How powerful is "new-welfarism"?

[Tim Gier]

An argument has been made that the so-called "new-welfarist" ideology is so pervasive and powerful within the animal advocacy movement that most people are unable to break free from its grip.  On this view, because most of the major, well-funded advocacy groups supposedly do not unequivocally support the abolition of the exploitation of other animals, anytime these groups are given any attention or publicity, most people will be persuaded not to support the total liberation of other animals, but to support instead merely reforming the ways other animals are exploited.  

What do you think?  Are people able to think for themselves to see past the alleged flaws in the positions of these "new-welfarist" people and groups?  Or, are most people more like automatons, who hold their views because some dominant social structure imposes it on them?

[Carolyn Bailey]

I think almost everyone must be more than capable of forming their own opinions and seeing past flaws they see in the positions of others. 

I do however also think that many people don't perceive there to be flaws in the positions of some of the larger orgs, like PeTA, Animals Australia, etc.

In my experience, many people like to see results for their efforts, they like to be rewarded for what they have done for others. Many people are not prepared to spend years of their lives working toward something they're not likely to see dividends for. Regulating the treatment of other animals enables those people to feel they're making a difference, and being rewarded for those small victories now, which makes them feel that they've achieved something.

I think most people are perfectly capable of breaking free from this, if they choose to do so.