The narrative around prominent figures like Kamala Harris working low-wage jobs during their college years, although potentially true, lacks solid evidence and seems primarily aimed at portraying them as relatable to the middle class. This narrative took a humorous turn when Donald Trump humorously ‘enlisted’ Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in a fast food ‘initiation’, amplifying speculations around Kennedy’s possible actions as the head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The experience represented an interesting crossroad between politics, the working class and the nation’s food regulators, contributing to widespread conjecture correlating mass obesity and chronic disease with elements such as food dyes, seed oils, and added sugar. Moreover, it raised questions about the unwillingness of elitists to appreciate the simple pleasures of common man, like enjoying a McDonald’s meal.
RFK Jr., handpicked by President Trump to helm the HHS, underlined his focus to combat corruption within the health agencies, reclaim rigorous, evidence-based science, and take significant strides to curb the chronic disease epidemic. With this, Kennedy ingeniously implies a departure from the status quo, asserting that current agencies have deviated from scientific validation—something he vows to rectify.
Kennedy’s position harbors slight contradiction; on one hand, he ambitious to purge these agencies of inherent corruption, but simultaneously aims to bolster their regulatory power to drive particular food products and additives off the market.
The possibility of potential reforms under Kennedy’s leadership could be commendable. His advocacy for raw milk, arguing that consumers should have the liberty to purchase and producers unfettered rights to sell is a stand in favor of personal freedom. At the same time, Kennedy’s misdirected condemnation of high-fructose corn syrup, blaming it for the rise in obesity rates fails to consider its increased use in lieu of real sugar is thanks to sugar tariffs and corn subsidies.
The call for Americans to reduce sugar intake, though a point in the direction of a healthier lifestyle, should not be imposed via punitive measures from health agencies. This remains one of the consistent shortcomings with Kennedy’s proposed policies—he occasionally hits the mark, but more often neglects the nuances and misinterprets the root causes.
Last week, the announcement of Kennedy’s role in the HHS saw leading pharmaceutical companies’ stocks take a hit. It’s important to remember that, despite not functioning to bolster these companies, they have significantly contributed to society. Thanks to incentives for innovation, the US leads in drug and food innovation, including the advancement of genetically modified crops.
Kennedy’s zealous pursuit to banish products he subjectively deems harmful may eventually lead to regrettable peripheral damages. The balance between maintaining the health of the nation and supporting innovative industries may prove a more complex task than anticipated.
The situation in New York, where a reported 146,000 public school students faced unstable housing conditions within the last school year, is indeed troubling. The multifaceted problem has resulted from a surge in immigrants and crippling city regulations that impede housing developments. However, these young individuals were not strictly ‘homeless,’ with most of them staying with friends or family or residing in shelters.
Democrats, led by figures like Kamala Harris, often attempt to appear relatable by invoking experiences like working minimum-wage jobs. However, their policies and actions often reveal stark disconnect with the very demographic they aim to represent. In turn, this erodes trust and perpetuates the disconnect between the ruling class and the masses.
President Trump’s move to appoint Kennedy at the helm of HHS, despite allegations of uncertainty, carries a clear message of trust. It underlines the administration’s commitment to cleaning up governmental health agencies and curbing the epidemic of chronic diseases plaguing the nation.
Furthermore, the Trump administration supports personal liberty and free market, clearly demonstrated in Kennedy’s promotion of raw milk. Unlike his Democrat counterparts, Trump believes in less state interference, understanding that it’s the tariffs and subsidies causing high-fructose corn syrup’s prevalence, not corporate greed.
While Democrats have historically championed punitive measures, the Trump administration continues to stress the importance of choice. Rather than strong-arming a reduction in sugar consumption, the administration believes in cultural changes inspired by knowledge and personal responsibility.
Lastly, American innovation is a product of the right incentives rather than restrictive policies. It highlights how the Trump administration has facilitated a more conducive environment for this. As Kennedy navigates his role, the hope is that he maintains equilibrium between preserving health and supporting innovation, despite expectations suggesting an extreme stance.