Wednesday, December 24, 2014

The NYT Editorial Board Sneers at Animal Rights

-- Posted by Neil H. Buchanan

Earlier this month, Professor Dorf posted an analysis of a lawsuit in which a lawyer brought a habeas corpus action in New York on behalf of Tommy, a captive chimpanzee.  The courts had rejected the plaintiff's claim, both in the trial court and on appeal.  Although Professor Dorf is certainly sympathetic to Tommy's situation, his bottom line was that the attempt to vindicate animal rights through innovative use of the courts is a doomed strategy, because judges almost universally share the same attitudes as the public at large regarding human exceptionalism.  Here is the final paragraph of Mike's post:
"Some day, lawsuits on behalf of animals may be a sensible way to advance the cause of animal rights. But so long as the vast majority of people--including the vast majority of judges--reinforce their own psychological investment in the normality of exploiting and killing animals every time they sit down to a meal or put on their shoes, a better strategy will be to focus on changing individual hearts and minds."
As if to prove Professor Dorf's point, at nearly the same moment that he was writing his post, the editors of The New York Times wrote "Horse Nonsense From City Hall," in which they mocked Mayor DeBlasio's proposal to ban Central Park carriage horses by mid-2016.  The editorial is so nonsensical, so lacking in anything other than scattershot assertions and innuendos, that it can only have come from the minds of people whose hearts and minds are certainly not where they would need to be to make real progress.

To be clear, I understand that the carriage horse problem is a very small part of the massive tragedy faced by nonhuman animals every day.  If one were looking for the worst offenders, carriage horse owners (and riders) would hardly top the list, and even "sport hunting" is quantitatively minor.  Even so, one takes one's victories where they can be found, and sometimes solving 100% of a small problem is better than throwing stones at the edifice of an enormous problem.  Work must proceed on all fronts where progress is possible, long term as well as short term, but it is simply not true that solving small problems is per se pointless or wasteful.

The closest the Times's editors come to an argument on the merits is their description of carriage horses as "a well-loved, well-regulated, law-abiding part of the tourist economy."  But of course, that is merely an example of Professor Dorf's point, which is that one can "love, regulate, and pass laws" in ways that simply reflect the degraded states of people's hearts and minds.  I have heard beef producers profess to love cows, and some of those producers even follow safety regulations and animal welfare laws, but that does not mean that they are not torturing and murdering untold numbers of sentient beings.  It only means that they are doing so in the way that the society as a whole finds acceptable.  (Of course, many -- perhaps most -- factory farms violate even those minimal laws and regulations, and then they persuade legislatures to make enforcement a joke.)  When the big fight in "animal welfare" is over whether it is acceptable to have pigs living in crates that prevent them from turning around, then calling an industry well-regulated and law-abiding proves nothing.

Beyond that, the editorial relies on two strategies to change the subject from animal cruelty: (1) This is all crass politics, and (2) Why rush into this when there are so many unanswered questions?  (It is actually difficult to figure out what the editorialists' main points are, because they lurch back and forth among their ill-formed arguments throughout a very short piece.)

On the first point, the editorial board calls on the Mayor to "move on from the foolish campaign promise to shut down the industry, made last year to a small, loud and financially generous group of horse-rights advocates."  Yes, it is just a bunch of rich malcontents who care about horses, right?  Or maybe it is all about political corruption, as the editors wonder what will happen to the "coveted property on the West Side of Manhattan" where the horses are currently stabled, and then note parenthetically: "Not for nothing do people wonder why the force behind NYClass, the group pushing the anticarriage crusade, is a real estate developer, Stephen Nislick."  Yes, the land will probably be put to other uses.  Would the Times be happier if the mayor promised that he would never let that land be used again?  (The editors also ask how the horses will escape slaughter, without noting that rescue groups are already arranging adoptions).

And if it is not direct corruption, then maybe it is all political back-scratching: "And does this have anything to do with the $1 million ad campaign financed in part by NYClass to eliminate Mr. de Blasio’s main rival in the primary, then-Council Speaker (and carriage defender) Christine Quinn?"  This, however, merely returns us to the classic question in politics: Do people support a candidate because he shares their views, or does a candidate share their views in order to get people to support him?  Either way, however, why should we care?  None of this was secret during the campaign, and the new mayor is trying to do one of the things that was debated extensively before he was elected.

