A few weeks after the November elections, I attended a group meeting in Chicago advertised as a conversation across the liberal-conservative political spectrum. Among the 10 attendees, it was soon apparent that I was the only person who had voted for Kamala Harris.
For several hours, the group of mostly men railed against the Biden administration’s wasteful spending and elitist attitudes on numerous social issues, such as what they referred to as the “global climate hoax.” With the “overwhelming endorsement” from voters in the recent election, the attendees felt that the new administration would soon wipe aside numerous health policy blunders.
Any defenses I could muster were ignored, such as my points about an enviable past democratic legislative record that helped reach close to full employment; provided critical funding for federal, state, and local public health systems; delivered better access to affordable healthcare; and successfully dealt with the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
More recently, about a month after the new administration took control of the government, I decided to attend this “discussion” group once again. Many of the original members from the November meeting were in attendance, but this time, 10 additional attendees showed up and people other than myself shared more concerns about the new administration. (Perhaps they now felt safer and emboldened to attend an open meeting, given the momentous developments in Washington over the past few weeks.)
The unity for change that had been apparent in the early meeting was absent, and rather critical comments were now readily exchanged about unbridled executive actions that were obliterating our ties to long-standing public health organizations, such as the World Health Organization. Many pointed to the imperial decisions of a non-elected tech executive to dismantle and terminate lifesaving health programs like U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
While the early tenor of this conversation was strikingly different from my initial experience with this group, the topic quickly shifted back to more controversial political topics, such as new pronouns and support for transgender youth.
Tensions precipitously rose, and discussions turned from productive to defensive. I recall one member mentioning that there was an articulate set of policy briefs represented by Project 2025, and he added that such an effort did not exist for those supporting a more progressive cause.
Although I do not necessarily agree with his assessment, I began to think about several principles that could rally an alternative vision, with efforts to re-secure the allegiance of working-class constituents to social support and health-conscious policies. I wondered if the unifying focus and discussion needed to be on more economic and health issues that affect us all, such as how a $5 trillion tax cut would precipitate increasing economic inequalities, and how budget cuts of nearly $900 billion, likely aimed at Medicaid, would reduce access to healthcare and accelerate racial and ethnic inequities in coverage.
Even with a possible constitutional crisis of efforts to subjugate judicial constraints with executive power (which is a grave threat to our democracy), we might be more successful in attracting citizens to a health-forward agenda by appealing to those alienated by the upcoming and predictable crisis in access to information and healthcare services.
As an example, increasing frustration will undoubtedly occur if artificial intelligence becomes the only response to citizen requests for critical public health information, due to the firing of thousands of federal workers. Moreover, the new administration’s executive orders will impact citizens’ basic access to healthcare through a variety of reckless measures, such as rescinding the extended enrollment periods for Affordable Care Act plans and ending the funding of elective abortions.
If attempts are ultimately made to unceremoniously reduce the cost of entitlement programs like Medicare, we must emphasize how reductions in our federal debt and access to healthcare can be managed by more humane, fair, and participatory methods.
Just as the conversation turned so dramatically during the second discussion meeting I attended, so will the tenor of our citizens as we enter the mid-term election season, as the number of unproductive federal health-related policies likely grow and the consequences become more apparent.
We can encourage others to rally around health-forward policies and policymakers not through divisive issues but by finding common ground on initiatives that support us all.
Leonard A. Jason, PhD, is a professor of clinical and community psychology, and director of the Center for Community Research at DePaul University in Chicago.
Please enable JavaScript to view the