It’s probably no surprise that I have a really strong deep-seeded psychological love and caring for animals. When I look back on my life, it’s probably because animals have always made me feel better going back as far as my kindergarten years. And while I often found myself sad or upset after going to Disneyland or Six Flags for one reason or another, I always came away from the Petting Zoo very, very happy.
So it hurt to concede to myself that Proposition 2 really didn’t stand a chance given that both the California Democratic and Republican party advisors recommended AGAINST its passage.
(And BTW: Thanks a lot you partisan sheep & cattle herders – especially you bleeding heart liberal leader types from the Democratic party. Christ – you get the opportunity to do the morally right thing – Republican mother-effers & others be damned – and instead you side with special interests. I swear, what good are you people?)
Now it’s the day after Election Tuesday. I open up the LA Times and… well, whuddayaknowaboutthat. It passed!
I sit with a tear in my eye, STUNNED that Prop 2 passed 63% to 34% – I mean, this was against all odds in my opinion. Californians stood up and said NO to animal cruelty above questionable claims of price hikes and erroneous statements about health risks.
Californians voted for the moral choice – not the economically-focused one and for once, not the one that falls within party lines.
Now I’m a realist: I know there’s an underlying reason for Prop 2’s success that has nothing to do with a sudden change of heart in California’s traditional voter base. My thinking cap tells me that the rationale around this miracle is:
- YOUTH VOTE
On the strength of the youth or emotional vote from the Obama campaign, a lot of new voters with few monetary responsibilities and few familial burdens and ignored claims of price hikes. They voted emotionally – the way fresh-out-of-college types vote, and they helped push the vote to victory.
Normally, this sort of voting nauseates me. But the fact of the matter is that rarely do supposedly thinking voters think about issues much more than skin deep and that would have led them to believe the deceit of the farming industry in California and that would have been wrong.
Is this thinking Machiavellian? I don’t think so. Because this is a moral issue and ultimately what I would have liked to have seen are people whose thinking transcended dollars & cents and even personal welfare and said to themselves, “No no no no no. This is just wrong. Voting no is a tacit acceptance with state-sanctioned torture on the living creatures of California and like a certain “other” government policy we have, we simply can’t… can’t… CAN’T morally allow torture of any kind when we can legislate otherwise. I’m better than that.”
Having the President of the Humane Society of America – a powerful figure from a respected national organization – get up and say, “Folks – we’re the honest ones. And we’re trying to do the morally correct thing. Please follow our lead. It won’t cost you more than a cent an egg and you’ll be helping the quality of life of so many living entities in our state.”
Meanwhile, the opposition was pretty incompetent. A “No on 2” ad actually claimed that “eggs would be diseased” having come from Mexico and that more eggs would come and hurt Californians. WHAT? Never mind that this is more than an egg issue: Soooo what about all the eggs that are already coming into California from Mexico? Where’s the huge health risk there?
And telling a state that has a substantial population of Mexicans that Mexico is lawless & disease-ridden doesn’t exactly endear them to the “No on 2” cause.
To quote Prop 2’s campaign manager:
“It is a simple and yet profound principle we have advanced: that ALL animals, including those raised for food, deserve humane treatment.”
God smiled on the meek of California today.
- YES ON PROP 2
- LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OBJECTIVE EVALUATION SITE