In her upcoming book, “No Going Back,” South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem proudly shares a disturbing anecdote about killing her own puppy. Noem, a potential running mate for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election, details how she shot her 14-month-old wirehaired pointer, Cricket, in a gravel pit on her ranch. She claims the puppy was “untrainable” and had shown aggression, but her callous retelling and lack of remorse have sparked justified outrage from animal advocates, politicians, and the public alike.
This troubling incident is not merely an isolated case of animal cruelty; it reflects a larger, insidious trend within modern conservative politics. In the era of Trump, a segment of the right has come to celebrate a lack of empathy and even outright cruelty as a show of strength and political identity. Noem’s puppy killing story, and her apparent belief that it would appeal to conservative voters, exemplifies this disturbing mindset. It reveals a willingness to discard compassion and kindness in favor of projecting a tough, unsentimental image – an approach that extends beyond this single act of animal abuse and into conservative policymaking and rhetoric as a whole.
A Puppy Killing Anecdote…
In “No Going Back,” Noem recounts taking her 14-month-old wirehaired pointer, Cricket, on a pheasant hunting trip with older dogs. She describes Cricket as “untrainable” and claims the puppy chased birds, attacked chickens, and even bit Noem. In response, Noem took Cricket to a gravel pit on her ranch and killed the dog by shooting it. She also mentions killing a “mean” goat on her property in a similar manner.
Her story has since sparked immediate backlash from animal experts, politicians, and the public. The German Wirehaired Pointer Club of America also criticized Noem’s lack of proper training and patience, stating that at 14 months old, Cricket was still a puppy learning to hunt. They suggested humane alternatives such as rehoming or professional training. Democratic politicians shared photos of their own dogs in loving environments, condemning Noem’s actions. Social media erupted with outrage, with many users expressing disbelief and horror at Noem’s casual cruelty.
In response, Noem defended her actions, claiming she was following South Dakota law that allows for killing aggressive dogs. She framed the incident as a tough decision that showed her leadership and practicality. However, her justifications rang hollow to many, who saw her actions as unnecessarily brutal and callous.
The Psychology of Animal Cruelty
Numerous studies have linked intentional animal cruelty to deeper psychological issues and a higher likelihood of violence towards humans. Common traits among animal abusers include a lack of empathy, antisocial personality disorder, and a disregard for the rights and feelings of others – human or animal. Psychologists also note a strong link between animal abuse, domestic violence, and child abuse, with abusers often using threats or violence against pets as a means of control.
Noem’s apparent lack of remorse and her cavalier attitude towards killing her puppy raise serious concerns about her empathy and psychological fitness for leadership. Her attempt to justify the killing as a “tough decision” that demonstrates her resolve only underscores her callousness and lack of compassion. Responsible leaders model kindness, not cruelty.
An Appeal to Conservative Voters?
Noem’s decision to share this disturbing anecdote in her book suggests a calculated attempt to appeal to a certain segment of conservative voters. By portraying herself as tough, unsentimental, and willing to make “hard choices,” she seems to be playing into a Trumpian ideal of leadership that values brutality over compassion. Her framing of the story as a “politically incorrect” tale of rural life also panders to conservative resentment of so-called “woke” culture and liberal sensibilities.
In the Trump era, some on the right have come to embrace cruelty and a lack of empathy as a badge of honor – a way to “own the libs” by openly flouting societal norms and basic decency. Noem’s puppy killing story, shared without remorse or apology, fits this troubling pattern of celebrating callousness as a political virtue.
However, Noem seems to have severely miscalculated how this anecdote would be received, even among conservatives. The widespread backlash from all sides of the political spectrum demonstrates that most people, regardless of ideology, still value kindness and compassion, especially towards innocent animals. Noem’s attempt to use animal cruelty as a political prop has backfired spectacularly, revealing the limitations of the “cruelty as strength” mindset.
