The campaign manager of a congressional candidate in Arkansas returns home to find his children's cat bludgeoned to death. The creature's skull is caved in. The word "liberal" has been scrawled on the corpse. Why should you care?
It is easy to dismiss this as a small crime, relative to the atrocities we read about daily. Protesters are being murdered by the thousands in Syria, and you are being asked to care about the death of someone's cat, in a minor congressional campaign, in an overwhelmingly free country?
Yes, you should care. You should be stricken with rage, and -- when calm enough to consider this rationally -- should think hard about the disease that passes for political discourse in the United States of America.
This is not a question of sentiment. JD Salinger has a character refer archly, when discussing a kitten, to "R. H. Blyth's definition of sentimentality: that we are being sentimental when we give to a thing more tenderness than God gives to it." Salinger himself, I suspect, had no time for this definition. Still, that is not the discussion here.
I happen to adore cats, but even if you do not particularly like them, you should recognize the nature of this act. The full horror of it. A political partisan, in the course of an ordinary electoral campaign, has decided that this is acceptable. Democracy is a rough-and-tumble business, right? If you're not tough enough to handle it, stay off the campaign trail. It is fair game to, say, break the hearts of a campaign manager's innocent children, by slaughtering their innocent pet.
It is not simply a vile act. As Richard Eskow has pointed out: it is part of a continuum of barbarism. Each element of this continuum is easily denied -- every one crime is clearly an aberration -- but taken as a whole, you can no longer ignore the tendency. This is the way we are moving.
The slaughter of this cat may be a grotesque anomaly. It may well have nothing to do with this congressional contest. It may be the act of an unhinged apolitical drifter, or a psychotic teenager. We know that a local radio station -- owned by the father of the Republican incumbent -- has been pointedly announcing the personal addresses of Democrats working on this campaign; there is every reason to note an atmosphere of threat; but this one act may be unconnected.
Just as the deranged man who shot Gabrielle Giffords was probably not in fact inspired by Sarah Palin's fanciful crosshairs. It is not at all clear that he was capable of reason. The fallacy here is "post hoc, propter hoc" -- just because something follows something else, that is no evidence of cause.
Still you should care.
Deciding that you do not care is an admission that you truly see the United States as a nation that has no time for the weak. In which democracy is a Darwinian brawl, and collateral damage simply a given. A strong nation cannot afford to worry about kittens.
What Salinger himself thought about this particular crime is not difficult to discern. The narrator of his short story, "For Esmé -- with Love and Squalor," is a soldier who has been driven to a nervous breakdown by precisely this: another soldier displaying his machismo by casually shooting a kitten.
The incident is said to have been inspired by an encounter with Hemingway -- I find that impossible to believe. Everything I have read about Salinger's meeting with Hemingway suggests the opposite: that Salinger was surprised to find Hemingway kind. In fact, this assumption -- that real men casually slaughter innocent creatures -- goes entirely contrary to everything I have experienced of military honour.
Salinger personally survived the Bloody Mortain, one of the ugliest battles of the Second World War, and was among the first to liberate the death camps. He did have a serious breakdown when he returned from the war. And he chose to express this -- the very worst that he or anyone of his generation had experienced -- by writing a short story (one of the greatest in the literature) about a soldier who is morally shattered by the murder of a kitten.
If this crime does not matter to you, then you do not care about the nature of your democracy. You do not care about what kind of country you live in -- what kind of people you surround yourself with. This is not an exaggeration: Gandhi rightly said that, "the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
To allow this vicious act, small as it may be, to be associated with the American political process -- to permit this in any way to represent the manner in which political decisions are made in this decent country -- is to give up on what matters. It is nihilism.
And nihilism is unbearable. Nietzsche, the philosopher of nihilism, the thinker most deeply associated with the brute military ethos, seems to have been unable finally to despise the weak. Not personally. The philosopher's own mental collapse in Turin was signaled when he was found in tears in a public square, with his arms around the neck of a horse that was being whipped.
Even in madness, Nietzsche had more to say than most of us do at our most lucid. He wrote that he learned everything he knew about psychology from Fyodor Dostoevsky, and many have noted that Nietzsche's collapse in Piazza d'Alberto was an eerily literal enactment of the famous dream sequence in Crime and Punishment (a book he had read two years previously): Raskolnikov's dream of attempting as a little boy to intervene when a horse is whipped to death.
Dostoevsky did not consider the slaughter of an innocent animal trivial: "Love the animals: God has given them the rudiments of thought and joy untroubled." The moral and mental health of a child in The Brothers Karamazov is made to hinge upon whether the boy's casual act has in fact caused the cruel death of a dog.
You can argue that these things do not matter. Writers more profound than most of us, however, have stressed that nothing matters more.
Follow Douglas Anthony Cooper on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dysmedia
Democratic Operative's Cat Slaughtered, 'Liberal' Painted On Corpse
Arkansas Democrat's cat killed, painted with "liberal" - Yahoo! News
Democratic director's cat slain, with 'Liberal' painted on the pet ...
This is the kind of behavior we can expect from wild-eyed extremists, because it seems that many of these people are incapable of discerning reality from fantasy, and so they imagine german dogs and liberal cats, and it all makes sense to them.
I think those responsible for publishing and publicising such information should be charged when something like this happens, because this kind of result is basically what they hope to achieve.
I certainly hope it's not true.
The story itself, however, is not apocryphal. The photo is readily accessible, and it's vile:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57364265/pols-cat-killed-liberal-scrawled-on-body/
I guess that criticism is harsh, and you will probably say unwarranted as I am not your editor and thus it is not my job to tell you to focus, but as an American citizen who is watching his government assassinate its own citizens without due process, seize assets without due process, and essentially throwing out all the constitutional protections against excessive punishment, fine, and the right to personal security, I find it hard to see why you focus on the murder of a single cat, when we are living through a time when our government has seized undemocratic, tyrannical, dictatorial powers and used those powers to slaughter its own citizens and millions of foreigners.
Do you not think the best barometer of a failing democracy is when its president has the omnipotent power to extinguish life without due process? You don't think the biggest failing of democracy is when the murder of millions stir less passion within you than the death of a single cat?
Next time you decide to devote so much interest and passion to defending the life of someone, how about the multitude of suffering masses without hope, rather than this emotional 'distraction' to what truly ails this nation.
It was a very good article.
Each and every person who doesn't want to live in a totalitarian state needs to stand up against this srot of intimidation.
Just another tool in the fascist toolbox, designed to fan the flames of fear.
Let's see. In recent years we have already witnessed:
Holocaust Museum guard murder
OK City bombing
Atlanta bombing
Abortion doctor murder - in a church!
Abortion clinic bombing(s)
Giffords shooting
Town Hall disruptions
State of the Union speech disruption
If there is a Democratic groundswell in the coming election, I expect to see a lot more violence.
This is all part of a recipe taken directly from European history. See: "The Coming of the Third Reich" for a carefully documented explication of this recipe. It is not coincidence.
Care to return the favor?
(And why does it fall to a Canadian to write this? Don't we have enough conscience, compassion and just plain commonsense ourselves to face this, our own, home-grown grotesquerie?)