Backing Away from Backlash
- David Michelson
- May 14
- 9 min read
by David Michelson
“If you want to avoid hurting other people, the only way I can offer you to do that is to become a nice dead person because if other people have Jackal ears they can get hurt if you have heartburn.” ~ Marshall Rosenberg
I have been asked, on multiple occasions and in various forms, whether or not there are ways in which some individuals and organizations might respond to our campaign (i.e. backlash) that would dissuade me from continuing to pursue qualifying for the ballot. When thinking deeply on this question, what surfaces is both a general and a specific answer to this question; and stated simply the answer in both cases is no. I’d like to start by explaining my general response first, and then follow this with my response in more specific cases.
My response in the general sense is shaped principally by the way I understand and practice Nonviolent Communication and Buddhism. Both of these spiritual practices lead me away from a concern about the external conditions that I am unable to control, and instead inspire me to focus my practice on how I respond to these ever-changing conditions. The following four quotes, two from Marshall Rosenberg and two from the Sutta Piṭaka (discourses delivered by the Buddha), I find to be particularly relevant to this discussion.
“I point out to people how concerned I am about thinking that's what we have to be afraid of, how other people might respond to us…I pointed out that by doing that, we're giving our power to other people. We're thinking that our safety depends on how other people might respond to us. I then tried to show people that our need is to be concerned with how we respond to how the other person responds. That's where our safety is, in how we learn to respond to other people's judgments or criticism of us. Not to give our power away by thinking that our safety is solely how they might respond.” ~ Marshall Rosenberg
“We acknowledge that we have no control over the other person's response…If I'm going to worry about something I can't control, I'll become a nice dead person. I'll be afraid to reveal myself for fear of what they say.” ~ Marshall Rosenberg
"You make things worse when you flare up at someone who's angry. Whoever doesn't flare up at someone who's angry wins a battle hard to win. You live for the good of both—your own, the other's—when, knowing the other's provoked, you mindfully grow calm.” ~ AN 8.6
"Gain/loss, status/disgrace, censure/praise, pleasure/pain: these conditions among human beings are inconstant, impermanent, subject to change. Knowing this, the wise person, mindful, ponders these changing conditions. Desirable things don't charm the mind, undesirable ones bring no resistance.” ~ SN 7.2
As shared in a previous post—titled “How can we get the world to talk about animals’ inviolable rights?”—I value authenticity in my actions and view the authentic nature of this campaign (i.e. asking for a world without killing animals) as an act of reclaiming rather than relinquishing our power. It is my concern that when we strategically attempt to avoid or minimize backlash by making requests that are less than what we genuinely want, we turn ourselves into nice dead people in the process (and, ironically, often still face backlash).
It is certainly likely that individuals will have strong reactions to our campaign (and some of these possible reactions I will discuss below), but my feeling of reassurance comes not from trying to alter our campaign in an attempt to control or temper their reaction. Rather, it comes from putting more effort into how I respond to their response. When individuals get angry, stimulated by our initiative, that is an opportunity for us to connect calmly with the other person and demonstrate that we value their needs just as much as our own needs and the needs of the animals. While our campaign does not intend to provoke, we also do not intend to avoid provocation. We simply intend to reveal ourselves and reclaim our power.
These quotes are not intended as a “defense” for my response to backlash, or as an argument meant to convince others to respond in kind. Rather, I sought to include these quotes in my response because I believe they articulated a general way to view backlash through these two practices. By practicing Buddhism and Nonviolent Communication I have seen that I suffer less and play more. I have faith that continuing these two practices, in both the minor and major moments of life, will be beneficial—which is why I strive to do so.
In more particular cases, I am also unconvinced that the specific forms of backlash—which others have expressed concern about—are either as damaging as some believe or as likely to happen in the first place. While I share concerns about these possibilities, my concerns take the form of a desire to be conscientious of these potential reactions so that I can demonstrate how I value the needs behind them and prepare for how I might respond in kind. There are three broad categories of backlash that I would like to address. These three concerns are that, in response to our campaign: 1) individuals or organizations might work to restrict or repeal the ballot initiative process; 2) the public, politicians, potential partners, or other people in positions of power might disassociate with other animal advocacy groups; and 3) individuals or organizations that currently engage in injuring and killing animals maybe become more united than they are currently (and thus become better able to continue injuring and killing animals in the future).
The first form of backlash is already happening. According to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center there are at least 68 active pieces of legislation this year seeking to make it harder to either qualify or pass ballot initiatives. By their own analysis, there has been a steep escalation in these types of legislation since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and activists have worked to enshrine access to abortion through ballot measures that would amend their state’s constitution. There are lots of forms these restrictions can take, and the Brennan Center for Justice has a thorough breakdown of what these look like.
In Oregon, it is possible that this form of backlash has even already been stimulated in part by our campaign. While IP28 is not mentioned, the Oregon Hunting Association (who are the most vocal organization against our initiative) submitted public testimony in support of a proposal to increase the number of signatures to qualify an initiative for the ballot and require a geographic distribution for those signatures. Fortunately, out of 114 submitted testimonies 88 were opposed, 24 were in support, and 2 were neutral. I believe this signals the favorable attitude Oregonians have towards the ballot initiative process. We see this first hand as well: when out collecting signatures, many individuals who oppose our initiative still sign because they believe it is still worth it to put it to a vote. Given public sentiment, I do not see such restrictions being enacted in Oregon. The only restriction I could see coming to fruition in direct response to our campaign is a requirement for a certain number of years between re-attempting the same initiative—such as in Wyoming, which requires five years between initiatives that are deemed to be “substantially the same.” This is, of course, assuming we are successful in our attempt to force the vote on animal liberation in multiple election cycles just as the women's suffrage movement did.
Rather than a reason to avoid using the ballot initiative process for bold change, I see this as an opportunity for activists within the animal rights movement to unite with activists in other social justice movements that have been targeted by these restrictions.
Some may worry that our initiative in particular is prone to stimulating this form of backlash given it does not have widespread public support, and that putting forward legislation that is already more accepted by the general public will lower the chances of resistance. I am not convinced this is the case. Whenever a social justice movement is effective, it faces resistance. I think the only way to avoid resistance is to avoid advocating in the first place.
Take as an example what happened in Arkansas. According to the Pew Research Center, 62% of Americans support increasing the minimum wage and 88% support at least medical access to marijuana. In 2018 and 2016, initiatives to increase the minimum wage and legalize marijuana both passed—to the chagrin of the Republican-led legislature. Despite support nationally and within their own state, in 2020 the Arkansas legislature referred an initiative to voters to increase the geographic distribution requirement for collecting signatures. After this was rejected by voters, the legislature enacted the restriction anyway in 2023, and it is now being challenged in court. Nevertheless, the fight for a living wage and marijuana legalization has continued to use the ballot initiative process.
Since I view this backlash as being just as likely to happen in response to any effective use of the ballot initiative process, I feel compelled to at least use it for an initiative that is in integrity with my convictions.
How one views the second form of potential backlash—that the public, politicians, potential partners, or other people in positions of power might disassociate with the animal advocacy movement—seems to be largely shaped by how one views the radical flank effect. Social movements are rarely monolithic and typically contain factions that vary in their agendas and tactics, some of which share broader public support than others. Those agendas and tactics deemed “radical” are typically those that are less widely accepted or viewed less favorably. It’s an ongoing debate whether such radical factions increase or decrease support for moderate factions, and this is what’s known as the radical flank effect. But, as noted by James Özden, it has been demonstrated fairly well (by both history and recent experimental research) that when the public is exposed to a group that seems particularly extreme, supporting more moderate groups seems quite reasonable in comparison.
One study in particular attempted to distinguish radical agendas and radical tactics, which feels especially relevant to our campaign because despite calling for a ban on killing animals—which likely falls under that label regardless of what definition of radical one uses it—our use of the ballot initiative process is quite moderate (in the sense that it is viewed favorably and as a non-disruptive act). They found that the use of radical tactics (i.e. property destruction or violence) increased support for moderate factions, and that the use of a radical agenda had no impact on support for the moderate faction. I view this as favorable in two ways. For those that support more moderate agendas, this supports the idea that our campaign is unlikely to damage those campaigns. For those that don’t support more moderate agendas, these findings indicate supporting our campaign is unlikely to increase their support.
I think it is unlikely that our campaign will turn away individuals from supporting other policies related to animals and their treatment. Anecdotally, I have had many people ask me whether our campaign was part of PETA, because if so they wouldn’t sign the initiative. When I tell them no, we were not started by PETA, they readily sign their name. To give more localized examples: organizations like Food & Water Watch have still been able to team up with Friends of Family Farmers in Oregon, despite the latter openly opposing our campaign. And candidates running for Portland City Council still seeked endorsements from Pro-Animal Future, even after they were aware of our campaign (our campaign was presented to them during the same meeting that Pro-Animal Future asked them to speak about their candidacies—some even signed the initiative.) What this demonstrates to me is that people are able to distinguish between different organizations within a broader movement, and I don’t think our campaign will take away their ability to draw these distinctions.
The third form of backlash I wanted to address in this post is the concern that our initiative may contribute to the formation of what some call a “reactive coalition.” This is when groups who currently benefit from the killing of animals unite and become better equipped to block any legal changes that aim to protect animals and disrupt their exploitation (such as by enacting constitutional amendments protecting the so-called “Right to Farm,” which I discuss elsewhere).
I would respond to this concern first by emphasizing the importance of not placing ourselves in opposition to anyone. Rather than positioning ourselves against “animal abusers” and taking pride in their distress or hostility, we recognize the needs that people who kill animals are trying to meet by doing so, and proudly advocate for a world where everyone—including animals—can have their needs met without the use of violence. If, at every step of our activism, we attempt to reassure others of our intentions, I believe we will mitigate the extent to which others will form a reactive coalition in what would be an understandable act of self-defense.
Admittedly, we will not be able to reassure everyone. There will certainly be some amount of defensive coalition forming. That is why my second response to this concern is to point out that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If our so-called opposition becomes more united, I predict that those involved in animal freedom will also become more united—and, for better or worse, our movement is far less unified and thus has far more to gain. Just as with the other forms of backlash discussed, we have an opportunity to respond in ways that push our evolution forward. Turning away from provocation is, I fear, a turn away from progress.
Joining the campaign as a monthly donor would help meet our need for stability and support. As we move into the spring, the more funds we are able to raise the greater our chances of getting on the ballot. If you are inspired by our work so far, would you consider signing up to give, at any amount, as a monthly donor?
Do you know of other ideas for how we can either secure additional funding or how we can spread the word about our campaign? Email team@yesonip28.org and let us know.
Like / Share on Instagram:
