What's New, Pussycat? by Geoff Carter

Illustration by Michael DiMilo

By Geoff Carter

They are mysterious and elegant creatures who only pretend to be domesticated by humans. They are not unquestioningly compliant like cattle or sloppily subservient like dogs. They are independent. Cats relate to people—tolerate them really—on their own terms. A cat will do as it pleases, when it pleases, and how it pleases. Like their great jungle cat cousins, they are essentially predators who never really lost their instinctive hunting skills. They are cool. They are killers.

Cats were revered in ancient Egypt, feared as supernatural beings in The Middle Ages—and beyond, and were even featured in a Broadway musical. What did dogs get? Blue’s Clues the Musical? Pigs got the movie Babe and the erstwhile Charlotte’s Web, but cats are in a class by themselves. Cats wouldn’t care about the attention, anyway. They would never deign to step in wet cement for a Hollywood star.

Now it seems cats—without even trying—have entered the sphere of presidential politics. A few weeks ago, a comment made by Republican Vice-presidential candidate J.D. Vance demeaning “childless cat ladies” went viral. Mr. Vance seems to think that any woman—or married couple, for that matter—who decide against having children is not a true Americans. In fact, Vance maintains that childless couples should pay more in taxes and have less voting power than couples with children.

He maintains single women, his “childless cat ladies”, are something less than normal citizens and if they have their way, the country will be run by the likes of Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Is doesn’t seem to matter that Harris is a member of a huge, blended family and Buttigieg is an adoptive parent. But to Vance, anything less than a family with two biological parents is—according to Vance—somehow un-American. Equating this anti-American vibe with cats was a mistake.

There was a huge backlash from cat-lovers everywhere. Celebrities like Taylor Swift, Jennifer Aniston, and Whoopi Goldberg led the charge, defending a woman’s right to lead her own life—and to have as many cats as she wants. Swift (and her kitty) made the cover of Time magazine. Even though their image had been co-opted by both political parties, the cats didn’t care. They’ve never seemed to mind.

And this was not the first time cats have been referenced in a political context. The Pussyhat, a pink yarn cap, was created as a symbol of solidarity for the Woman’s March 2016. Part of the reason for the march was Donald Trump’s comment that he could grab women by the “p____”. Featuring two triangular cat-like ears, these pink hats blossomed all over the world as an icon for women’s dignity and rights. The cats still didn’t much care.

In 2011, a militant group of women musicians in Russia formed the punk band Pussy Riot as a protest against the repressive policies of Putin’s government and to champion feminism and LGBTQ rights. They became notorious for staging impromptu pop-up “guerilla” concerts all over Moscow. Their leader spent years in prison for insurrection. Russian cats didn’t care.

The cat is everywhere. Catwoman, Top Cat, Felix, The Black Panther, The Pink Panther, Hobbes, The Stray Cats, and The Cat in the Hat are just a few iconic feline figures in our culture. We love cats, we champion cats, we revere cats, and we fear cats. They are the embodiment of the mysterious, the otherworldly, the unknowable, and the spiritual. Cats perceive things we cannot. They can see in the dark. And they are inexplicably associated with women. They are the manifestation of a subconscious, dream-like reality beyond our everyday world. From Cleopatra to witches with their familiars to Taylor Swift, Catwom(e)n, and Pussy Riot, cats have been inextricably linked to women.

Perhaps this country’s felines are missing a great opportunity. Maybe they should organize. Maybe they should run for office. Having a fan base consisting of heavy hitter cat-lovers like Taylor Swift, Jennifer Aniston, Whoopi Goldberg, Morgan Freeman, Cameron Diaz, and Mark Ruffalo would automatically assure them of a broad and diversified voting bloc. Their appeal crosses generational lines, gender lines, and racial lines. Although there is an automatic association between cats and women, cats are also closely linked to liberals—after all, cats tend to ignore social hierarchies, show disdain for authority, and exhibit chronically independent behavior—their appeal does cross political lines as well. George W. Bush had a pet cat. So did Rutherford B. Hayes, but in general, today cats seem to be the pet symbol of the Democratic party.

One would think that if cats decided to organize, they would end up on the left side of the political spectrum. After all, most of their devotees are Democrats. But they are cats, and cats are by nature unpredictable, independent, and not particularly loyal. While these qualities do check a lot of boxes for being a Democrat, cats can also be aloof and cold. At times, they seem to care little about their human companions. You could say they are sort of narcissistic.

Would they sense that quality in Donald Trump and flock to him? After all, he is the King of Narcissism. Who can say? And Trump is spreading that vicious rumor that immigrants are eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio. The cats will not care for that. But if self-interest is their main interest, the cat lobby will probably gravitate toward politicians who keep them warm, safe, and well-fed. A patch of sunlight would do wonders in gaining their support.

If cats want to exploit their long-standing political clout, they need to capitalize on the solidarity inadvertently and clumsily created by J.D. Vance. Citing “childless cat ladies” pissed off cat lovers and single women everywhere. Aligning the kittycat lobby behind reproductive rights, feminist rights, and human rights as other political activists have done would unite factions within the democratic party behind “The Cat” and create a solidarity based on the iconic symbol.

And if cats’ overriding concerns are warmth, safety, comfort, and security, who better to represent them than Democrats? Kamala Harris has promised to preserve social security, bring down consumer costs, provide affordable housing, enhance the Affordable Care Act, and reinforce reproductive rights. If she can do that for Americans, couldn’t she do it for the cats?

So, in the interest of an independent, freethinking, and intelligent electorate that questions authority, shouldn’t the Democratic Party install the housecat as their symbol? Perhaps the time for the donkey has passed. Who wants an ass for a symbol anyway? A donkey is stubborn, mulish, and decidedly unintelligent. On the other hand, a cat is sly, shrewd, elegant, graceful, and deadly.

It’s time to step into the twenty-first century. DemoCats Unite!