The Parallels in Conservative Policies
Sadly, the callous disregard for life and suffering displayed in Noem’s puppy killing anecdote is all too reminiscent of broader trends in conservative policymaking. The glaring contrast between the right’s insistence on forced birth policies and their lack of support for actual children and families is a prime example.
Many conservatives champion abortion bans and restrictions in the name of protecting “unborn lives,” yet consistently oppose policies that would help ensure the health and wellbeing of children after they’re born. They fight against expansions of programs like SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid that provide vital assistance to low-income families, leaving millions of children in poverty and without access to adequate nutrition and healthcare.
Similarly, conservatives often tout “family values” and the importance of parental rights, but their actions tell a different story. They oppose paid family leave, universal childcare, and other policies that would make it easier for parents to raise healthy, happy children. They prioritize tax cuts for the wealthy over funding for public education, child welfare services, and mental health support.
This disconnect between claimed values and actual policy positions is starkly reminiscent of Noem’s attempt to justify her puppy’s killing as a “tough but necessary” decision. It reveals a coldness at the core of much conservative ideology – a willingness to sacrifice compassion and empathy for the sake of an uncompromising, often cruel worldview. As with Noem’s puppy story, this hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed by the American people, who increasingly see through the empty rhetoric and demand real commitment to valuing and protecting life at all stages.
Empathy in Leadership
Kristi Noem’s puppy killing story and her apparent belief that it would win her political points serve as a chilling reminder of the importance of empathy in leadership. As public figures, politicians have a responsibility to model compassion, kindness, and respect for all living beings. Leaders who openly celebrate cruelty and callousness, as Noem does in her book, send a dangerous message that such behavior is acceptable or even admirable.
Normalizing or celebrating cruelty in politics has far-reaching consequences. It emboldens those with already violent tendencies, contributes to a coarsening of public discourse, and erodes the basic decency that holds society together. When leaders like Noem flout norms of compassion and empathy, they make it easier for others to do the same, both in politics and in everyday life.
Furthermore, leaders who engage in or endorse cruelty often do so while claiming to uphold moral values like family, faith, and the sanctity of life. This hypocrisy is not lost on the public, who can see the glaring inconsistencies between stated beliefs and actual behavior. For conservatives in particular, who often champion traditional values and personal responsibility, the disconnect between rhetoric and reality when it comes to compassion is especially stark.
To restore trust and integrity in leadership, we need politicians who not only talk about values like kindness and empathy but consistently embody them in their actions and policies. Anything less is a betrayal of the public trust and a danger to the very fabric of our society.
Let’s Wrap This Up
Kristi Noem’s disturbing story about killing her own puppy encapsulates the troubling embrace of cruelty and lack of empathy that has taken hold in much of modern conservative politics. Her callous retelling of the incident and her misguided belief that it would appeal to conservative voters reflect a warped understanding of leadership and a cynical view of the public’s values.
But the overwhelmingly negative response to Noem’s anecdote from across the political spectrum offers a glimmer of hope. It suggests that, despite the efforts of some on the right to normalize cruelty as a show of strength, the vast majority of Americans still believe in the importance of compassion, kindness, and basic decency.
To move forward as a society, we must demand a return to empathy and consistency in leadership and policymaking. We need leaders who not only claim to value life and family but act accordingly, supporting policies that protect the vulnerable and uplift the marginalized. We need politicians who model integrity, who walk their talk, and who have the courage to stand up against cruelty in all its forms.
Ultimately, we must hold our leaders accountable for their actions and rhetoric, rejecting those who engage in or celebrate brutality and callousness. Only by insisting on compassion and decency in our politics can we hope to build a society that truly values and protects all life, human and animal alike. Kristi Noem’s puppy killing story is a wake-up call – it’s up to all of us to ensure that empathy and humanity triumph over cruelty and indifference in our national character.
What are your thoughts? Has Governor Kristi Noem shot herself in the foot with this retelling of a cruel deed? Or has she become the conservative partner Donald Trump is seeking?