Whose 'freedom'?
This year’s mudslinging campaign season really added to my sense of dismay at democracy in America in 2012. But that changed unexpectedly one night at the very local political forum of Rio Rancho City Hall, where I saw — probably for the first time ever — the noblest aspects of democracy at work.
For those who have not heard about the controversy, Rio Rancho’s animal-protection ordinance, the result of 18 months of work by a city-appointed citizen task force, was abruptly challenged in October by four freshmen council members widely perceived to be backed by the Tea Party. Their attempt to repeal this law — praised by animal advocates for banning the sale of puppies and kittens at pet stores, as well as traveling animal acts that have violated cruelty laws — sailed through the first reading on their majority vote.
Protesters packed city hall chambers for the second hearing Oct. 24, where some 50 people signed up to speak. The second speaker, Tonya Cantu, dropped a procedural bombshell by relating how she had witnessed three councilmen and a Tea Party representative discussing the animal ordinance, an apparent violation of the Open Meetings Act. Many animal advocates had suspected collusion behind the sudden push to reverse a popular law with no prompting from constituents.
I was totally unprepared for what happened next. Scores of citizens, mostly from Rio Rancho, called forth every manner of argument — data, reasoning, attack, even tears — in a passionate defense of creatures who have no voice. Their eloquence was moving, as was their motivation to exercise their democratic freedoms by speaking out against an abuse of political power (tyranny). The flood of testimony lasted several hours, and resulted in a delay of the vote to Nov. 14, when an amendments were introduced that delayed the vote again to late December.
A number of people also spoke in defense of the repeal. Their arguments were weakened, however, by the consistent theme of self-interest: my rights, my freedom, my livelihood. There was little mention of responsibility, which we teach children goes hand in hand with “rights.” I noticed too that Councilman Mark Scott mentioned “freedom” four times in four minutes in his defense of the repeal, without once mentioning civic duty, which any soldier can tell you goes right along with it.
The councilmen object to “trampling civil rights” in the name of animal protection. But the right to pursue profit-making is nowhere mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and to say that democracy protects this “right” is putting lipstick on a pig. (Because if capitalism is inherently right, why does it need to be dressed up as something more noble?)
Animal advocates are fond of quoting Gandhi: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” Why? Because animals are vulnerable, lowly creatures, easily abused without consequence. To put their interest above our own testifies to the sanctity of something greater than self-interest, like compassion, love, a sense of responsibility to others, and thus to the Creator.
Likewise, welcoming “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” reflects the true Christian legacy of our nation in the founding impulse toward democracy: the equal holiness of all beings under God.
To equate this noble impulse with the “freedom” to pursue commerce is a blasphemous distortion of the principles that founded our nation. Democracy does not protect the right to pursue one’s selfish interests. The freedom that so many have fought and died for is not the freedom to indulge our lowest impulses. It is the freedom — the duty — to pursue the highest.
Keiko Ohnuma
Editor & Publisher