Connect with us

The Dictatorship

The selfishness at the heart of this Trump-centric wellness subculture

Published

on

The selfishness at the heart of this Trump-centric wellness subculture

The Make America Healthy Againor MAHA, movement is a potent and growing Trump-centric subculture. MAHA influencers, politicians and followers argue that Americans have been made sick by corporate greed — which is as close to a unifying principle as MAHA can be said to hold.

According to MAHApharmaceutical, agricultural and food industry giants have poisoned us with red food dye, seed oils, processed food and microplastics. And currently, the movement is obsessed with promoting so-called raw milk, incorrectly claiming that unpasteurized milk provides health benefits, including immunity to E. coli and salmonella. In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Preventionthose who consume unpasteurized milk are 840 times more likely to contract a foodborne illness than those who drink pasteurized milk.

The most insidious aspect of MAHA is arguably its most defining feature: anti-vaccine rhetoric. On message boards, subreddits, livestreams and podcasts, many MAHA commentators disseminated anti-vaccine disinformation and false conspiracy theories throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.

The most insidious aspect of MAHA is arguably its most defining feature: anti-vaccine rhetoric.

It was during the Covid pandemic, too, that the leading face of MAHA emerged: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — who, before leaving the party and becoming an independent, challenged President Joe Biden for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination. On the campaign trail, Kennedy pushed several MAGA conspiracy theories and promised to end the Food and Drug Administration’s “aggressive suppression of … ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.” This is now gospel to the MAHA movement.

A study by the Center for Countering Digital Hate cited Kennedy as one of 12 “anti-vaxxers who play leading roles in spreading digital misinformation about Covid vaccines,” especially when it comes to spreading falsehoods that childhood vaccines cause autism. Now, President-elect Donald Trump has tapped him to serve as secretary of health and human services.

What makes MAHA’s grievances particularly complicated — and fascinating — is that they’re not entirely wrong. Autoimmune disordersADHDanxietychildhood obesity and chronic fatigue — just some of the health problems the movement cites — are all on the rise. The problem is the unholy marriage between conspiracy and reality. Take, for example, how the increased ADHD and anxiety diagnoses can be attributed, at least in part, to a greater understanding of mental health issues and an easing stigma around mental health.

Last month, New York magazine mapped several prominent MAHA disciples’ — including influencers and even one conservative food journalist — journey from health conscious to full-throated embrace of wellness conservatism. Some came from the traditionally liberal, 1970s natural food movement. Many women found their way to MAHA disillusioned and frustrated after doctors dismissed their genuine health concerns. Still others came to MAHA from the growing anti-vaccine movement, which has been around for decades but went into hyperdrive during the pandemic. Regardless of their origin, the Covid-19 pandemic crystallized their beliefs and created something of a shared worldview or philosophy.

Much of MAHA indoctrination happens, unsurprisingly, online. Take MAHA influencer Alex Clark. Clark’s hugely successful podcast, “Culture Apothecary,” explores many of the key tenets that make up contemporary MAHA conservatism: the dangers of hormonal birth control and vaccines, the ills of feminism, Christianity — including a strident anti-abortion sentiment — and the damaging effect of food on women’s fertility.

A lot of what Clark espouses is easily refutable, but nutritional science and many aspects of women’s health fall in a different category: They’re both understudied. Moreover, doctors often treat women with less care than men for similar ailments. For example, a study publishedby the Journal of Neurotrauma found that women are treated less aggressively for traumatic brain injury, a leading cause of mortality and disability. And that is just one example.

Much of MAHA indoctrination happens, unsurprisingly, online.

Clark, also the face of Turning Point USA’s Young Women’s Leadership Summit, is a master at tapping into these painful, gray areas by capitalizing on fear and genuine lived experiences and creating something of a community around it. Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk noted in a statement to The Washington Post, “MAHA is a movement that transcends party, but it does skew female.” Clark is one of thousands of similar-minded influencers on Spotify, Instagram and TikTok.

