SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
maga
Can RFK Jr. Really Make America Healthy Again?
To make progress on any of the progressive and worthwhile parts of his agenda, Kennedy will have to go to war with his boss—a man who has shown no signs of making Americans healthy in any way.
Feb 25, 2025
Few of the members of Donald Trump’s administration best illustrate the phrase “Even a stopped clock is right twice a day” than Robert Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick to run the Health and Human Services Department. Every now and then, he says something reasonable, even helpful. And then he says all of the other things he likes to say.
While for many years, the alarm over the American diet, fueled as it is by high doses of calories and capitalism, was sounded from elements of the political left, a post-Covid realignment has emerged, “a scrambling of left and right, where all of the sudden, some progressive food policy ideas were being adopted by parts of Trump’s base alongside health freedom activism driven by the pandemic,” says Helena Bottemiller Evich, who led food coverage at Politico and now runs the online publication Food Fix.
Last summer, that shift was cemented when Kennedy suspended his own presidential campaign and endorsed Donald Trump and the phrase “Make America Healthy Again,” MAHA for short, entered into the mainstream. How MAGA somehow came to be seen as an agenda that could include MAHA seems to be a real-life case of an idea jumping the shark (or, more appropriately, the whale head): Could the man who regularly feasts on fast food, whose private golf club menu features the “Trump Trio”—a cheesesteak egg roll, three honey stung chicken fingers with ranch, and fried pickle chips with campfire sauce—usher in an era of healthier eating for Americans?
Trump’s appetite for power saw the advantage of bringing Kennedy into his campaign, a point he acknowledged following Kennedy’s confirmation. “He had tremendous support, unbelievable support, and I think a lot of that support came my way when we decided to do a little merger.”
But what kind of “little merger” is this, really?
Kennedy finds himself in Part II of an administration whose Part I proposed—on the birthday of Michele Obama, whose White House vegetable garden and signature focus on child nutrition was ridiculed by Trump and other conservatives—to let schools cut the amount of fruits and vegetables served to nearly 30 million American public school kids.
Kennedy supports limiting the amount of less healthy (though often less expensive) food that can be purchased by families on SNAP—the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, saying the federal government “shouldn’t be subsidizing people to eat poison.” Meanwhile, House Republicans have proposed a budget bill supported by the President that will likely lead to a 20 percent cut to the program—it’s hard to see how less food will make poor families healthier.
The firing of Food and Drug Administration staffers last week includes the very workers in charge of reviewing safety of new food additives and ingredients, which will make Kennedy’s call for eliminating chemicals and dyes in food a lot harder to realize. The cuts prompted the head of the FDA’s food division, Jim Jones, to resign. “I was looking forward to working to pursue the department’s agenda of improving the health of Americans by reducing diet-related chronic disease and risks from chemicals in food,” Jones wrote. With the gutting of staff, he wrote, “it would be “fruitless for me to continue in this role.”
The MAHA PAC website says the organization is “leading the charge for sustainable farming practices that rebuild our soil, reduce chemical reliance, and promote biodiversity.”
But Project 2025, which has guided much of the policy agenda of the Trump administration, has other plans. “If farmers are allowed to operate without unnecessary government intervention, American agriculture will continue to flourish, producing plentiful, safe, nutritious, and affordable food. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) can and should play a limited role, with much of its focus on removing governmental barriers that hinder food production or otherwise undermine efforts to meet consumer demand.” And the MAGA folks who freaked out that the government was going to take away their gas cars and gas stoves aren’t going to let their Twinkies go without a fight.
The MAHA site also calls clean air, water, and food “non-negotiables,” saying the PAC promotes “candidates and policies that remove harmful chemicals and pollutants to ensure every American lives in a toxin-free environment.” It’s hard to see how that squares with “Drill, baby, drill,” the mantra of the man they supported for President, or his assertion that climate change and the corona virus were “hoaxes,” or with the polluting industries who helped put the President back in office.
Is Kennedy right that our current food policies have helped lead to poorer health for Americans? Sure. He’s right twice a day on that score.
