By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a recent podcast interview, Vice President J.D. Vance stated that people who mistreat animals are “bad people.” This comment, made during a discussion about a streamer accused of using an electric collar on his dog, was quickly called into question. Vance’s statement directly contradicted the actions of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who revealed in her memoir that she had executed her family dog, a move that drew widespread criticism and potentially cost her the chance to be Trump’s running mate. This detail serves as a stark contrast to Vance’s assertion, highlighting the complexities and contradictions within the political landscape.
Read the original article here
JD Vance says only ‘really terrible’ people mistreat dogs, and the context of this statement immediately plunges us into the murkier waters of political hypocrisy and selective outrage. It’s hard to ignore the disconnect here. Vance’s assertion, taken at face value, seems reasonable enough. Who wouldn’t agree that mistreating a dog is a sign of, well, a terrible person? The problem, as it often is, lies in the application.
This condemnation of dog mistreatment feels particularly hollow when considering the broader political landscape, especially when remembering the scandal surrounding Kristi Noem. It is a striking example of what can be called “convenient amnesia”. It’s the kind of thing that makes you wonder if they’re even listening to themselves. It’s the classic case of “do as I say, not as I do,” but with an extra layer of political opportunism.
The reactions surrounding the comment point to how these statements are seen by many. It’s as though Vance is trying to capitalize on a universally shared sentiment – the love of dogs, or at least the basic understanding that cruelty towards animals is wrong – to create a false contrast, making a performative stance. He then gets to act as if he is morally superior, which is a common tactic. The dog mistreatment is a “moral” issue, which is clearly intended to serve a political purpose. It provides a quick sound bite to deflect from the fact that he and his political allies have a very spotty record on human rights, and other important issues.
The broader implications are obvious to anyone who’s been paying attention. It’s the constant hypocrisy of the political theater on full display. It’s about optics, and about controlling the narrative, even if that narrative is built on sand.
Another point that seems to come up is the fact that people are forgetting things, especially given the rapid pace of news and scandals in politics. People forget that his boss, Donald Trump, has used the word “dog” as an insult. The quickness with which people seem to gloss over the issue highlights how the political media machine often operates. It is not about a genuine concern for animal welfare, but about creating an easily digestible story that feeds into already established narratives.
The fact is, Vance’s remarks don’t come across as genuine empathy. If they were, they would include a recognition of the double standard at play and maybe a statement about the Noem incident, if only to briefly acknowledge it. But no, the focus is placed squarely on a very specific, carefully chosen narrative that serves a political purpose.
This selective outrage reveals how political figures often play the game. They latch onto a seemingly simple issue, one that’s easy to get behind, and use it to paint their adversaries as monsters while conveniently ignoring their own side’s misdeeds.