks or insects matter morally, and so on. I want to make it as clear as possible that we can make some morally informed judgements about some animals without having to know everything about all animals.

The sense in which it is false to say that I limit “my individuals” to mammals is logical. As should be clear from what I have just said, and what I try to explain in The Case…, I in no way say or imply that only mammals have rights. In The Case…, I leave this question open. More recently, in contexts where I have not felt the same need for rhetorical control, I have explained why in my view birds also are subjects-of-a-life.

Claudette: There are two problems here as I see it. First. It is humanocentric in that we decide/decree just who gets the right to be a “subject-of-a-life” therefore we have failed to respect the moral importance of individuals as individuals right across the board…

Tom: We must understand ‘humanocentric” differently. A view is “humanocentric”, as I understand this idea, if all and only human beings enjoy a particular moral standing — if all and only human beings have basic human rights and possess equal moral worth, for example. That certainly is not my view. Not at all. At the same time, I certainly believe that the people reading these words, for example, have basic rights and possess equal moral worth. But this is not because they are human beings. Again, such a humanocentric view is not my view at all. What makes the people reading these words different from a protozoa, for example, is that they (but not the protozoa) are what I call subjects-of-a-life, meaning (roughly) that they are alive, in the world, aware of the world, aware of what happens to them, and aware of what happens to them matters to them — aware that it makes a difference to the quality of life they are living. Moreover, I believe that nonhuman animals who are subjects-of-a-life have basic rights and possess equal moral worth. If someone wants to say more than this; in particular, if someone wants to say (what your words suggest) that the same is true of every individual living being — they all have the same basic rights; that they all are equal morally — that certainly is their prerogative. All I can say is I have never seen such a view defended adequately by anyone, even including what I consider its definitive statement by Paul Taylor, in his book Respect for Nature, which is why I do not accept it.

Claudette: The second problem I see in your theory is that we in the movement seem fixated on the “Rights” position and yet it is a foregone conclusion (almost) in that granting “Rights” for the higher intelligent mammals will not automatically trickle down to encompass the so-called “lower” intelligent animals in a court of law. I don’t know about you Tom, but I am not working to “bring them back home”, to then turn and leave without the chickens.

Tom: Again, you seem to have a different understanding of “intelligence” than I do. It is not as if I am saying that, before someone can have rights, they have to pass some sort of IQ test. In fact I cannot remember ever using that idea of “intelligence” anywhere in anything I have ever written anywhere. So I would want to scrap the idea of intelligence in the case of nonhuman animals, just as if I have scrapped it in the case of humans with profound cognitive disabilities who nevertheless are subjects-of-a-life.

Are chooks subjects-of-a-life? This would be the crucial question for me, a question that different people answer differently. People who really know chickens (and I’m thinking of Karen Davis, of United Poultry Concerns) — these people will insist that they are, a position I have no difficulty whatsoever in accepting. As I explained earlier, I have never maintained that only mammals are subjects-of-a-life.
As for your separate idea, the one concerning what will or what will not “trickle down” in a court of law — in my cynical moments I believe we have the laws we do because of who has the power to dominate. Socrates discusses this idea in Plato’s Republic when he considers the view that justice is what is in the interests of the stronger. I hope justice is more than this, both in theory and in fact. I really do. Nevertheless, it would be naïve to think that justice for other animals will come about just because we have the best arguments. No, justice for other animals will come to pass, if it does, because the ranks of ARM swell and because we (those of us who speak for the animals) become “the stronger” in numbers and influence. If we do — but only if we do — I have no doubt that the rights of chooks will be recognised.

Claudette: Is equal consideration for all animals a possibility in your view?

Tom: If by “all animals” you mean “everything we classify as an animal” (as distinct from what we classify as vegetable and mineral), I am not certain that I understand the idea. What is it that we are being asked to consider equally? If you take a view like Singer’s, the answer is reasonably clear. For example, we need to consider the suffering of all those animals who suffer and, having done this, we need to count equal suffering equally, no matter whose suffering it is. But Singer does not believe that this extends to all animals; and he does not believe this because he does not think that all animals can suffer. As you may know, I disagree with Singer about much, but on this matter I could not agree with him more.

However, perhaps what is meant is that we need to consider the life of every animal and, having done this, we need to count every life equally. But (as I said earlier) I have never seen this position adequately defended, which is why I do not accept it myself. I do not believe that the life of microorganisms, for example, deserve the same (equal) moral consideration as the life of anyone reading these words. So concerning the question, “Is equal consideration for all animals a possibility in my view?”, I would have to say, “Yes, I suppose it is a possibility; but no, I do not believe it myself”.

Claudette: Many people assume that the Animal Rights Movement has made extraordinary progress. It’s an awful thing to say considering the amount of blood, sweat and tears that activists have gone through but would the results have been any different from old welfarism, if we had chosen to stay at home instead, these past 25 years?

Tom: Any answer would have to be speculative since (obviously) we don’t know what would have happened if ARM activists had stayed at home and let the “old welfarists” carry on with their work. Personally, I am not very much interested in what we have accomplished (though this is of some importance certainly). My eyes, my concerns always look to the future, to the work that remains to be done.

