Will Creeping Political Realignment Even Impact Things As Fundamentally Personal As Eating Habits?

Yesterday, Nate Cohn mused about the new American politics that has come in Trump’s wake… which can even feels like it has been turned upside down. Pre-Trump “there was a lot about American politics that you could take for granted. The meaning of the two parties seemed clear. Republicans represented Reagan’s three-legged stool of  small-government fiscal conservatism, the religious right and foreign policy hawks. Democrats represented the working class, change and the causes of liberal activists. Every four years, the two parties mostly litigated the same fights over the same issues. They rehashed arguments over war and diplomacy; entitlement spending and tax cuts; ‘family values’ and the social movements of the 1960s; or trade and free enterprise versus labor and protecting jobs. It led to predictable demographic divides and recurring, long-term electoral trends. That all changed when Trump came down the escalator. On some issues, it can even seem as if the parties have switched places. Today, Trump champions the working class, rails against elites, strives to protect American jobs and criticizes traditional U.S. foreign policy, all while Democrats defend the establishment, norms and the old foreign policy consensus.”

For example, reported MSNBC’s Ayman Mohyeldin, the MAGA crowd claims the mantle of free speech but… that’s quite a stretch from reality. “[J]ust one month after his election victory, the so-called free speech candidate is threatening to go after a cornerstone of the First Amendment, the free press… [L]ikely members of Trump’s incoming administration have also attacked free speech. Starting with Kash Patel, whom Trump would like to lead the FBI. ‘We’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections,’ Patel said on Steve Bannon’s podcast. ‘Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.’ Then there’s Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick to lead the Health and Human Services Department. Upon endorsing Trump, Kennedy argued it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who were the ones silencing people they disagreed with. However, Kennedy is now indicating that, if confirmed, he’ll likely fire around 600 employees at the National Institutes of Health who don’t agree with his vision.”

And, speaking of RFK, Jr, one of his better ideas, in my opinion, is to work, quickly, towards weening Americans off “sugary drinks” like Coke and Pepsi. I was lucky. 54 yers go, in 1970, I was living in Afghanistan. There were no cell phones and my connection to the U.S. was sporadic and tenuous. My friend Helen— who remembers none of what I’m about to write— sent me a letter telling me about the Republican massacre of peaceful students anti-war protestors at Kent State in Ohio. It was a shock to me and when she said that the response was that American students would respond by putting iconic corporate behemoths Coke and Pepsi out of business with a. Complete boycott, I was in. It was hard in Afghanistan because the water was undrinkable. The U.S. consulate told Americans to boil water twice before even using it for brushing your teeth! So to give up Coke and Pepsi was a real sacrifice for me. But… in the 54 years since reading her letter at the cafe in front of the Afghan Finance Department in Kabul, I’ve never tasted either again— nor any other products made by either company.

I’ve never met anyone who ever heard of the boycott— including Helen, who told me about it— and apparently it didn’t cause either company any trouble. I had some side benefits though since it has now become clear that sugary drinks contribute to type 2 diabetes, obesity, cirrhosis, tooth decay, gum disease, osteoporosis, metabolic disorders, high blood pressure, inflammation, and elevated triglycerides, all of which raise the risk of cardiovascular diseases. And 13 types of cancer, including some of the most deadly, like pancreatic, colorectal and liver.

Now what does this have to do with the core values of the two parties? Well, Coke and Pepsi and their trade group, argue that moderate consumption of sugary drinks doesn’t pose a significant health threat and they emphasize personal responsibility over regulation.Sound familiar at all? The classic Republican position— beyond abolishing Food Stamps or severely cutting back on funding the program— would be to say that SNAP recipients should be able to have the freedom to make their own dietary choices rather than being subject to government restrictions, thereby respecting personal autonomy and avoiding governmental paternalism. (Besides, sugary drinks are cheaper than healthier alternatives, making them more accessible to low-income families while offering an inexpensive source of calories— albeit empty ones— for families struggling with food insecurity.)

The classic Republican might also argue that restricting sugary drinks could lead to demands that other unhealthful food also be discouraged, like processed snacks. Their allies in the beverage industry also shed crocodile tears boy how this would unfairly stigmatize low-income consumers by imposing dietary restrictions not placed on higher-income shoppers.

A classic progressive debate might include the fact that SNAP was designed to improve nutrition for low-income families, and sugary drinks undermine that goal by offering empty calories instead of essential nutrients and that SNAP is funded by taxpayers to combat hunger and malnutrition, not to support the purchase of non-nutritious items. Taxpayer money should not subsidize products with little or no nutritional value just because lobbyists are bribing members of Congress.

RFK, Jr, until very recently a classic Democrat, argues, correctly, that keeping sugary drinks on the list normalizes unhealthy diets and perpetuates generational cycles of poor nutrition. In a bow towards GOP concerns, he also argues that the health problems caused by sugary drinks lead to higher medical costs, increasing the financial burden on Medicaid and Medicare. He wants SNAP funds to be directed toward healthier, nutrient-rich foods like fruits, vegetables and whole grains, ensuring recipients have better dietary options (the pure paternalism Republicans have long opposed).

So… now we have a debate that boils down to balancing personal choice against public health priorities and determining how best to allocate taxpayer dollars to address food insecurity without compromising nutrition. The GOP traditionally emphasizes individual liberties and limited government intervention, advocating for personal choice in various aspects of life. This philosophy is evident in their support for free-market principles, gun rights and educational choices, such as universal school choice, although certainly not when it comes to women’s health or, for example, LGBTQ equality.

On Monday, Laura Cooper reported that the beverage companies are super-charging their lobbying efforts to derail RFK Jr’s initiatives in their area. “Coke,” she wrote, “is looking to hire additional lobbyists from among a small and exclusive group who have close relationships with Trump, according to a person familiar with the matter. Lobbyists for the big soda companies are also trying to get in front of people close to Kennedy and Brooke Rollins, Trump’s nominee to head the Agriculture Department, which administers SNAP benefits. Rollins hasn’t endorsed Kennedy’s agenda, and it is unclear where she stands on the idea of making sugary drinks and foods ineligible for food stamps. The American Beverage Association, an industry group that represents Coke, PepsiCo and Keurig Dr Pepper, plans to donate money to Trump’s inauguration, as it has for past presidents, said Kevin Keane, chief executive of the group.”

She also noted that last year Marco Rubio and far right extremist Josh Brecheen (R-OK) co-sponsored bicameral legislation “to make soda, prepared desserts and other sugary foods ineligible for SNAP benefits. Brecheen said he plans to reintroduce the legislation in January, and is counting on help from Trump and Kennedy to get it passed. The food-stamp program shouldn’t pay for sugary drinks that increase the risk of obesity and diabetes, he said… ‘It’s nonsensical for U.S. taxpayers to spend tens of billions of dollars subsidizing junk that harms the health of low-income Americans,’ Kennedy wrote in an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal… The Republican Party has long been divided over policing what people on food stamps eat. Some GOP lawmakers favor consumer choice. ‘I believe in educating consumers on what is in their best interest,” said Rep. Frank Lucas (R., OK), a senior member of the House Agriculture Committee. ‘I’ve always had a hard time telling people what they cannot have.’”