Addressing the growing conspiracy theory culture in the U.S., Naomi Klein argued in her book“Doppelganger: A Trip Into the Mirror World,” that “conspiracy culture often gets the facts wrong but the feelings right.” There is no question that there is a health crisis, mental and physical, in this country. But MAHA’s “solutions” are not the answer. Their “facts” are wrong — a healthy populace actually needs vaccines and pasteurized milk — but the feeling may be closer to right.

At first MAHA might seem like a strange MAGA coterie. Trump is, after all, famously sedentary with an affinity for fast-food burgers and dessert stations. It makes sense, though, when you consider what is at the heart of both the MAHA and MAGA movements: individualism.

MAHA — from the movement’s mistrust of childhood vaccines to its influencers’ exhortations to “do your own research” — shows just how far American culture has gone to undervalue true community. My family, my needs, my children and my beliefs — the movement insists — are more important than anyone else’s — and the so-called elites telling us we have a responsibility to the community to vaccinate our kids are engaging in tyranny.

In the MAHA mind, it’s all about you — science and the public good be damned.

Hannah Holland

Hannah Holland is a producer for BLN’s “Velshi” and editor for the “Velshi Banned Book Club.” She writes for BLN Daily.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

The Latest: Trump seeks help opening the Strait of Hormuz as Iran war chokes oil shipping

Published

on

The Latest: Trump seeks help opening the Strait of Hormuz as Iran war chokes oil shipping

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

BBC asks a court to dismiss Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit

Published

on

BBC asks a court to dismiss Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit

LONDON (AP) — The BBC filed a motion Monday asking a U.S. court to dismiss President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against it, warning that the case could have a “chilling effect” on robust reporting on public figures and events.

The suit was filed in a Florida court, but the British national broadcaster argued that the court did not have jurisdiction, nor could Trump show that the BBC intended to misrepresent him.

Trump filed a lawsuit in December over the way a BBC documentary edited a speech he gave on Jan. 6, 2021. The claim seeks $5 billion in damages for defamation and a further $5 billion for unfair trade practices.

Last month a judge at the federal court for the Southern District of Florida provisionally set a trial date for February 2027.

The BBC argued that the case should be thrown out because the documentary was never aired in Florida or the U.S.

“We have therefore challenged jurisdiction of the Florida court and filed a motion to dismiss the president’s claim,” the corporation said in a statement.

In a 34-page document, the BBC also argued that Trump failed to “plausibly allege facts showing that defendants knowingly intended to create a false impression.”

Trump’s case “falls well short of the high bar of actual malice,” it said.

The document further claimed that “the chilling effect is clear” when Trump is “among the most powerful and high-profile individuals in the world, on whose activities the BBC reports every day.”

“Early dismissal is favoured given the powerful interest in ensuring that free speech is not unduly burdened by the necessity of defending against expensive yet groundless litigation, which would constrict the breathing space needed to ensure robust reporting on public figures and events,” it said.

The documentary — titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” — was aired days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The program spliced together three quotes from two sections of a speech Trump made on Jan. 6, 2021, into what appeared to be one quote, in which Trump appeared to explicitly encourage his supporters to storm the Capitol building.

Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

Trump’s lawsuit accuses the BBC of broadcasting a “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction” of him, and called it “a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence” the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The broadcaster’s chairman has apologized to Trump over the edit of the speech, admitting that it gave “the impression of a direct call for violent action.” But the BBC rejects claims it defamed him. The furor triggered the resignations of the BBC’s top executive and its head of news last year.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

The DOJ’s ethics proposal would have a corrupt fox guarding the henhouse

Published

on

State bar associations play an important accountability role across the country. Trump administration lawyers know that their legal licenses are subject to censure, because practicing law in the United States remains a privilege, not a right. But if Attorney General Pam Bondi has her way, even this guardrail could disappear.

Last week, Bondi proposed a new rule that would allow the Department of Justice to take over investigations of alleged attorney misconduct of its own lawyers. State bar authorities would have to pause their investigations while the Justice Department conducts its own probe. The rule gives the DOJ the ability to delay or even derail a state investigation.

