There’s a basic problem in integrating public health with national politics. At the end of the day, a public health expert makes their analysis and offers it to political entities, elected officials and their appointed agents. And then those individuals are off to the races. The expert has little room to maneuver if they begin to get creative with the expert’s original advice.
I don’t think Anthony Fauci is a hero with a cape or a villain with a goatee, but I think his conflict with Donald Trump displays, in spectacular fashion, this eternal problem such an expert faces – ‘If you jeopardize my messaging or my reelection chances, you are replaceable.’
I don’t know if there is a clean solution to this hard reality. We can discuss measures that would seek to insulate experts from political backlash. But, in the end, as public health and domestic politics become more integrated, the present majority party of the state has a lot of leeway to elevate or sideline such experts. And in a democracy, it becomes messy to argue that should not be that case.
I like to offer solutions where I can, though this one is tough. Perhaps this is an argument for the case that public health experts should try to maintain political distance to the extent that they can. Money and status from politics aren’t offered without expectations. TINSTAAFL. But nothing gets done if there’s no money for salaries, studies, and keeping the lights on.
This is a great point. Even if such action were constitutional, giving any independent executive and/or legislative authority to unelected public health officials would not be politically favorable. Therefore, as you suggest, a reasonable solution could involve distancing public health officials from politics as much as possible. For example, giving the CDC more autonomy to make public health communications could be a start. As we discussed in class, the White House has been reviewing essentially any public communication the CDC hopes to make. With aspirations to maintain and improve funding, the CDC may be limited in sharing what they would like. This was evidenced by the tweet that indirectly contradicted a statement by President Trump. As a component of the executive branch, it would be impossible to isolate the CDC from politics. However, giving the agency some flexibility on press releases would likely improve separation between public health and politics.
Alex,
I found your blog very interesting, and these issues were something I was thinking about myself. How can we get to a place where public health experts feel free to communicate openly and honestly to save as many lives as possible? Perhaps we need a leader who can unite both sides of the country on these matters. If not, then perhaps institutions like the CDC can be given extra legal protections similar to judges in our country. In order for any progress to be made one thing is clear – our country needs to stand united on these issues so elected officials feel like they can push for certain laws without negative repercussions.
Great post Alex. I have to admit I had to google TINSTAAFL. Your last paragraph echoes what we heard from Dr. Del Rio in one of our first sessions and that is that the CDC must be an independent entity unrelated to the political process because, as you have pointed out whether it is within the Trump administration or the Biden Administration, if the science doesn’t match up with the political/economic/re-election plan, the science might get side lined.