At this point, the arguments become utterly incoherent, alternating between invocations of false populism and trying to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  On the former point, the editors ask, "Why eliminate an entire class of Teamsters union jobs?" later followed by a complaint that the mayor is not really "a defender of unions and small businesses, and whose job it is to promote the city as a place for tourists."  I cannot help but recall the classic Saturday Night Live fake ad for the fictional Acme Puppy-Grinding Company, the tagline of which was: "Puppy grinding.  Sure, it's disgusting, but think of the jobs!"

On the latter point, as part of their claim that they mayor has adopted a "selective animal-rights pose," the editorial board asks: "Why are no advocates talking about getting rid of Police Department horses, which have tougher jobs than carriage horses?"  Why indeed?  And if the mayor were to propose eliminating the NYPD horse brigade, would the Times not complain that he was trying to get rid of a well-loved tradition, that the horses would just end up being slaughtered anyway, and on and on?

As much fun as it is to critique the nonsensical and disorganized jumble of assertions in the Times's editorial, the more important question is where the heck it all came from.  The Times's editorial board is not usually like this, making arguments of a sort that they would normally ridicule if anyone else tried to apply them to other policy issues.  But here, they just say, in essence: "What's the big deal?  People like to see horses prancing through the City.  Nobody's hurt.  And the horses get to wear pretty plumes and are fed regularly."

There are many days when I feel that hearts and minds are changing for the better, and then there are days like this.  If the Times cannot even get its head around something this basic, a simple baby step toward becoming a society that does not exploit animals at human whim, then there is much more work to be done than I had realized.


Unknown said...

First, They ignore you. Then, They mock You. ...

Cody Fenwick said...

Thanks for the post.

I think your dismay is unwarranted. Yes, it's a silly editorial piece. But it comes out of a phenomenon we know quite well--the general population's conflicted and contradictory ethical views regarding animals. This is exactly the kind of silliness we should expect when animal advocates campaign on such narrow issues. The campaign is ridiculous for targeting such a tiny portion of animal use, and people realize that, but because they want to accept animal use broadly, they come up with jilted rationalizations.

That's the problem with these single-issue campaigns. It's not just that they don't target the larger problem of all animal use. But they contribute to the total confusion on the issue of animals rights, and create a caricature of activists. If activists simply consistently pressed the animal rights vegan message, most people would disagree, but at least they'd understand what they're disagreeing with. Instead we're just muddling through.

Joseph Simmons said...

During the holidays I passed through the City. I drove next to and behind these horses and wondered at how unaffected they appeared by the New York City drivers around them. If only I were more like that and a little less like C-3PO flying through an asteroid field. With all the noise and activity, the horses must be neurotic or cynical in the way New York makes people.

One challenge that I think many people face when dealing with political issues, is what side to take when one disagrees with the motivation for action. There is a real possibility here that action here is motivated by financial interests. To allow a political victory under such false pretenses can reasonably be viewed as undermining or co-opting the more noble goals.

I think many feel this kind of tension when it comes to police-caused deaths. Across the political spectrum, many express concerns about militarization of the police. Some portion of people will look at a particular death - like that of Eric Garner in NY - and think the police could have behaved differently. However, when these same people do not agree with the racial narrative and the protests, they may avoid speaking about their concerns but instead criticize the racial narrative and the protests. The don't want to feed a fire they find objectionable.

An intellectually honest person should be able to express both views of course, but I've found NYT editorials to be more political than intellectually honest (as one might expect).

I read the NYT's editorial as: this isn't animal abuse, we don't like it being dressed up that way by opportunists, but even if it were animal abuse, we still really don't like the motivation here (and we like unions).

The NYT editorial board makes clear that it does not see the carriage industry as animal cruelty. To argue that this "simply reflect[s] the degraded states of people's hearts and minds," may be true. Many religious arguments proceed along the same contours of your argument but rarely make a dent in causing people to seriously reconsider a position.

We end up with an institution expressing the view society finds acceptable and then a small minority speaking in moralistic terms that are foreign to that common understanding.

Emma O'Connell said...

This, however, merely returns us to the classic question in politics: Do people support a candidate because he shares their views

lucas landry said...

Very awesome post , i am really impressed with it a lot

Arts de la table
recette tiramisu
gateau aux pommes
creme patissiere
creme anglaise
recette chantilly
recette gaufre
recette galette des rois

PatriciaMoncrief said...

Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth—a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not just a philosophy—it is a social movement that challenges society’s traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. You can visit this for know more about article writings.