Off-hand remarks can destroy a candidate. 

In August of 1967, for example the then-governor of Michigan, George Romney, a leading contender for the Republican nomination for president explained his shifting change of opinion on the war in Vietnam from “for” to “against” as a result of being “brainwashed” by American generals. The admission was a P.R. disaster that quicky ended his presidential aspirations.  

The latest illustration of a disastrous gaffe concerns Kristi Noem, South Dakota’s telegenic governor who was seriously considered a potential vice presidential candidate for Donald Trump.

In her forthcoming book, No Going Back: The Truth on What’s Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward she admitted to personally shooting her 14-month-old dog, Cricket, who was unsuitable for hunting due to her aggressive nature. Cricket also killed chickens, seemingly for the fun of it. She further dispatched a goat that smelled “disgusting, musky, rancid,” and loved to chase her children, even knocking them down and dirtying their clothes.  

The shooting incident happened 20 years ago but the current re-telling immediately went viral and her identity became Kristi Noem,  puppy and goat killer.

Her reasons for dispatching the unruly animals were dismissed along with her explanation that such killing regularly occurs on farms.

Predictably, Democrats treated her as a surrogate for Trump given her outspoken support of the ex-president. The Democrat candidate for governor of Montana, Ryan Busse, opined, “Anyone who has ever owned a bird dog knows how disgusting, lazy, and evil this is. Damn.”

Like Romney, her political career ended over a seemingly trivial matter.

Kristi Noem did nothing unusual.

According to the ASPCA’s recent data, approximately 390,000 dogs are annually euthanized in its shelters. An estimated 2 million dogs die in “puppy mills” each year due to being unsellable or no longer able to breed. No doubt, the total is much larger if figures from veterinarians are included while numerous websites provide instructions on how to euthanize dogs at home without paying a vet. Clearly, the governor is not a sadistic nutcase, and she explains in her book that the purpose of telling this story is to show that she is willing to make tough decisions when necessary. Roughly three-plus million dogs are euthanized annually, and 20 years ago Kristi Noem killed one.  

Why the outrage? After all, she did not torture her animals or exhibit any sadistic glee. Judging from her story, killing them was an act of last resort. Would anybody even notice if she had called a vet to euthanize them, gone fishing, and paid him for the services?

The personal nature of the killing, not imposing the death sentence per se, is what draws the ire of millions of animal lovers and soft-hearted Americans. This is comparable to people buying plastic wrapped steaks from the supermarket versus taking old Bessie behind the barn and blowing out her brains and then chopping her up. We like our slaughter done antiseptically and out-of-sight and so we no longer have public executions or torture. 

This escape from death easily shapes views on abortion since it is easy to support abortion if advocacy does not require actually witnessing it. This is not to say that support is irresponsible or just flippant. Many — perhaps most — of pro-choice advocates have sound, thoughtful reasons for their opinion, and would continue to favor it regardless of circumstances (disclaimer: I support limited early abortion as a matter of personal choice). Rather, polls on abortion insulate respondents from cold, harsh reality, and thus distort polls claim to reveal public sentiment.

Public opinion on abortion is complicated depending on hazy definitions and key details like a threat to a mother’s health but nevertheless sizable numbers support “late term” abortion.” A Pew survey conducted in 2022 found that 19% support abortion without any restrictions.  A May 2023 Gallup poll found that 34% of those asked endorsed access to abortion without any legal limitations.

What does a late-term abortion, of which approximately 10,000 are performed each year and rarely done as a medical necessity, look like?

Here is one medical account:

Uterine evacuation is then performed.  For younger babies this can be primarily accomplished using suction to remove as much tissue and soft body parts as possible, followed by forceps for removal of larger and harder body parts.  For older and larger babies, dismemberment using forceps is used (grasping and pulling off limbs for removal).  The brain is usually then removed by suction and the skull crushed for removal.  In partial-birth abortion (now illegal), the baby’s legs are grasped and pulled through the cervix, as in a breech delivery.  The body can be delivered this way, but the skull will be too large to deliver through the partially dilated cervix.  The abortionist will then introduce an instrument such as scissors into the base of the child’s skull creating an opening.  The brain is suctioned out, and the skull then crushed with clamps and extracted.  Misoprostol may also be given to the mother to induce uterine contractions, especially to help expel all the body parts and placenta.

This graphic account is not an argument against late-term abortion and many, if not most, surgical procedures are difficult to watch. Our point is that sizable numbers who endorse unrestricted abortion likely do so abstractly and are unaware of the procedure’s physical nature. A poll on abortion might well yield different outcomes if respondents were forced to watch a short video of a real-life late term procedure. A tale is sometimes told of slaughterhouse visitors being offered a free steak dinner after the tour and, predictably, many declined.

Sanitizing harsh reality is endemic when discussing myriad public issues. Do proponents of war fully grasp its carnage? What about people favoring the legalization of dangerous drugs?  How many of them have had family member killed by a heroin or fentanyl overdoes? How many people have been assaulted by a criminal roving the streets thanks to no-cash bail reforms? Or having their children beaten at a school committed to equity in enforcing school discipline? The list is, obviously, immense.

Polling data affords millions of people an effortless opportunity to pontificate on matters about which they lack any personal experience and are thus free to act irresponsibly. They can demand expensive programs without having to pay for them or call for “enlightened” policies without risking dangerous consequences. People condemn Governor Noem from killing a dog yet are unaware that the ASPC yearly kills hundreds of thousands of stray dogs. Who protests outside their shelters? Out of sight, out of mind. American public opinion might be vastly different if survey respondents had to make real, informed choices and  this might reveal a more conservative picture of public opinion. If put in Kristi Noem’s shoes and given a shotgun, millions would likely dispatch Cricket to protect their children against further attack. Public opinion polls should not be a ticket to fantasyland.  

 Image: Gage Skidmore, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 2.0