Politics. As the vote for Speaker of the House went into its 5th round last week, I texted a former political colleague to ask if he was watching.
“Yes, it’s fantastic,” he replied.
C-span, freed from the leadership-required wide shot, zoomed in on what anyone that has served in office is familiar – bored adults and children, intense clutches of lobbying and punchy late-night humor. Until Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama moved to take a swing at Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, it was a congenial group of people following a 200-year process to elect a leader.
What occurred was an open debate on how and why the House of Representatives should function differently. Over four days, a small minority – about 20 members – gave a platform for airing grievances about leadership, process and, yes, a lot of personalities.
Compare that to the Speaker vote in 2019 when uber-progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Pramila Jayapal could have staged a similar scene. Instead they quietly negotiated committee assignments in exchange for their votes, determined not to end their careers as they began.
Democrats have always been better at unit rule, so the contrast is not unexpected. As a result, however, many things are left unsaid in the service of preserving the status quo.
For the most part, the needle of both parties’ talking points has been stuck in a groove, the next sound to be precisely like the last one. Each sentence begins with some version of “No one should have to [insert policy priority here]” or “The richest country on earth can [insert budget item here].
Both the words and the objectives have been repeated so many times they have lost their meaning and are unrelatable to the vast majority of Americans, especially those that think for themselves.
The headlines as written have declared Republicans ungovernable. Speaker Keven McCarthy has worn the battle but not the war. Those things may be true. But a long overdue – cathartic even – airing of dirty laundry was necessary and yes, it was also fantastic.
Policy. Neary everyone knows that the effectiveness of Covid boosters is a little suspect. That is demonstrated by the low uptake. We also know that excess mortality remains elevated to the tune of 15%-ish.
What we do not know is how to talk about it.
For example, The Wall Street journal published an opinion piece by Allysia Finley asking, “Are Vaccines Fueling New Covid Variants?” Finley is usually found on the op-ed pages, but her piece comes on the heels of a paper in Science Immunology which identified a possible relationship between multiple boosters and a rise in IgG4 antibodies, which may diminish immunological surveillance.
Even the New York Times has acknowledged mortality is not coming in line with pre-pandemic experience, but they too feel the need to torture themselves into a mystifyingly opaque analysis on their opinion pages. Excess mortality is clearly up and persistently so. One would expect more alarm.
The reaction to NFL football player. Damar Hamlin’s cardiac arrest on the field is similarly lacking in candor. On the one hand, people in the ant-booster crowd immediately identified an mRNA vaccination as the culprit – not altogether crazy given the association with myocarditis in young men.
On the other, George Washington University cardiologist Jonathan Reiner seemed sure it was a rare impact-related condition that disrupts the electrical signals in the heart. Dr. Anthony Fauci was hustled out of retirement over the weekend to concur. It is now the working diagnosis, according to NFL players' representatives.
Of course, absent a review of Mr. Hamlin’s medical records, no one quick to speak knows what they are talking about. It appears to have become very important, however, to avoid uncomfortable conversations. The usual press avails that have traditionally accompany on and off-field injuries were absent.
Meanwhile, high quality research continues to argue against a one-size fits all booster policy. But no one wants to talk about that.
Power. Reportedly, the 20-member Republican minority received as concessions for their vote for McCarthy (or a simple “present”), promises of a Select Committee on COVID and a revival of the 1975 Church Committee.
No one want to talk about it – in part because Twitter is giving the story to reputable but independent journalists like former New York Times Editorial Board member, Bari Weiss – but the drip of disclosures ordered by Elon Musk has ramifications.
The first of those is that the White House pressured Twitter to limit the flow of contra-narrative information on vaccines and boosters, hurting the credibility of of them. It also made scientific consensus about COVID appear more real than it was and is.
The second order effect was the self-censoring that persists today. For better or worse, Twitter’s role as a news chyron leads many editors, obsessed with “impact journalism” to nutty metrics like retweets and likes.
When all the algorithmic tools are deployed a really important story on antibody response or heart complications in young men can be relegated to the woodshed. So, why bother?
For Twitter and the White House, it was a short-sighted thing to do. Real scientific consensus will be reached on all these issues, some of it will not fit the dog-eared narrative.
No one wants to talk about that either. Perhaps one of Speaker McCarthy’s committees will find a way.
Have a great weekend.
Emily Evans
Managing Director – Health Policy
Twitter
LinkedIn
