Matthew Scully
The former Bush speechwriter on working in the White House, the moral choice against factory farmi
You think happy cows come from California? Think again. Or better yet,
pick up a copy of Matthew Scully’s alarming 2002 book,
Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to
Mercy. In it, Scully addresses the realities of factory farming, trophy
hunting, and whaling, and questions the dignity of a society that
inflicts misery on animals for our “convenience and
pleasure.” Perhaps most surprising is that this same man also
wrote many of President George W. Bush’s speeches while
serving as special assistant and senior speechwriter between January
2001 and June 2002. Prior to that, he worked on Bush’s 2000
campaign from Austin, Texas, and has written for vice presidents Dan
Quayle and Dick Cheney. He is also former literary editor for the
National Review.
Last summer, Scully and his wife, Emmanuelle, moved to Los Angeles. No
longer tied to the White House, Scully is pursuing his own writing
again, and it is already causing ripples. His essay “Fear
Factories: The Case for Compassionate Conservatism – for
Animals,” published in Pat Buchanan’s The American
Conservative, led George Will to comment last year in Newsweek:
“He speaks barely above a whisper and must be the mildest
disturber of the peace. But he is among the most disturbing.”
CityBeat: Why did you
become an advocate for animals?
Matthew Scully: I became a vegetarian in the mid-Seventies
after reading some of the early books on the subject of factory
farming. As soon as I became familiar with the details, I knew at once
that I wanted nothing to do with it.
Over the years I held to my convictions but I didn’t think
much about it until my mid-thirties. What I discovered in my reading is
that everything about factory farming had gotten worse. Farming methods
were harsher and more ruthless, and it was clearly reaching the point
of being a serious public policy issue and a serious moral question.
During the process of writing Dominion, I came to realize that in many
ways dairy and poultry farming is no better. There is this comforting
illusion that those farms are more benevolent because they
don’t involve direct killing. But they’re not. So I
turned away from dairy and eggs and I still consider that one of the
best decisions I ever made.
Were you writing
Dominion while you were working in the White House?
I started the book in the spring of 1999 and found a publisher in May
of 2000. Then a former colleague of mine called and asked if I wanted
to go to Austin to work on the Bush 2000 campaign. I ended up writing
the book in the early mornings before going to work, as the campaign
permitted. I didn’t finish it until September 2001, nine
months into being in Washington. As a matter of fact, I finished that
book the morning of 9/11. I had gotten in very early that day and was
printing out the final pages and self-consciously setting down the last
page when literally, 15 seconds later, a colleague called me and told
me what had happened.
Was it difficult to be
working for an administration that is supported in large part by the
industries that you denounce in Dominion?
Neither major party is notable for its concern toward the welfare of
animals. Really, the larger problem is that it’s not an issue
taken seriously and given the attention it requires. In practice
you’re as likely to find a Republican in congress supporting
and sponsoring an animal welfare act, as you are to find a Democrat.
In “Fear
Factories,” you wrote: “If such matters were ever
brought to President Bush’s attention in a serious way, he
would find in the details of factory farming many things abhorrent to
the Christian heart and to his kindly instincts.” What do you
mean by “serious way?”
One thing I learned by working at the White House is that often things
are done without the president’s authority and often
it’s a subject he scarcely knows about. Departments announce
things in a general way and the president oversees and is responsible
for those actions, but I doubt very much that he is regularly consulted
on these things and I know for certain that he is not consulted on
animal welfare issues.
I’ve had conversations with him on these very things and I
have every reason to believe that he would be well disposed to at least
some of the issues. Take the Bureau of Land Management and the Interior
Department allowing the sale and slaughter of wild horses. Did anybody
ever ask the president about that? I doubt it very much. Would he have
been in favor of it? I think with his good instincts, which I have seen
many times, and his personal kindness, he would come through and say
no, this is the wrong thing to do.
Did you give him a copy
of your book?
I never did, though I wish I had. We did talk about it, though, and he
was quite nice.
Your article,
“Fear Factories,” was clearly directed toward
conservatives. Liberals eat meat, too. Why not engage a larger audience
by publishing the piece in a popular magazine?
Because conservatives can be indifferent or stubborn on these issues.
And conservatives have particular influence these days. I felt that I
should address the argument in terms they understand and to challenge
them to think seriously about it. Of course, the idea does not exclude
liberals. At their best, liberals should care about animal welfare
because they tend to care for the weak, the forgotten, and
marginalized. Someone wrote to me recently on my website saying this is
an issue that could unite everyone – conservatives, liberals,
Democrats, and Republicans – because all people for their own
reasons have a heart for animals.
Take factory farming: Some people might oppose it because of the
environmental damage, while others might oppose it on the grounds that
the government shouldn’t be propping up these giant companies
with subsidies. Religious people can find concerns of their own, such
as a shared fellowship with animals or a moral concern of animals.
Many European countries
have banned some U.S. farming practices, such as gestation crates for
pigs, because they consider them cruel and inhumane. Several
organizations have protested these practices here but have met
resistance. Can you explain why?
In the U.S., we are held back by free market ethics. Any attempt to
curtail factory farming is seen as a restriction on economic freedom.
Also, I have a hunch that the Europeans were deeply affected by the
hoof-and-mouth scare in 2001. Here were millions of animals just being
destroyed because they had no economic value. That whole spectacle
seems to have left an impression on people.
Yet, it seems that factory farming continues to expand in the U.S and
abroad. The demand [for meat] is so intense, and in order to move
forward you have to abandon your previous standards of animal care. At
the same time, we have alternatives like soy. Unlike in ages past, you
actually come to this new point where meat production becomes morally
indefensible. There is no morally correct way to do it anymore if
you’re going to meet demand at the price that people expect.
And you consider the cost of the environment, and also you consider,
above all, the moral cost of going forward. If you accept it, you
accept it forever and you’re stuck with it and there is no
way of going back. In this sense, humanity has some important decisions
to make. Push on and accept factory farming or turn away and find a
better answer.
Published: 06/29/2006
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT
