Why is 'vegan' suddenly being used as a slur? | Emma Beddington

Cool news, fellow soy boys and girls – we’ve been promoted from feeble, tofu-eating wokerati to dangerous radicals unfit for public office. Politico reports that US Republicans have started throwing “vegan” around as a tactic to tarnish their political opponents. “He’s a vegan,” Trump warned of Democratic Texas senatorial candidate James Talarico in May, while Talarico’s opponent, state attorney-general Ken Paxton, is trying to get the nickname “Tofu Talarico” to stick. Paxton also called him “a vegan who thinks God is non-binary”, which I find hilarious as a political put-down – give the man a Netflix special. (Sidenote: I investigated, and according to the Catholic catechism, God is “neither man nor woman”.)

Republicans have also been digging up past pro-plant-based statements from Colorado congressional candidate Manny Rutinel: a campaign committee press secretary described him on X as “a far-left vegan activist who wants to end animal agriculture”, posting an old pic of Rutinel bare-chested and wearing a Peta anti-meat banner. Other Dems have also been accused of, erm, liking animals and eating plants: Arizona congressional candidate Amish Shah has been attacked for his “wacky liberal agenda pushing vegan policies” and Lindsay James in Iowa drew heat for merely supporting the idea of “meatless May”.

It’s ridiculous but also depressing. Because hang on: does America actually think veganism disqualifies a person for political responsibilities? Apparently, when you look at how these candidates reacted. A Talarico spokesperson issued an official response to “vegan accusations” (“accusations” – the word you’d use for say, corruption or sexual assault): a picture of him wrapping his face around a giant hunk of meat. The candidate himself joked, spicily, “I’ve been eating barbecue since before Ken Paxton’s first indictment” (despite many years of legal issues, Paxton has never been found guilty of any crime).

Rutinel, meanwhile, clarified he’s not vegan now, saying he needs to “enjoy the delicious products that Colorado ranchers make”. His Reddit posts supporting animal rights, he said, were “the views of a 22-year-old kid,” giving the impression his veganism was youthful folly, like taking a puff of a joint in college – he tried a tempeh wrap, but he didn’t finish it! A spokesperson for James said she has “always sided with Iowa farmers”.

Obviously harbouring vegan sympathies plays badly in agricultural communities (claiming your opponent is a seitan worshipper is a canny strategy when you’re appealing to ranchers), so I understand the emphatic denials. But rather than playing into this notion that vegans are extreme-left fantasists who can’t be trusted, I wish someone would defend the idea that they’re actually perfectly well qualified for political office.

Why wouldn’t they be? Sure, people think we’re pleased with ourselves and boring (guilty), but that never excluded other politicians from power. We’re not so weakly undernourished that we couldn’t survive the rigours of the job, either – these days, plant proteins are thrust at us from every angle.

And actually, there are plenty of reasons why vegans can make great public servants. For a start, anyone who has gone vegan for planetary or animal welfare reasons is OK with a spot of self-denial for the greater good. You think we’ve forgotten how delicious butter is? Believe me, I remember. I’m not suggesting vegans live heroic lives of self-sacrifice (there are vegan pistachio croissants now!), or that not eating animals makes us better people. But any politician with a sense that there are things more important than their own gratification is welcome.

Vegans are used to ridicule, and being the target of people’s strongly voiced opinions – that’s always handy in politics. We’re also – and apologies for veering into classic vegan self-righteousness – basically right, no? Talarico’s 2022 comment, that reducing meat consumption to fight climate change is an “existential” matter, has been weaponised against him, but meat production alone accounts for nearly 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions. Thomas Poore, lead author of the landmark 2018 study on the environmental impact of agriculture from which that statistic comes, concluded that excluding meat and dairy from your diet is “the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth”.

Politicians who think individuals can make a difference, and that collectively we can mitigate the worst impacts of climate breakdown and stop things getting even worse, are exactly who I want to see in power. Because they give us something even better than a plant milk that doesn’t curdle in hot tea: hope.

Emma Beddington is a Guardian columnist

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.