Blood on the Campaign Trail
Maureen Dowd’s truncated critique of U.S. macho politics
Appraising the puerile competition between candidate Kerry and the Bush crew, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd discusses the senator’s Ohio hunting trip and the resultant fate of four geese (“Cooking His Own Goose,” 24 Oct. 2004). “Just as W. needed to shock and awe to prove he was no wimp,” writes Dowd, “Mr. Kerry needed to shoot and eat.” Consequently, “Kerry made an animal sacrifice to the political gods in a cornfield in eastern Ohio last week.”
An apt description. Dowd’s critique loses momentum, however, by pausing to distinguish John Kerry’s goose hunting from the vice president’s duck hunting. Dowd writes, “When Mr. Kerry goes, only the birds are in danger. When Mr. Cheney and his pal Antonin Scalia go duck hunting together, the Constitution is in danger.”
Kerry is a threat to birds and Constitution alike. Kerry and the Democrats, much like Cheney and the Republicans, have treated the Constitution with appalling indifference. Has Dowd forgotten Kerry’s vote for the USA-PATRIOT Act? What of the alacrity with which Kerry accepted Bush’s decision to announce a state of armed conflict—plainly the prelude to curtailments of due process—without first seeking a declaration from Congress?
And although the birds are in danger as well—yes, four hapless geese were sacrificed to the god of human politics—there is more to this bird-blasting scenario itself than flows through Dowd’s pen.
So routinely are geese hunted down as nuisances or exploited for sport or swallowed with cranberries that most people—even individuals who opt not to kill them directly—need not give the birds much thought. The role of the birds, to Kerry and to those Kerry hopes to influence, is symbolic. The birds represent the Other. In the context of the current international upheaval, they become useful props in Kerry’s show of agreement with Bush that the U.S. may invade, objectify, and kill if its appetite so requires.
By now, we may presume, Kerry has dined, got up from the table, and eliminated any recognizable trace of the birds in the way all victors do.
The birds who had the bad fortune to be in the path of Kerry’s campaign didn’t go looking for this kind of trouble. Geese protect their families fiercely, but they pose no threat of aggression. Geese give social support to each other in times of stress, and they forge lifelong bonds. But Kerry’s not the sort of wimp who ponders such matters.
Meanwhile, the Bush-Cheney crew has constructed its own symbol for the Other: footage of wolves, accompanied by narration that connects the lupine group to “those who are waiting to do America harm.” Real wolves aren’t waiting to do us harm; quite to the contrary, just as soon as this autumn’s snowfall permits tracking, the government of Alaska will give aerial hunters the go-ahead to blow these animals to bits by the hundreds. The Kerry team’s response to the wolf clip? One jocular aide, Dowd reports, has suggested that the Democrats respond with a scene in which Kerry shoots the wolves.
Human violence does not fit easily into compartments. Displayed in one context, it oozes into others.
A violent culture systematically neglects the duty to teach its children respect for the autonomy of the beings in their range — whether they be birds, wolves, people born outside our invented borders, or dissenters. A violent culture constantly looks for enemies. Where none exist, they are created.
The more obstinate among us are still convinced that humanity might find ways to transcend such a demoralizing atmosphere. Otherwise, what’s the point? But if progress is to be made, we must expect better from our more capable political writers than uncandid distinctions between one violent man and another.
17 Comments
On October 27, 2004, Rosemary Bray wrote:
You are absolutely correct, Lee, It was a most disgusting picture of Kerry. I am afraid that I am going to hold my nose and vote for Kerry but I honestly dont like him.I will take Bill and HIl any day of the week against the likes of Bush and Kerry. I am only going to vote because I am also handing out petitions to ban dove hunting in our state. Our weak kneed sister, Governor Granholm backed down from her promise to veto the bill and now its legal in four counties of Michigan. We are trying to get it on the ballot for next year to ban it permanently everywhere in the state.
Friends, dont you think we have the sorriest bunch of politicans that you have ever seen not just for those of us who love the environment and animals but for people also. There is no love in their heart except for power and money.
On October 28, 2004, Lee Hall wrote:
Hello, Rosemary -
Thanks for your thoughts.
When you mentioned doves it brought me back to an earlier article (perhaps you’ve already seen it) called “John Kerry - Hunter, Dreamer, Realist.” You should be able to see it via one of these URL addresses:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59559-2003May30¬Found=true
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59559-2003May30.html
Excerpt:
John Kerry eats dove. Even better, he shoots them. From behind the stalks of a Southern cornfield, he’ll watch them flutter and dart, and fire.
“You clean them. Let them hang. It takes three or four birds to have a meal,” said the Massachusetts senator. “You might eat it at a picnic, cold roasted. I love dove.”
On October 28, 2004, dewaun wrote:
Yeah, but did he have a hunting permit? He supposedly downed the bird October 21st or thereabouts, but I heard that Canadian Goose season isn’t until November 6th or something in the county where Kerry was playing Great White Hunter of birdies.
