Veganism and Politics

Veganism is something for everybody, regardless of their political leanings. One of our biggest pet peeves is when political zealots attempt to co-opt the definition for Veganism for whatever their political agenda happens to be, which usually is done by leftists (communists, socialists, anarcho-communists, etc.), though there are many instances of it being done by people on the right (usually Neo-Nazis).

While we strongly advise against intertwining your Veganism with your political views, it can be incredibly useful to appeal to the political values that people do have as a motivation for them to wart to veganism. In other words, getting someone to consider how their views extend to animal welfare may cause them to shift their behavior and views on the matter in order for them to be more internally consistent. This can be done across the entire political spectrum, though for the sake of minimizing alienation amongst the general public, your best bet is to do this to people who are within the Overton Window, such as liberals/progressives, conservatives, libertarians, and of course good ol' centrists. Convincing political extremists to go Vegan, either fascist or communist or anarchist, would NOT reflect well on veganism; A vegan advcocating for a fringe claim is one of the seven deadly sins of Vegan Activism. People are generally put off by extremist politics, so when they see a Vegan loudly spouting Nazi/Communist/Nazbol rhetoric, they'll just think that Veganism is just another quasi-extremist ideology advocated by those to deluded by their dreams of a far off, ideal world. They may be incorrect in thinking this, but human psychology is notorious for being not rational.

Is Veganism a Political Issue?

No. Veganism as a philosophy has always been about ethics. Sure, there are compelling arguments in support of it in terms of health and the environment, but that's pretty much a coincidence; The ethical argument for Veganism has always been the central part of the movement.

Going by the Vegan Society's definition of Veganism:

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

Unfortunately, even though the overwhelming majority of people are not vegan, even on the left (some of whom are resistant to it themselves), there is a growing and concerning view that Veganism is part of "Woke" culture or it's about being "politically correct", which is something that is so painfully incorrect. This is probably due to Veganism being better for the environment (which is being taken over by leftists, or at least that's how it's being perceived by the right), and with the huge array of Vegan products that are becoming available.

Liberals/Progressives

"B-B-B-B-BUT LIBRUL MEENZ SUMTIN ELS IN EURUP!!!!" We are well aware that the term "liberal" carries a much different definition abroad than it does in the United States, but since most of the readers here are American, we will be using the colloquial definition of the term (meaning supporting things such as social programs, higher taxes, civil rights, regulation on businesses, pretty much along the lines of a Social Democracy: A society that focusing on socializing the economy within a capitalist framework), contrasting to the European connotation of the term carries a similar definition to "Libertarian" in the United States (supports Laissez-Faire captialism, and an emphasis on personal liberties), which will be the definition that will be used when we talk about Libertarians.

If you're from Europe, just replace every usage of the term "Liberal" with "Progressive here, and you'll be good to go. Just wanna get that out of the way before we begin.

As far as appealing to liberals goes, they're probably the lowest hanging fruit available here, and, generally speaking, you're better off talking to them before anyone else about Veganism. They're more likely to already be sympathetic to the Vegan cause and animal welfare, even if they don't practice it themselves.

Liberals make a point of supporting things like rights and welfare for all, so simply informing them of the plight of the animals, and explaining how, in the same way we fight for the rights of oppressed groups, such as blacks, women, gays, and transpeople, there isn't any reason to exclude animals from that list, and they're an oppressed group that has gotten the least amount of support (well, aside from the animals we don't keep in slaughterhouses). And, since liberals tend to be the ones fearful of the effects of climate change, notify them how animal agriculture is one of the leading causes of it, as well as the least necessary and easiest to eliminate (through change of diet of course). Calmly inform them of the hyprocrisy of consuming animal products if they care about fighting for the oppressed and supporting the environment, and show them how Veganism is the least that they can do to ensure they aren't actively engaging in oppression and environmental destruction themselves.

Conservatives

It may be a little trickier convincing a conservative towards Veganism, given how there is some political polarization and how conservative states place a much higher value on hunting in the USA. It's also seen as straying away from tradition, which is a central piece of Conservative politics. However, it's still possible to get them in the right direction, and this will come in the form of appealing to their religious values. There will likely be higher levels of hostility towards Veganism from Conservatives, but if you approach the matter gently and outline the arguments presented here, they might walk away reconsidering their next meal.

If you are not a conservative yourself, be sure to clarify to the conservative you're discussing with that your Veganism has nothing to do with politics, and explain your reasons why, which should come from ethics (even if your politics were a motivator, it might be a good idea to omit telling them that to avoid resistance), and it's also a good idea to not discuss environmental matters (unlike if you were to discuss with a liberal), since that's also a political issue.

Referencing scripture is likely your best bet. While vegetarianism for religious purposes is more seen in East and South Asian religions (Buddhism, Hinduism), there are many Christians who support vegetarianism as a way of expressing love for God, and as to not show any disrespect to his creations. There is some scripture from the Bible that supports Vegetarianism, and many scholars believe that it was rather common place in early Christianity before it became a state religion in Rome. There is also some speculation that Jesus himself was vegetarian or at least pescetarian (the only meat Jesus is told to have eaten in the Bible is fish), but this does not seem to be supported by any significant piece of archaeological evidence (that is, assuming there was a Jesus-like figure within the time period suggested by the Gospels, which there very likely was).

Looking at the creation account, verse Genesis 1:29 explains what God told Adam to eat in the Garden of Eden:

Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.