But it would take the flexibility of the most esteemed and experienced yoga practitioner to follow the twisted logic that Kennedy’s better ideas will get traction in an administration so dedicated to dismantling the very guardrails that might help him accomplish any goal that might make any Americans healthier. (And with the MAHA crowd apparently unbothered by the devastating cuts to USAID and the roundup and deportation of immigrants, it’s clear they only care about making Americans healthier—to hell with the rest of the world.)
To make progress on the progressive part of his agenda, Kennedy will have to go to war with his boss, the president, and every other department of his administration, not to mention the rest of his own unsteady, unscientific, unhealthy agenda.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Blizzard' of Anti-Immigrant Trump Moves Aimed at Remaking US in 'MAGA's Preferred Image'
"Rather than viewing each executive action in isolation, we should take in totality: They are attempting to kick out and keep out as many immigrants as possible—whether here legally or not," said one advocate.
Feb 21, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's "flood the zone" strategy, characterized by a relentless stream of policies and proclamations, has extended to his anti-immigration agenda, with a "blizzard" of news stories this week detailing the administration's hostility toward and endangerment of asylum-seekers and immigrants across the country.
One immigrant rights organization on Friday advised the public not to lose sight of the overarching goal of the Trump administration and his MAGA movement as people try to make sense of the harms being imposed on their communities: to "embark on a radical reshaping of America that tramples on both our interests and our values."
America's Voice, which works to create a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., said that "the sheer volume of immigration policy news is best viewed in the aggregate, taking into account the array of proposed and enacted policies and the larger through lines and implications."
This past week, as Common Dreams reported, Americans learned about the fates of about 300 people who had come from all over the world to seek safety in the U.S., only to be deported to Panama—which has agreed to serve as a "bridge" country in Trump's mass deporation operation—and locked in a hotel before many of them agreed to board flights back to their home countries. About 100 of them, including eight children, were sent to a remote detention camp near the sweltering Darién jungle where authorities confiscated their cellphones, cutting them off from contact with journalists.
"None of the actions taken are about public safety or our economic interests or even what's best for the lives and futures of Trump voters."
That news came ahead of reports that Trump was revoking Temporary Protected Status for Haitian migrants, making them eligible for deportation starting this summer even as "Haiti continues to be roiled by violence and disorder," as America's Voice executive director Vanessa Cárdenas said.
As Common Dreams reported on Wednesday, the U.S. Department of the Interior moved to cut off legal services for unaccompanied migrant children, ordering organizations that have helped tens of thousands of children to stop providing representation to them and ending funding for the legal programs.
On top of those developments were the shifting of Department of Homeland Security resources away from investigating drug dealers, suspected terrorists, and weapons trafficking to deportation operations—which have swept up thousands of people with no criminal records—and the firing of federal health inspectors at some border stations while the administration has said it plans to begin turning away migrants on the grounds that they could spread communicable diseases.
"The disconnect and hypocrisy was a particularly stark reminder that the administration isn't motivated by keeping the public safe as much as keeping out and kicking out immigrants as their top priority," said America's Voice.
Cárdenas said the policies of the past week have made clear that "the Trump administration's anti-immigrant obsession comes at a high cost to all of us."
"Rather than viewing each executive action in isolation, we should take in totality: they are attempting to kick out and keep out as many immigrants as possible—whether here legally or not," said Cárdenas. "It is particularly egregious that this administration is going yet again after children by preventing their access to legal representation. None of the actions taken are about public safety or our economic interests or even what's best for the lives and futures of Trump voters, as their immigration agenda and plans for indiscriminate mass deportations will harm each of those measures. Instead, it's part of a larger effort to remake the nation in MAGA's preferred image."
As the administration introduced new policies and the human impacts of its anti-immigration agenda were made increasingly clear, the White House released an "ASMR" video this week featuring the sounds of handcuffs and chains being used in Trump's mass deportations. It also posted to social media a Valentine's Day message threatening to deport people who are unauthorized to be in the United States.
