Both President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the two men who will probably face each other in November of this year, have imperfect records that have been brought into question concerning their past treatment of animals. Although a minor issue in the election, it is a fascinating topic many are passionate about, and more ought to be.
Animals deserve basic protection: life, freedom from fear and the right to live a decent and happy existence, because of the fact they’re living, sentient creatures.
We must respect them and defend them on an individual level to enact change.
It has been known for many years that Romney, in the 1980s, traveled on a long car trip with his family from Massachusetts to a vacation home in Canada.
During this trip, the family dog, Seamus, was strapped to the top of the station wagon in his crate. The Romneys knew that the dog was perched atop the family car, but thought it was acceptable.
Some say this shows the former governor’s callousness, and others, of course, point out that it shows his practicality inasmuch that the car was full and Seamus would have enjoyed the trip once the family arrived at the destination. Politically, he’s offended animal rights activists and some pet lovers, but Romney wasn’t apt to earn those votes anyway. In President Obama’s case, the joke that “Obama ate dog meat” went viral in April. Conservative blogs and Twitter feeds were rampant with the jokes.
And as it turns out, the President did once eat dog meat, as a child in Indonesia. He described it in detail in his 1995 memoir “Dreams from My Father,” even recounting the texture of the dog meat.
Obviously this is incomprehensible to most Americans, but it doesn’t show serious misjudgment on Obama’s part; he shouldn’t be held accountable for the decision he made as a 6-year-old.
Call it a cultural misunderstanding, or an exotic taste for trying something new, but these examples show that each candidate has been, at one point, in the doghouse. At this point, it seems as if this a non-issue amongst the two men.
In an age where most American families consider their dear pets as children and irreplaceable members of the family unit, tales of eating dog meat and strapping a caged animal to a car don’t play well with voters.
And while these issues are probably not going to draw votes from either candidate, they ought to spark a discussion about the roles of animals in family and in society.
The discussion of animals in society has been, as of late, hijacked by extremists and sometimes violent radicals.
We’ve all seen the television shows of extreme animal rights activists and advocates engaging in what is essentially terrorism for their cause.
Although their aims may be considered just, their means of terror, destruction of property and intimidation are deplorable. Often times the greatest and most lasting change begins at home, and for the rights of animals, we must engage in a grassroots campaign.
We must arm ourselves with the weapons of knowledge and the armor of a moral upper ground – avoiding extremism and embracing a kind, informative campaign.
We can be smart consumers, buying only animal-safe products.
We can be shrewd global citizens and make ourselves aware of the brutal and unimaginable slaughters of the Faroe Islands and Japanese whale hunters.
Fundamentally, if we treat animals with love and respect in our own lives, on an individual level, we can live as examples for others to stand up and protect and defend the rights of our animal friends.