On October 28, 2004, Jeremy wrote:
You people complaining about John Kerry’s hunting are forgetting about these simple facts: John Kerry has been endorsed by humaneusapac, the most prominent political voice for animals (humaneusa.org) and the League of Conservation Voters (lcv.org) & secondly, George W. Bush has done more harm to the environment and animals, especially endangered species, than any president in the history of our country. Furthermore, Bush himself is an avid hunter and has hosted many major national and international hunting group leaders and members at his ranch in Texas. Please, remember those points, when you go to vote this tuesday!
On October 28, 2004, Jason Berry wrote:
PERSPECTIVE!!
One thing everyone is forgetting is PERSPECTIVE. Although I feel for the individual Geese that John shot, he has been a champion for protecting the environment—the environment that those four geese and the literally millions of geese and BILLIONS of other Frogs, Birds, Snakes, Fish, Wolves, Caribou, Grizzly bears, Prairie Dogs—depend upon! ! ! !
Another perspective issue concerns the millions of animals murdered everyday that go to feed John Kerry, his wife, but also bush, most senators, rock stars, office workers, etc. The last time I checked the vast majority of people in the US and the World are meat eaters who condemn millions of animals to horrid living conditions, before being sacrificed or our eating pleasure. For some reason this takes a back seat to John Kerry’s hunting of four wild geese that lived free natural lives.
As for hunting, we have to remember that it is the hunters who have put there $ where there mouth is by funding protection of the environment that all animals depend upon. Since the 1930s, they were the driving force behind our nation’s magnificent system of wildlife refuges, and wildlife protection laws. Sure they do it so they can hunt, but literally hundreds of thousands of other kinds of animals find protection because of their actions.
If we really are interested in protected animals and their welfare, we need to realize that John Kerry’s hunting of four geese and unwavering support for the environment pales to the absolute horrors of the Bush administration’s attacks on the Artic Wildlife refuge, Rocky Mountain Front Range, “Healthy Forest Initiative”, etc.
There is no candidate that is 100% to our liking, as there is no friend, wife or mother that we agree with 100% of the time.
On October 28, 2004, Ellie wrote:
I think this article is excellent, Lee. We seem to have gotten used to the idea that Kerry voted for the war in Iraq because he was misinformed—not that this excuses him from the killling of innocent Iraqi people, and the deaths of more than 1000 American soldiers. And I’ll bet many voters don’t know Kerry supported the Patriot Act.
It seems we’re asking ourselves which candidate do we dislike less; which candidate will do the least harm in the next four years? Another Bush term is frightening. So compared to Bush, I do prefer Kerry. But he’s obviously a politician, with the essential criteria, i.e., the willingness to kill, and to disregard the “Other”. Even Clinton sacrificed the poor in this country and abroad.
Imo, I think we need to continue to strengthen a political party that represents us, and breaks from business as usual. It’s difficult to distinguish the Democrats from the Republicans. If we truly seek justice, it must extend to all “Others”.
I haven’t followed HumaneUSA, though I recall reading a statement on Kerry’s website that he would *enforce “humane slaughter”. I hope that attempting to enforce an oxymoron is not the best he can do. Judging from his hunting expeditions, I wonder.
On October 28, 2004, Ellie wrote:
I see what you’re saying, Jason, but what is the point of protecting the environment with the intention of killing the animals in this environment, as hunters do? Seems like hunters want to protect their “fun”.
On October 28, 2004, Jason Berry wrote:
Ellie, thanks for your comments on my comments! I guess I don’t see hunting in such stark terms. The support hunters give to protecting forests; wetlands and wildlife refuges give homes to literally hundreds of thousands of species of animals (salamanders, frogs, bats, weasels, owls, quail, deer, wolves, etc. The hunters are paying for their fun, but by no means are they killing everything they are protecting. They are not even killing a majority of the ducks and geese they are hunting. And finally, their financial and political support is helping protect all the rest of the animals in there habitats (that are not game-animals).
Morally I see where killing even one animal is wrong, but if attack allies like hunters, then the effect will be fewer voices for protecting habitats that all animals depend upon.
Jason
P.S. If all the hikers, bikers, nature enthusiasts, Bird Watchers, and us animal rights gave as much time and money to protecting wildlife habitat as hunters do (through hundreds of $/year hunting fees/duck stamps, etc) then maybe we could be more choosey about our allies. Until then, animals cannot afford our infighting!!!!
P.S. II FYI: the League of Conservation Voters gave Kerry a lifetime 92% pro-environment rating!
On October 28, 2004, Ellie wrote:
You’re welcome, Jason, and also thank you for your comments. We are in complete agreement that killing even one animal is wrong.
I wonder if this issue might illustrate a difference between the ideologies of conservationists and animal rights activists, in that AR focuses on the rights of the individual animal.
On October 28, 2004, Lee Hall wrote:
Two points:
1. The choice of political leaders we have should be (and actually is) broader than a choice between worst and least worst — if we make it so.
2. An animal advocate can be, and really must be, conservationist when it comes to the environment and the planet’s atmosphere; but here again, we have other choices for allies than the hunting community.
Cheers,
Lee
On October 28, 2004, Darian wrote:
I agree with the reservations expressed about Kerry’s hunting — in fact, it took me a long time to put a Kerry bumper sticker next to my FOA “Spare an Animal, Eat a Vegetable” and Farm Sanctuary “Adopt-A-Farm-Animal Member” stickers for that reason. Perhaps Kerry really does like to hunt; perhaps he is pandering to those that do. (Either way it’s a sad side of him.) But I finally attached my Kerry sticker, and will proudly vote for him Tuesday because he will be far better for humankind as well as for the environment and animals. It’s too bad that my choice in the primaries — Dennis Kucinich, the vegan — isn’t the nominee!
On October 28, 2004, Carol wrote:
The Kerry-Edwards ticket supports a “sportsman bill of rights,” did you know? I received an action-alert email from Working Families E-Activist Network, a union-movement political advocacy group (http://www.afl-cio.org/)that’s endorsing Kerry on the issues of jobs, the economy, and health care, and plugged this “bill of rights” for sport-hunters and fishermen (sic). Now this is a fine example how an anti-animal bill is sneaked into a campaign that endorses human rights for working people! I replied by email to tell them no way, am I endorsing the Kerry-Edwards ticket. And yes, I’m still going to vote for Nader, who would work to end the war in Iraq and bring home the troops, work to repeal the Patriot Act and restore civil liberties, work for universal health care for all Americans, work to get the U.S. out of the WTO and those “free trade” agreements, work for a living wage for all Americans, work against corporate crime, etc. [When asked by a young man at a university rally in 2000 why the U.S. lagged behind other industrial countries in developing and implementing the use of solar energy technology, candidate Nader replied, “The U.S. won’t implement the use of solar energy technology until Exxon owns the sun!”] And Nader keeps his religious beliefs (if any) out of his politics.
In my view, it’s Kerry who’s taking votes away from Nader. Yes, I want Bush out, but I’ll cast my vote on the basis of principle, conscience, and issues, and not be bullied into voting for one “sporting” politician to replace another “sporting” politician.
On October 28, 2004, serenidad wrote:
Yes, Lee, there are other choices for allies than the hunting community. If hunting money disappeared tomorrow, the void would quickly be filled by others. Last I heard, hunters were just a one-digit segment of the US population. I don’t wish to give credit to a group that kills, and, at the same time, desires to protect the environment which assures a pleasant killing experience in the future.
Kerry is a killer. Bush is a killer. Neither respect life. Guess I’ll write in for Nader as a statement for the environment and more choices on election day.
As for “humane” organizations supporting Kerry, well, it doesn’t surprise me that humane-use-kill orgs are in his corner —maybe they felt the geese died quickly and humanely, so his hunting was okay.
Chris
On October 29, 2004, Trish wrote:
It makes me sad to see people trying to put a happy face on hunting .
The only reason they (hunters)do anything in the name of “conservation” is to make sure their will always be animals for hunters to kill.
Here in Md. we just had a Bear Hunt —They killed a 10 month old Bear !!!The vast majority of Marylanders did Not want the bears killed,but they were killed anyway .
We need to have a equal number of pro animal people on all decision making boards -panels -etc.when animal issues are being decided.
Sorry,I got off the point —
I think it is shocking how blatant Kerry has been about his love for hunting .The first time I saw a picture of him last fall, he was surrounded by dead Quail, he had killed.
Trish
On October 30, 2004, Ellie wrote:
Lee, thanks for the two points you posted. I very much believe in protecting the environment but have only focused on animal rights. I don’t know if the following would be considered conservationist; but it upsets me that some people want to kill off—reduce the population of
— one animal species in order to protect another animal species. Clearly, killing wolves to allow hunters a greater number of moose is not conservationist. But in some cases, it seems to be done to protect an endangered species. And while I don’t want any species to become extinct, I can’t say I agree with that. Without human interference animals can regulate themselves.
On October 30, 2004, Ellie wrote:
And Carol, I didn’t know the Kerry-Edwards ticket supports a “sportsman’s bill of rights”. That’s
terrible, and yes, very sneaky! Actually, I’d like to read what these “rights” supposedly are.
Ironically, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is responsible for a bill that would deny political activists their Consitutional rights, if it is passed. It’s been introduced in several states.
On November 2, 2004, Lee Hall wrote:
Please note: The article “Blood on the Campaign Trail” was originally published in Dissident Voice; it is reprinted here with permission.