"Trump's intention is not to solve a problem but to create one as he puts on a show of cruelty for his supporters with his plan for mass deportations," wrote Maribel Hastings, a columnist with America's Voice. "Trump 'thrives' on the chaos he creates he purposely provokes to maintain a narrative and justify actions such as indiscriminate detentions and deportations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Last Taboo: Why Are Voters Never Held Responsible for Their Choices?
Time to end the media silence over the American people’s headlong dive into authoritarianism.
Feb 13, 2025
In his book, The Present Age, the late sociologist Robert Nisbet applied a pithy descriptor to a phenomenon we have seen all too often in public life: the “no-fault” theory of political action, particularly in foreign affairs. “Presidents, secretaries, and generals and admirals in America seemingly subscribe to the doctrine that no fault ever attaches to policy and operations,” he wrote. “This No Fault conviction prevents them from taking too seriously such notorious foul-ups as Desert One, Grenada, Lebanon, and now the Persian Gulf.”
Nisbet did not live to see a spectacular example of his theory. George W. Bush, having failed to prevent the 9/11 disaster his own intelligence agencies foresaw, proceeded to initiate a years-long disaster in Iraq, a catastrophe of his own making. Yet what were the consequences? The American people rewarded him with a second term in the face of abundant evidence of his incompetence and bad faith.
It would appear that Nisbet’s thesis needs revision. What he said was blatantly obvious: of course politicians rarely blame themselves for their own egregious policy failures, for it characterizes the typical behavior of ambitious, self-confident, and often corner-cutting people.
We frequently hear calls for “accountability:” for politicians, tech moguls, and the like... How telling then, that there are no such calls for accountability when it comes to the American people.
What is more significant, and troubling, is the reaction of the people who elect them: why do they more often than not reward leaders who inveigle them into national calamity? Isn’t there also a no-fault doctrine that applies to the American voter, a doctrine that is for the most part rigidly observed by journalists, pundits, and the self-proclaimed wise men who monopolize the op-ed pages of the prestige newspapers?
From the platforms of the chattering classes, we frequently hear calls for “accountability:” for politicians, tech moguls, and the like. Holding someone accountable implies that the person in question is a functioning adult who can be considered responsible for his actions. How telling then, that there are no such calls for accountability when it comes to the American people.
Turning back to Bush, his reelection did not end his reign of error. His policy of radical financial deregulation, about which he and his underlings bragged incessantly, and about which the public had to know if it were remotely paying attention, led in his second term to the greatest financial meltdown in 80 years.
Temporarily chastened, voters latched on to Barack Obama as the savior du jour. It turned out that Obama was no Moses leading the people to the promised land. A nominal Democrat, he was more an old-school Rockefeller Republican whose two terms were mostly an uneventful placeholder in history—not that such administrations are necessarily bad, as the current all-enveloping chaos demonstrates.
But placid, play-it-safe presidencies are boring, particularly for an increasingly infantilized public that needs 24/7 entertainment to stave off that worst of mental states: honest self-reflection. So they grew tired of Perry Como’s crooning, hankering instead after Ozzy Osbourne smashing his guitar and biting the head off a bat. That explains a good deal about how we got Trump 1.0 and 2.0.
Placid, play-it-safe presidencies are boring, particularly for an increasingly infantilized public that needs 24/7 entertainment to stave off that worst of mental states: honest self-reflection.
Wait, say the pundits, weren’t great swathes of the American people in 2016 victimized by the system, suffering from “economic anxiety?” But exit polling data from 2016 showed that Hillary Clinton won by 12 points among voters making less than $30,000 a year and by nine points among those making between $30,000 and $49,999. Trump, on the other hand, won every demographic making $50,000 or more
In 2024, the U.S. economy was the best in almost 60 years, with October unemployment at 4.1 percent. This is not to argue that everything was ideal, but the economy was better than recent U.S. experience, and unemployment and GDP growth were far better than most developed countries.
Accordingly, pundits dropped the economic anxiety excuse. Instead, we have been inundated with think pieces about how Democrats in some unexplained way “lost the working class,” a demographic conveniently left undefined. This claim contradicts continued polling evidence that Trump consistently did better among more affluent voters. The notion that Trump has magnetic appeal among Americans living a precarious economic existence is largely myth.
Otherwise, the media has treated Trump’s election like an asteroid falling from the sky, a natural disaster seemingly without input from the electorate. Why? It may be that the press still refuses to violate the last moral taboo in American public life: the essential innocence and virtue of this country’s citizens.
Denouncing the rascality of politicians is a revered American tradition, from Artemus Ward to Mark Twain, to Will Rogers, right down to the late-night TV hosts of today. Even the ultra-refined Henry Adams, scion of the Adams's of presidential fame, approvingly quoted the line, “A congressman is a hog! You must take a stick and beat him on the snout!”
Perhaps the only well-known American literary figure to take a dim view of the people who actually elect the politicians was H.L. Mencken. He denounced vigilantism during World War I, Prohibition, the 1920s resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, and the revival of religious fundamentalism that same decade, not as some plague that befell the country from nowhere, but as an expression of Americans’ mob mentality, anti-intellectualism, and search for easy solutions.
Otherwise, American literary tradition gives us Walt Whitman singing the praises of his fellow citizens, Carl Sandberg (“the people, yes . . .”), Thorton Wilder and his sentimental tale of small-town folks, and Frank Capra’s maudlin cinematic paeans to the fundamental goodness of the common clay. Thousands of lesser lights have engaged in similar rhetorical puffery to the present day. The tragic, grown-up sense of social life in Victor Hugo or the great Russian novelists is absent from the American tradition.
Mystification merely being academic slang for bamboozlement, the theory never answers the question: why are the people so easily conned by the most childish lies and distortions...?
Editorial departments still hew to this convention. A journalist friend recently submitted a piece to a well-known center-left magazine arguing that some responsibility must attach to the voters for the 2024 election. The response: “We can’t say the American people are stupid,” even though the editor agreed with the author.
Political theorists from the center to the far left are also prone to this delusion. They have built an edifice of psychological denial on the idea that even if there is a pervasive system of illegitimate corporate or governmental control, it is miraculously unconnected with the character of the people the system administers. Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent is typical of the species, a late-20th century adaptation of Karl Marx’s theory of mystification: that the common people do not recognize their genuine interest because they have been mystified by the powers-that-be.
Mystification merely being academic slang for bamboozlement, the theory never answers the question: why are the people so easily conned by the most childish lies and distortions when accurate information is easily accessible, and never more so than today? (This is quite apart from the fact that Trump told voters very explicitly about the horrors he would inflict, meaning that something other than gullibility is also at work).
It wasn’t always thus: farmers in the 1890s, the core support for the old People’s Party, knew very well who was screwing them: the railroads, the banks, the grain traders. So did 1930s production-line workers in steel, autos, and rubber, struggling for union recognition: they knew it was their own employers, not foreign competition or some culture-wars chimera that was responsible for their miserable conditions.
But now, farmers vote overwhelmingly for Trump, despite their suffering under foreign retaliatory tariffs resulting from his ill-considered economic policy during his first term and likely further damage in his second. And unionization is at record post-World War II lows, despite the material benefits of union membership.
What changed? Historian Rick Perlstein, writing in The Invisible Bridge, said that in the 1970s, as the crises of Vietnam, racial unrest, and Watergate abated, the American people had a chance to learn from these events: in other words, to grow up and be responsible citizens.
They didn’t. Ronald Reagan’s soothing fairy tale of innocent virtue, of a country sinned against but never sinning, became America’s secular religion. I would extend Perlstein’s thesis by suggesting that this bogus innocence has become embedded in the American psyche and individualized into a personalized martyr complex. Every vicissitude of life is now the fault of some detested minority, or the elites, or the system generally.
The vanguard of this personality type, the people who actually generate the atrocious ideas the Trump regime is now implementing, is what substacker John Ganz calls the “creep-loser.” You know the type from high school: awkward, asocial, and full of resentment against the world for failing to recognize his genius.
