Populism and Public Health: The Path of Robert F Kennedy Jr.

Emerging from the same sentiments that today underpin far-right populism, the movement that catapulted Robert F. Kennedy Jr. into his role as the Secretary of Health and Human Services has been similar in many ways to the ethos behind the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) drive. Much like populism, this movement taps into a widespread sense of disappointment with a prevalent medical system that often seems unresponsive to recurring health issues. It appeals to those who feel neglected and unheard by the system. But much in the same vein as populism’s critique of institutional politics, this paradigm contests conventional medicine with its own alternative vision that often appears dubious instead of sound.

This movement now finds itself grappling with its relationship with a Republican Party that still upholds its conventional, pre-Trump affinities towards corporate interests, pharmaceutical firms, and the major players in the food industry. When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. assumed office, he pledged to tackle two formidable obstacles in American public health: the mounting issue of obesity and the enduring nature of chronic diseases. Ideally, the perspective of an outsider could bring refreshing insights to these problems.

The causal web behind the American obesity epidemic remains a contentious topic. Some attribute the problem to lifestyle factors such as automobile dependence and suburban living. However, there is a notable validity to the anti-corporate argument on the production and sales methods of our food. The inclination of the MAHA movement to steer the American population away from artificial substances and processed foods, for instance, seems like a viable experiment worth undertaking.

In the context of chronic diseases, there’s a particular focus on an ever-growing list of health conditions that lack an established cause. This is an area markedly underserved by the contemporary medical community. A new outlook, together with new research and new data, could indeed prove invaluable.

Yet, the MAHA perspective, as currently formulated, is marked by political constraints and a self-defeating quality. It tends to offset the orthodoxies it rejects with its own dogmas. A prime example is the fervor for ‘natural’ solutions, which tends to downplay the potential of medical solutions and posits that public health can be improved by merely removing the toxins intrinsic to late-modern life while reviving the robust health characteristics of the pre-1960s era.

Certainly, modern living environments do pose toxic challenges, and the natural world holds an abundance of remedies. Nevertheless, the natural world also presents countless threats to our survival and wellbeing, many of which we’ve successfully mitigated through human innovation. The health outcomes of the pre-1960s era were vastly differing, with some experiencing better health and a substantial number dying prematurely. As such, a balanced approach is necessary.

This equilibrium involves promoting healthier options like organic produce and whole foods along with physical activity for combatting obesity, whilst acknowledging the potential of revolutionary pharmaceutical contributions like the new generation of weight-loss drugs. Similarly, in the context of chronic illnesses, the originating factors in chemicals and pollutants should be scrutinized, along with the possibility that a significant number of chronic illness sufferers may be contending with infections that could be potentially alleviated with the appropriate medical treatments.

However, when the issue of vaccinations arises, the projection of this balanced approach by MAHA is noticeably absent. There are legitimate questions surrounding the efficacy of mRNA vaccines, the accurate incidence of vaccine-related injuries, and the optimal childhood vaccination schedule. But the holistic critique of the medical establishment often fails to confine itself to these specific issues. Instead, it remains on the more extreme side, suggesting vaccines as a primary contributor to prevalent health crises.

This extends to improbable allegations about the extent of mRNA vaccine side effects and attempts to establish a link between vaccinations and autism. A persistent unwillingness to be swayed by empirical evidence indicates a profound instinct that casts vaccination as an unwanted deviation from nature. Despite being a fundamentally human instinct, it’s not one that can proficiently guide public health policies.

As an active campaigner, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was representative of this instinct. Now as the health secretary, he finds himself somewhat confined by it. His positions on vaccines have been assertive and imprudent, with the recently announced cessation of funding for further mRNA vaccine research being of particular concern.

However, his actions are not assertive enough for his allies and his constituency, who feel aggrieved by the absence of a broader scepticism towards vaccines. Concurrently, he appears to be constrained by coalition politics, with the GOP still largely acting as the representative of large-scale agriculture and industrial interest groups. It’s plausible to anticipate these entities posing significant barriers against efforts to enhance the healthiness of the American food supply.

A suitable analogy can be made with the economic policy of the previous administration. The more visionary populists aspired to a fundamentally different approach to conservative economics. Yet, the result was the integration of a historical tariff obsession onto the traditional GOP measure of deficit-financed tax reductions.

In a similar fashion, the imperative of MAHA is expected to lead to some concessions concerning food contents from old corporate powers. However, these isolated concessions are unlikely to result in substantial systemic change, steering us back towards maintaining the status quo.