Years ago, I remember chatting with a friend who'd just come back from a series of peace-marches and vigils.  And in the recounting of his adventures, he'd mentioned how tasty a particular DC vendor's hot dogs had been, and what a welcome refuelling break they'd provided.

As a vegetarian for most of my life, that statement struck something of a dischord within me: somehow or other, I just felt that participating in a peace-march, and enjoying the results of violence to another living entity, at least aware enough as to be able to feel great pain, and to choose life and freedom for itself vs. life and death in the farm-camps, was a deep incompatibility.

 And I was present to the fact that for us to be of real influence in any field, then our actions and our beliefs must be in integrity; not that we have high ideals only, but are prevented from actually integrating them into our own lives because of our own habits or familiar pleasures.  After all, if we are not even willing to sacrifice appropriately, to change our patterns for a greater good, in our own lives, then how can we imagine we can inspire others to do such in theirs?

Gandhi advised that we should ourselves "Be the change you wish to see in the world."  And certainly, where we can be most powerful is in relation to our own lives and choices.  We may or may not be able to directly affect or control things outside of ourselves, but as far as our own choices are concerned, well, that is another world entirely. 

So the point is, if we want peace and justice and freedom from exploitation in our world, then that is who we must be in our world, in our dealings with others.  And not only that when it is convenient and easy, we can display these qualities, but when there is some cost, or need to sacrifice, then we will prefer to act for our own selfish gratification.  So, we do not ourselves want to be used by powerful persons intoxicated by their own greedy and selfish agandas; we don't ourselves want to be mere objects for their gratification ... so then we cannot treat others in that way either.  As the humble Nazarene also taught, 'treat others as you would like others to treat you.'

There are so many arguments for vegetarianism, that are perhaps not so relevant here.  There are many health arguments, but at the same time, there are plenty of old and healthy carnivores, and plenty of sick vegetarians!  And for many people, a shorter life filled with what they enjoy is preferable to a longer but more ascetic one!

Here, however, is a political argument, in the truest meaning of the word, relating to genuine concern for the welfare of all, and recognizing leadership in terms of being responsible for such.

The following is taken from the Bhaktivedanta purports to the ancient Srimad Bhagatam, widely accepted as the ripened fruit of Vedic wisdom.  (For whoever's interested, the (at that time) newly-discovered and translated Vedic texts from India were the primary inspiration and source of enlightenment for the American Transcendentalists, most notably Emerson and Thoreau - who were extraordinarily and most humbly appreciative of the wisdom of such works, especially Bhagavad-Gita, the precursor to Srimad Bhagavatam.):

"Has this civilization produced anything but quarrelling individually and nationally?  Has this civilization enhanced the cause of equality and fraternity by sending thousands of men into a hellish factory and the war fields at the whims of a particular man? 
It is said ... that the cows used to moisten the pasturing land with milk because their milk bags were fatty and the animals were joyful.  Do they not require, therefore, proper protection for a joyful life by being fed with a sufficient quantity of grass in the field?  Why should men kill cows for their selfish purposes?  Why should man not be satisfied with grains, fruits and milk, which, combined together, can produce hundreds and thousands of palatable dishes?  Why are there slaughterhouses all over the world to kill innocent animals?
"... Should not a king or executive head protect the lives of the poor animals who are unable to defend themselves?  Is this humanity?  Are not the animals of a country citizens also?  Then why are they allowed to be butchered in organized slaughterhouses?  Are these the signs of equality, fraternity and non-violence?
"... We are all creatures of material nature.  In the Bhagavad-gita it is said that the Lord Himself is the seed-giving father and material nature is the mother of all living beings in all shapes.  Thus mother material nature has enough foodstuffs both for animals and men, by the grace of the father almighty, Sri Krsna.  the human being is the elder brother of all other living beings.  He is endowed with intelligence more powerful than animals' for realizing the course of nature and the indications of the almighty father.  Human civilizations should depend on the production of material nature without artificially attempting economic development to turn the world into a chaos of artificial greed and power only for the purpose of artificial luxuries and sense gratification...
"... To be non-violent to human beings and to be a killer or enemy of the poor animals is satan's philosophy.  In this age there is enmity towards poor animals, and therefore the poor creatures are always anxious.  the reaction of the poor animals is being forced on human society, and therefore, there is always the strain of cold or hot war between men, individually, collectively or nationally.
"... conscious cooperation between man and God and man and nature, as exemplified by King Yuddhisthira, can bring about happiness, peace and prosperity in the world.  the attitude of exploiting one another, the custom of the day, will only bring misery."
(from the commentary on Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 1, Chapter 10, Texts 4 & 6, by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada)

George Bernard Shaw, who became vegetarian under the influence of Shelley, wrote:
"We pray on Sundays that we may have light
To guide our footsteps on the path we tread;
We are sick of war, we don't want to fight,
And yet we gorge ourselves upon the dead."

Yes, we all want peace.  So that we must be to all.  We imagine this does not need to include the animals, but there is no rational reason for thinking thus - after all, as we seek to eat, sleep, mate and defend in order to prolong and preserve our lives, so do they.  Only our attachment to tasting their blood and flesh warps our thinking.  Whatever stands in the way of our self-gratification, or is itself a suitable object for such, is necessarily de-personalized, disenfranchised in our language and beliefs.  While most of us no longer think of Native Americans as less than human savages, or American descendants of enslaved Africans as 'niggers' or North Vietnames as 'gooks' or Jews as 'kykes,' or gays as 'faggots' and so on and on and on in our glorious and enlightened civilized Western history, we still imagine animals to be but dumb brutes that it is pefectly acceptable to exploit and butcher for our pleasure.  Then we should not grumble that there are those in our society who also enjoy the taste of our blood, as it were, who consider that we, as the masses, only usefully exist so as to serve their cruel and greedy purposes, and to pay and to bleed as suits them.


Again then, in the most salient words of Gandhi-ji:
"Be the change you wish to see in the world."  And that is our primary civic, and political, duty.  Before voting for anyone else to make things right, according to our perspective.  First, we push aside our own selfish agendas, that naturally distort our thinking so as to justify their own existence and fulfilment ... and determine what is right action, what is peace and non-violence and justice and all those noble truths ... and then we must, in spite of all our habits and attachments, do what we know to be right and true in the world we wish to see around us.  Because it is the truth, not merely a vote for this one or for that, that will set us free.