The rule gives the DOJ the ability to delay or even derail a state investigation.

It doesn’t feel like a coincidence that there has been a series of state ethics complaints filed against Trump administration lawyers, including Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and federal prosecutors handling immigration cases. President Donald Trump’s polarizing pardon attorney Ed Martin is currently facing just such a complaint from the D.C. Bar.

As outlined in the Federal Registerthe proposal argues that “political activists have weaponized the bar complaint and investigation process.” Of course, even if it were true that frivolous complaints were being filed against Justice Department lawyers, state bar grievance authorities should be able to weed them out just as effectively as the department’s own investigators. In fact, having an independent review process would provide more credibility than the DOJ would in dismissing such claims.

Federal law requires all federal prosecutors to comply with the ethics rules of the state where they practice law, including the District of Columbia. The new rule requires Justice Department lawyers to obey the substance of their state’s ethics rules, but gives the DOJ the authority to investigate violations. According to the proposal, whenever a bar grievance is filed, “the Department will have the right to review the allegations in the first instance and shall request that the bar disciplinary authority suspend any parallel investigations until the completion of the Department’s review.”

From there, multiple scenarios are possible. First, “if the Attorney General decides not to complete her review,” the state bar disciplinary authorities “may resume their investigations or disciplinary hearings.” Second, if the attorney general finds misconduct, “the State bar disciplinary authorities will then have the option of beginning or resuming their investigations or disciplinary proceedings” and, if appropriate, “to impose additional sanctions beyond those already imposed by the Department, including suspension or permanent disbarment.”

But what is missing from the language of the rule itself is a potential third scenario. What if the attorney general clears the attorney of misconduct? On that, the rule is silent.

Say, for example, a federal prosecutor in Minnesota is accused of making false representations to an immigration judge. The judge or opposing party could file a grievance with the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. Under the new rule, the state bar would be required to stand down and await a DOJ investigation, with no provisions for time limits or transparency. Of course, even the delay could compromise the subsequent Minnesota probe. But if the Justice Department clears the lawyer, it is also unclear what happens next. According to Bloomberg“If the DOJ finds no violation, that blocks the state from investigating the alleged infraction.” This conclusion may be a fair inference for a department that has thrown its weight around. According to the proposed rule, “the Attorney General retains the discretion to displace State bar enforcement and to create an entirely Federal enforcement mechanism.”

But even if the rule merely delays state enforcement, the DOJ could slow-walk a grievance into oblivion. According to a comment posted by the Illinois State Bar Association, the DOJ is attempting to “shield” its lawyers from accountability. The proposed rule also includes an ominous provision that if bar disciplinary authorities refuse the attorney general’s request, “the Department shall take appropriate action to prevent the bar disciplinary authorities from interfering with the Attorney General’s review of the allegations.”

Even if the rule merely delays state enforcement, the DOJ could slow-walk a grievance into oblivion.

In the decades since the Watergate scandal, the Justice Department has conducted robust investigations of allegations of ethical misconduct by its own attorneys and imposed discipline. In fact, it was common for state bar authorities to wait for the DOJ to complete its investigations before initiating their own probes, because the federal process held attorneys to standards even higher than state ethics rules. But that landscape changed last year, when Bondi fired the head of the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility and its chief ethics officer. Now there is a risk that DOJ lawyers will be even further sheltered from meaningful ethical oversight.

In the first nine days of the 30-day notice and comment period, the proposed rule has attracted more than 30,000 comments. And once implemented, the rule will no doubt invite legal challenges and ultimately could be struck down. But until then, it threatens to give carte blanche to DOJ lawyers who represent the Trump administration not just zealously but with impunity, knowing that the attorney general can simply delay or even block state bar ethics complaints. And the rule represents one more openly regressive blow against the checks and balances that are essential to democracy.

Barbara McQuade is a former Michigan U.S. attorney and legal analyst.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending