Some of my recent posts have been hard on people who rely extensively on talking points when discussing the farm animal welfare issue. To show that Ham and Eggonomics loves everyone, allow me to articulate why talking points are used.
I have criticized talking points because people use them without thinking, but that is precisely the value of talking points. Express a talking point without questioning its validity helps others feel inclined to join the cause, and communicates the cohesiveness of the group to facilitate political patronage.
The purpose of making public statements is about more than simply communicating information. Often, the information is of little value. When people write blog posting, letters to the editor, and the like, they are writing for its therapeutic value, to helpe reinforce social norms, and to express to politicians the cohesiveness and power of one's interest group.
Almost every time someone defends livestock agriculture they include the argument that farmers always provide high welfare for the animals because it is in their own self-interest. Animals who have a low state of welfare also have a low productivity, so the argument goes. This argument is false, there is no question of that, yet even those who know better make the statement. Why?
This argument, even if false, provides justification for using current production practices, and places the farmer in a desirable state (which they deserve to be, by the way, as any welfare problems are up to the consumer to rectify). By repeating this mantra, the agricultural community acts to reinforce its social norms. It seeks to reassure farmers that they are good people, that other farmers are good people, and that the community is a moral community. Just as families use presents and celebrations to reinforce their family bonds, repeating the mantra of a group reinforces the cohesiveness and dedication of the group. Talking points reminds listeners of the group's cause and reassures the listener that they are one among many like-minded.
A repeating slogan also signals to politicians that the group is solidify and strong. Politicians exist for the sole purpose of pandering for votes. Whenever politicians can identify a group with a well-defined wish list and large numbers behind that group, you can be guaranteed that this group will get its way. Rallying behind talking points shows politicians that the group is disciplines and knows that it wants. If the politician delivers, the politician will be rewarded.
The same forces are at play for animal welfare and rights groups. The HSUS in particular is very well disciplined. They have a few targets and reasons for those targets and they never deviate. There is little doubt that there are some disagreements within HSUS about matters, but you would never know of them. They cannot afford to allow disagreements to be known. Without their discipline and focused objectives, they would not be able to reinforce its constituents behind a common goal and would not be as politically efficient.
I have criticized talking points because people use them without thinking, but that is precisely the value of talking points. Express a talking point without questioning its validity helps others feel inclined to join the cause, and communicates the cohesiveness of the group to facilitate political patronage.
Posts