Many of them become brooding, failed intellectuals, the sort that were the idea engine of authoritarian movements throughout the 20th century, and who now infest places like the Claremont Institute and Heritage Foundation. They are to MAGA what the Old Bolsheviks were to the Communist movement. It is no coincidence that Steve Bannon described himself as a Leninist. Their goal is simply destruction as revenge.
It is true that all of these resentful fantasists together would barely fill a stadium: hardly a key national voting bloc. But their nihilistic attitude is surprisingly prevalent among “real Americans” who never read Ayn Rand or attended Hillsdale College. Beginning in 2015, pollsters have been rather surprised at the frequency that respondents claim they just want to “burn it all down,” not troubling themselves with what will happen to the social infrastructure that supports their very existence.
If it reaches the point where Americans are sent to Guantanamo for their political opinions, what will be the reaction of the unserious?
Add to them the rapturist Christians, the hard core of the Christian fundamentalist voting bloc (the largest single constituency of the Republican Party). The belief that a millennial holocaust wiping out earth is something to look forward to is in its basic psychology no different from Hitler’s Götterdämmerung in the Berlin bunker or suicide cults like Jim Jones’ People’s Temple. Even the wider fundamentalist belief system is prone to rigidly separate human beings into the blessed and the damned, a mindset hardly consistent with pluralist democracy.
A final demographic is the most diffuse and least attached to any ideology: the tens of millions of unserious Americans who refuse to take anything seriously, for whom the smallest exercise of civic responsibility is either uncool, or boring, or a violation of their freedom to be irresponsible. Some of them voted for Trump because “he’s funny;” you may know the type. No doubt they think even now that plundering Greenland or sending combat troops to Gaza is comedy gold. Others will apply a sort of degenerate folk wisdom that they think is clever, saying they “always vote those in office out, and those out of office in,” or some similar nonsense.
Other unserious people feign a righteous anger over the price of eggs on the assumption that the White House controls the cost of consumer goods regardless of circumstances like bird flu. The price of eggs or broiler chickens is much more important to them than living under the rule of law or handing down a decent and humane society to their children.
Maybe we were always deceived by popular culture, or misread it.
If it reaches the point where Americans are sent to Guantanamo for their political opinions, what will be the reaction of the unserious? No doubt indifference, because it won’t affect them, just as arrests of Jews or Social Democrats didn’t affect “good Germans” in the 1930s. As for the true believers, whether religious fundamentalist or secular neoreactionary tech-nerd, they’ll be cheering it on: they never believed in any nonsense about democracy or human rights in any case.
How can America’s purported thought-leaders seriously maintain that a working majority of Americans (those who voted for Trump and those who didn’t bother to vote because they didn’t care) didn’t consciously will what is now unfolding? As Steve Bannon’s role model Lenin was reputed to have remarked, “who says A must say B:” people are intellectually and morally responsible for the consequences of their actions. To argue otherwise is the equivalent of saying that tens of millions of Americans are legally incapable of signing contracts, marrying, driving cars, or exercising the franchise.
Maybe we were always deceived by popular culture, or misread it. It’s a Wonderful Life is conventionally viewed as a heart-warming Christmas movie, with a depressing second act making the finale all the more sentimentally fulfilling, like Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. Yet, but for the contingency of George Bailey’s having been born and lived, Bedford Falls inevitably would have defaulted to Potterville, hardly an affirmation of the goodness and civic-mindedness of the majority, who might have been expected to resist the designs of the grasping Mr. Potter.
Contingencies work that way in real life, too. But for the pandemic and the resulting inflation, we might be living in a different world. Alas, given the recent price of eggs, most Americans preferred to ditch safe, staid old Bedford Falls for the vulgar excitement of Potterville. The town’s owner, whether Mr. Potter or Donald Trump, will cheerfully ensure that while he might fleece you for every cent and jail you if you defy him, you’ll never be bored.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular