|
The Big Lie - Revisited in 2007
By Dr. Ron Cole
(Originally written in 1993, revised in 1998)
By chance I came across the following definition in an old (1980) edition
of William Safire's Political Dictionary'the New
Language of Politics,
"BIG LIE: a falsehood of such magnitude and audacity that it is
bound to have an effect on public opinion even if it is not given credence
by a
majority; a propaganda technique identified with Adolph Hitler."
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: "The size of
the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast
masses of a nation are
in the depths
of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally
bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey
to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies
but would be ashamed to tell big ones. Something therefore always remains
and sticks from the most impudent lies, a fact which all bodies and individuals
concerned with the art of lying
in this world know only too well, and hence they stop at nothing to achieve
this end."
In the U.S. during the 1950's, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy's
critics accused him of using the big lie technique to intimidate his opponents
in and out of the Senate. An example is this editorial in the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch of 1951: "Gloomy Washington prophets are forecasting
a period of 'the big lie' of the furtive informer, of the
character assassin, of inquisition, eavesdropping, smear and distrust.
They lump the whole under the term McCARTHYISM."
A Senate committee headed by Millard Tydings of Maryland, following a four-month
investigation of McCarthy's charges that there were 81 card-carrying
Communists in the State Department, castigated him in terms rarely used
about a Senate member. "We are constrained to call the charges, and
the methods used to give them ostensible validity, what they truly are:
a fraud and a hoax perpetrated on the Senate and the United States and
the American People. They represent perhaps the most nefarious campaign
of half truths and untruth in the history of this Republic, the
totalitarian technique of the big lie on a sustained basis." McCarthy's
efforts helped defeat Senator Tydings in the next election.
Social scientists in the mass communications field have found that the
size of a requested opinion or behavior change is important to the degree
of change effected. Herbert Adelson, of Opinion Research Corporation observes: "The more extreme the opinion change that the communicator asks for,
the more
actual change he is likely to get, communications that advocate a
greater amount of change from an audience's view in fact produce
a greater amount of change than communications that advocate a position
that is not much different from the position that the audience already
holds."
Two things seem to me to be significant. Is the term "overpopulation" a
big lie? Is it really a problem? Many of the figures quoted by animal
rights groups have purposely been inflated to lead people to believe that
it is
a growing problem, when in reality the figures for euthanasia have been
precipitously dropping for several years. Furthermore, the refusals of
animal rights groups to separate immediately placeable dogs and cats
from the unadoptable helps to keep the figures high and the so-called "problem"
more difficult to solve. Only by accurate data gathering at each shelter
that
performs euthanasia to determine the source of the animals euthanized,
can solutions really be found.
The second significant issue is related to what appears to have been a
well established principle known to social scientists, that if you want
to produce a change, the more outrageous or extreme the requested change,
the more likely you are to get it. The original San Mateo proposal was
just such an outrageous attempt at change with its complete moratorium
on breeding to be followed by mandatory neutering and spaying of each and
every dog and cat (with no exceptions), as well as to make it illegal to
transport animals for the purposes of breeding.
If those who proposed this ordinance were aware of this sociological
principle for change prior to their advocacy of the ordinance, the outrageousness
of the proposal, in retrospect, makes a lot of sense. Even if they were
not, the extreme change requested by them did cause change because some
thought that compromise of a lesser sort would prevent the original proposal
from being adopted. And, so the unincorporated part of San Mateo County
got an ordinance that included breeders licensing, something that would
have had little chance of passing had it been the original proposal.
If
there is a lesson to be learned here, it is to oppose outrageous proposals
with facts and expose them for what they are, to not make any compromises,
and to "just say no."
We have come a long way since the early 1990's and the San Mateo
Ordinance; but now, this issue is raised again, embodied within AB 1634;
and again, it is "overpopulation" that is the supposed reason
that dog owners are being threatened with this legislation, even though
the human population has grown greatly, while dog surrenders to shelters
are down. All of this time has passed, and there still is no statewide,
uniform, coordinated, mandated reporting system in place that gives us
accurate information regarding euthanasia at each and every shelter,
and some of the euthanasia figures do not even bother to separate adoptable
dogs and cats from those that are two old, too sick, too vicious to be
placed, and even lumping in feral cats, roosters, chickens, raccoons,
skunks,
etc. to make a larger euthanasia number, and thus, a bigger lie. A proper
breakdown of these figures along with coordinated and honest reporting
could turn the Big Lie into something truthful upon which real and meaningful
solutions could be found
Once again, we are confronted with a proposed ordinance of draconian
proportions and consequences. And, once again, the magnitude of it all
has led the "timid" to
look towards compromise. And, once again, we must hold our ground and "just say no."
Proponents of the ordinances both in 1990 and today have exaggerated the
problem. In 1990 it was said that San Mateo county had euthanized over
10,000 animals, and T.V. broadcasts of then PHS Director Sturla and then
Supervisor Nolan posing in front of barrels of dead animals with tails
and limbs hanging over the sides was a propaganda bonanza. Fortunately,
two task forces were formed, and more information was obtained. The 10,000
figure got considerably reduced when road kill and feral cats were eliminated
to reveal about 650 adoptable dogs had been euthanized. Today that figure
has been reduced to zero.