Nowhere here does God tell Adam to eat the animals in the Garden of Eden.

However, don't use the argument "thou shalt not kill," since this is a misunderstanding of scripture. In short, when viewing it in the proper context, "kill" more refers to "murder" as in the murder of fellow human beings. This is explained more in our Bad Arguments for Veganism article.

Aside from scripture, it's also important to note that historically, there have been many examples of conservatives supporting animal welfare for livestock.

In the United States, there have been a few pieces of Animal Rights and Welfare legislation that were passed bipartisanly by Congress and enacted by a Republican administration. The Humane Slaughter Act was passed by the 85th Democratically-controlled United States Congress with 72 "Yea" votes in the Senate (of which 39 were Republican, compared to 33 Democratic), and was signed into law by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower (who, admittedly, was more left-leaning than many of his Republican contemporaries, but still sided with them on multiple issues). Now we have plenty of criticisms of this piece of legislation (in that it still results in immense suffering, and chickens are excluded), but the point we're making is that this is a piece of legislation Republicans had support for. The bill was amended in with the 2002 Farm Bill which included a stipulation that the original piece of legislation should be strongly enforced, signed by Republican President George W. Bush, and passed by a Republican Congress (though it's important to note that the bill increased agricultural subsidies, but this is something that Democrats are guilty of engaging in as well).

Overall, animal welfare legislation for livestock in the US is so shitty it's beyond a joke, and this isn't a criticism of Republicans, this is a criticism of both of the parties that have held significant power in the American government, but it shows that animal welfare isn't a evil socialist plot, it's recognized as a moral issue by everyone regardless of their political views, and this is an important thing to bring up when discussing with conservatives about Veganism.

Looking at other countries, in 1979, the Conservative UK government led by Margaret Thatcher established the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which aimed to oversee the welfare of livestockc being sent to slaughter. https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Farticle%2Fprotecting-animals-is-a-conservative-trait-so-back-the-animal-sentience-bill-against-the-scaremongers-ld0rz2dgc

A curious sidenote, Conservapedia, a website dedicated to writing about just about every political topic from a right-winged perspective (well, to put it lightly) has an unusually positive article on Veganism. It agrees that Vegan diets are healthful if done correctly, and that it's more sustainable to just eat the crops directly instead of funneling them through livestock. They also defend animal welfare by referencing scripture (see?) and explaining how abusing God's creation is an insult to God himself. However another article they have on animal rights labels the movement as an "Authoritarian Leftist philosophical movement." Whaddaya gonna do.

Libertarians

MUH FREEDUM

Was Hitler a Vegetarian?

Whether or not this is true is completely irrelevant, and just shows that some people are so depserate to cling to any absurdity in order to have as an excuse to continue eating meat. There are a lot of incredibly dumb arguments against Veganism (well, just about all of them are, if they aren't dishonest), but this one sticks out more than most. Basically, when this argument is used it's saying that since Hitler was a vegetarian, everyone else who was a vegetarian is also a Nazi.

This argument is employing the "Guilt by association" fallacy, which pretty much means you're claiming X is bad because Y person did it (incredibly simplified). We figure this sort of thing is common sense, but just because some guy did something, that does not mean that everyone else who does that thing endorses that guy and what he believed and stood for. It's similar to how a lot of religious apologists will assert that Hitler was an Atheist (which is also something that's not true, since Hitler chasitised Atheists both in public and in private). Being compared to Hitler is so common in discussions that a specific form of guilt by assocation was coined, known as "Reductio ad Hitlerum." Don'tcha love that.

Hitler also loved his dog, who does that mean all dog lovers are closeted Neo-Nazis and have walls decked with memrobilia celebrating their hero Der Furher? And hey, what about other Dictators that caused genocides, like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot? These guys were not vegetarians, so is every meat eater a supporter of authoritarian communust regimes?

Anyway, Hitler may or may not have been a vegetarian (by most accounts he did reduce meat consumption to mostly poultry), and it may have been due to health concerns primarily, though if he were an ethical vegetarian, it was likely that the Nazi Regime exaggerated this trait in order to make him appear as a more moral and heroic character to the people.

Frankly, even if we were to grant that Hitler was a vegetarian, it would actually make more sense to view it as something that would motivate someone to go Vegan. They take the logic as "Bad person does X, so X is bad," when they SHOULD be interepreting it as "Bad person does X, but X is an objectively good thing to do, so if someone that evil did it, why can't I?" You're really going to have HITLER outdo you in a moral action? The man whose very name has become synonymous with evil, HE cares more about animals than YOU? It'd be like not having graduted high school, yet someone your age who has an IQ that is 37 points lower than you, did.

NOW NOW NOW, there are already some carnists complaining about how Vegans tend to use a Holocause analogy when we talk about the conditions of slaughterhouses, so we're just being hypocrites here.

While we are very hesitant to compare slaughterhouses to the Holocaust (not because it's not a valid comparison, but because it can be viewed as disrespectful to your audience), to anyone who isn't overly emotional over some comparisons, the similarities are clear; We are NOT saying meat-eaters are Nazis, we're saying that the slaughterhouses treat animals very similarly to how the concentration camps treated Jews and gypsies. Both are severely harming sentient beings who do not want to suffer. What is so complicated about that?

Political Activism for Animal Rights

You have to be careful as to not make Animal Rights a partisan issue.