ARM waxes and wanes; this we know. There are times when we are clearly moving forward, times when we are standing still, and times when we are losing gains we thought we had. I don’t know what it’s like for you folks, but here, in the States, I’d say we definitely are not in one of the “moving forward” periods. There is a lot of disenchantment and dissent in the ranks, a lot of attrition. Even as we attract new people, we are losing seasoned activists every day. Everyday. Keeping these activists and adding to the base of ARM: this is the greatest challenge we face, I think, one for which we will only have ourselves to blame if we fail.

Simply put, we are not going anywhere if too few of us want to get there. Whatever the size of your organisation today, your goal should be to double it by the end of next year; then double that the next year; and so on. The same for other activist groups. What we have and what we have not accomplished in the past 25 years, and whether traditional welfarists could have done as much, ARM activists will not accomplish anything of lasting importance in the next 25, if we fail to add significantly, dramatically, in historically unprecedented numbers, to the critical mass of committed activists. If I have learned anything in my more than 25 years in ARM, this is it.

Claudette: Siding with McDonalds and Burger King. Are you for or against it?

Tom: ARM activists can be both radical and realistic. On the radical side, we work for empty, not merely larger, cages. On the realistic side, we know that the cages will not be empty tomorrow. The wall of oppression has to be taken apart one brick at a time. We are not going to have every right of every animal respected in one fell swoop; but we can have some rights of some animals respected in an incremental basis. For example, we can pass legislation that prohibits debeaking or face branding of cattle, legislation designed to respect an animal’s right to bodily integrity within a system of exploitation even while we cannot thereby end that system of exploitation. Changes like these (incremental rights respecting changes) are the kind of change I support, the kind I think anyone committed to animal rights should support. I don’t see McDonalds and Burger King making changes of this kind, which is why I do not support them.

Claudette: What is so wrong with holding our own species into account as the cause of the problems we inflict upon nonhuman animals (the weak and the vulnerable). Why not look at root causes instead of the logic that dictates who has rights? Who is entitled to these rights? Why you may ask? Because it’s hierarchical and territorial to do so. As an inference, becomes an issue about power and dominance. Why not start the way we intend to finish and that is abolitionist in essence?

Tom: “Animal Rights” is not an issue about power and dominance in my view. Just the opposite. “Animal Rights” places limits on power and dominance. In other words, because animals have various fundamental moral rights, humans must (morally) limit what we do with them. So when you ask “What is so wrong with holding ourselves into account because of what we do to animals?” I would say. “Nothing is wrong with doing this! Of course we are to be judged responsible for the evil we visit upon other animals!” We are one mind on these matters.
The difference that separates us, perhaps, is how best to explain this evil, how best to make coherent sense of the moral limits of our “power and dominance”. The position I favour assigns a central role in these matters is a better way. I can only say that I have not seen it.

Claudette: Finally Tom, One of the chief criticisms of the animal rights movement is that it is “anti-intellectual”. Do you buy that? Is it even an issue in your opinion?

Tom: Usually, the claim that ARM activists are “anti-intellectual” goes hand in hand with the charge that we are “emotional” and “irrational”. And (of course) almost always the people talking this way just happen to be making their living off the backs of the animals they exploit, whether in the fur, agricultural, entertainment, or biomedical research industries, for example. Such a coincidence! The accusers are the beneficiaries! If ever there was a case where people should “consider the source”, this is one of them.

There are two ways to respond to these anti-intellectual/emotional/irrational accusations, I think. First, we can point out that animal exploiters have no philosophical defence for all that they are doing. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Given all that I know and have experienced, I can tell you, without the slightest reservation: there is not a single philosopher, in any department, at any university, in any country that today defends all that is being done to animals. Even when a philosopher like Carl Cohen offers a dense of vivisection, the philosopher will, as Cohen does, register misgivings about the fur trade and factory farming, for example.

This is not good news for the exploiters. So (naturally enough) they take the only route available to them: they attempt to silence the animal rights message by attacking the animal rights messengers. Maybe this works as a matter of public posturing. I don’t know. But it certainly does not work as a matter of respectable philosophy. I hope all your members and readers will find some encouragement, as they should, in the knowledge that no philosopher anywhere in the world defends everything that is being done to other animals. In the court of informed, rational argument, in the “intellectual universe”, so to speak, the pro-animal thinkers win the philosophical argument hands-down.

Second, we can point out that feeling strongly, being emotional is not anything for which those who are one our side of the right and the just need to apologise. I am against rape, and I feel very strongly about it. I am against child abuse, and feel very strongly about it. I am against racial discrimination, and feel very strongly about it. If someone said to me, “You are being very emotional about these matters,” I would say ” You’re damned right I am! Anyone who doesn’t feel “very emotional” about rape, child abuse and racism is the one who has some explaining to do, not those of us who do feel very emotional”. Once the appropriateness of having strong feelings about some matters are acknowledged, it should be clear why saying that we are “very emotional” about animal abuse settles no moral issues. If animal rights are being violated, in the ways ARM activists believe, then everyone should be just as “emotional” as the ARM activists are. As for the fact that some (even most) people are just not “just as emotional” as ARM activists are: this is a symptom of their failure (so far) to see the many faces of evil when it comes to animal abuse. Our enduring challenge is to make this (for them) invisible evil, visible.

Tom Regan’s new book “Defending Animal Rights” is published by the University of Illinois Press.