So, what about the claims of the proponents of AB 1634? First of all, this
is not a statewide problem and is not in need of statewide solution because
one size does not fit all. The Big Lie is being used to try to convince
law makers that it is a problem.
One Southern California facility recently renamed their pit bull types,
renaming them American Staffordshire Terriers, a pure bred dog. Although
required by law to report dog bites, not all shelters are complying with
this law, either.
From the data we are able to get, we know that shelter surrenders and euthanasia
has been going down statewide for the past thirty years, and all without adverse
legislation that would impact dog and cat hobby breeders. This is true even
in the biggest problem area, the City of Los Angeles, where at a recent public
meeting
(May 2, 2007) the following was revealed in a report to the Public Safety Committee: "Since
2000, ASD has reduced the euthanasia rate by 20 percent using licensing incentives,
promoting adoption programs and strengthening alliances with the
animal rescue community. In addition, ASD has reduced the number of impounds
by a similar percentage through aggressive voluntary spay/neuter programs."
From Assemblywoman Shirley Horton from San Diego County on why she is voting
against this bill:"The primary reason I opposed AB 1634 is because it is
overreaching. For example, about 7 years ago, San Diego County adopted a voluntary
spay/neuter
program with education as a centerpiece. They had the chance to adopt the Los
Angeles model, which was very similar to what AB 1634 does, but they chose
to take the less forceful, voluntary route. This has, in fact, reduced the
euthanasia
of adoptable pets by 100% and is one of the most effective programs in the
state."
In the Bay area, especially San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, we do not
have a problem with euthanasia and shelter surrenders. Programs put in place
by Rich
Avanzino at the SF SPCA years ago with a pact he made between SF SPCA and Animal
Care and Control, has effectively made our shelters "No Kill". Peninsula
Humane Society, which started the push for mandatory n/s in 1990 will not support
AB 1634 because free and reduced costs spay/neuter programs are far more effective
with far less overhead and no extra bureaucracy.
So, even without accurate reporting figures, we can accurately state that the
proponents of AB 1634 have been perpetuating the Big Lie that has been part of
their propaganda since 1990.
We know that the ultimate aim of the Animal Rights groups is the complete elimination
of pure bred dogs and pedigree cats through the elimination of breeding of these
species. This bill goes a long way towards that goal.
They would also have us believe that this would save the state millions of dollars
because of reduced euthanasia. Not so. The animal control shelters and pounds
would not close their doors. Euthanasia is a miniscule cost in the overall picture
of animal rescues, rabies checks, animal abuse, dog fighting, reuniting pets
with owners, etc. that animal control officers engage in every day.
It is time to set the record straight and to tell the truth .The truth is that
there is a pet population problem in some parts of this state, but not statewide.
The truth is that those areas having problems should emulate the techniques and
efforts made in the successful areas, and perhaps the state should contribute
money to assist with more low cost and free spay and neuter clinics in those
areas having problems.
The truth is that this is not an issue that democrats
should support. Dog owners and dog breeders belong to all political parties,
and although this bill is being put forth by a democratic assemblyman, this is
not a democrats vs. republican issue.
There are those, including myself, who think that AB 1634, the "California
Healthy Pets Act," should properly be called the "California Pet
Extinction Act" because that will probably be its effect.
Having to pay
a tax for every intact animal will make breeders think twice about keeping
all their extra, but essential, breeding stock, and
may encourage the practice of breeding litter mates and close relatives, thus
reducing the gene pool. Reduction in size of the gene pool is regularly associated
with an increase in homozygosity (that is more or less inevitable because there
are fewer potential breeding partners), and increased homozygosity in a population
is in turn associated with higher frequencies of genetic defects and diseases.
So the net result will be that rarer breeds will disappear from California
(which currently has the country's most important breeding population). The
very common
breeds may survive, but with a very greatly reduced effective (genetic) population
size. This adds up to fewer dogs, higher prices, lower quality of breeding,
more problems with temperament and more health problems, even for those who
just want
a purebred dog or pedigree cat as a pet.
It would just be a stretch to say that this is an animal rights issue, but one
only has to look at those who support this bill to see the animal rights groups,
like PETA lined up in favor. There are some who are not animal rights in favor,
too, the most conspicuous is the California Veterinary Medical Association, who
seems to have taken this stance without a vote from its membership, and many
veterinarians have complained over this.
AB 1634 has been put forth as a solution to a problem which does not exist statewide,
a problem which many of our California communities has solved years ago. It would
harm responsible hobby breeders who are not the problem. Communities that have
solved the pet population problem have done so in cooperation with the entire
dog and cat communities without coercive fines and law enforcement inspections,
resulting in better community education about the need for spay and neutering
and responsible breeding with the resultant high level of volunteerism and donations
to local shelters not seen where coercion and home inspections make owners and
breeders fearful of their local animal control agencies, even to the point of
reduced compliance with licensing and with inoculations for their pets.
Let's end the Big Lie! Vote no on AB 1634. It's the truthful and
honest thing to do.
|