When RFK Jr. announced last month his intentions to endorse the Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump, and suspend his presidential bid, he sent political shockwaves throughout the U.S. His endorsement indicates a turn to a more unified country, a country experiencing the decline of the Democratic Party, which seems unable to grasp the political reality that surrounds it.
With that being said, if the Republican party wins and Donald Trump becomes President of the U.S once again, RFK Jr. has made it very clear that he intends, to promote a traditional environmentalist movement and more specifically Make America Healthy Again (MAHA). He has dedicated his life to environmental preservation and promotion of green politics. However, it remains to be seen whether applying RFK Jr.’s ‘old-school environmentalism’ is possible in America?
What exactly do I mean when I am referring to a return to old-school environmentalism? There is a broader philosophy that approaches the notion of ecology, where human beings do not necessarily own this planet, but are a part and a life form of the ecosystem. The Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss, who dedicated his life to the practical responses to environmental problems, widely promoted this philosophical idea. In 1973, Næss published a so-called “deep ecology” paper (The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: A Summary), outlining his conviction that we need an immediate social and political change to avert an impending environmental crisis, rather than simply adapting the current socio-economic structures to said crisis.
This social change can be motivated by applying the position that since humans are part of the complex ecosystem called earth, protection and promotion of a healthier lifestyle and a more sensible approach towards human health, is indeed an environmental issue.
Kennedy’s recent interview with Tucker Carlson clarified such an approach. Towards the end of the interview RFK Jr. pointed out that the Democratic Party, and the current Biden-Harris administration, are obsessed with numeric facets of environmentalism such as our carbon footprint, which is the exact opposite of what environmental protection aims to achieve. The environmental movement cannot be truly measured and analysed on spreadsheets, just as it is anathema to having a negative effect on the lives of ordinary people. This obsession might be baptised as a justified green politics crusade, but essentially what it does is shift the focus and the blame on ordinary people by lecturing them on their own carbon footprint, giving a free pass to corporations that have the lion’s share of responsibility for environmental degradation. The protection of the environment is a Christian value that connects us spiritually with the wildlife all around us, but also allows us to connect within ourselves, understanding that we are part of said wildlife. RFK Jr. had it right when he said “when we destroy nature, we diminish our capacity to sense the divine, understand who God is and what our own potential is and duties are as human beings”. In that sense, when people, who are part of nature, allow the destruction of their health, isn’t that a self-sabotage towards their ability to experience the divine?
This last sentence regarding the destruction of public health in the U.S resonates with the whole meaning of old-school environmentalism. Neglecting issues that directly affect the lives of millions including: chemicals in food, soil and water or destruction of the ecosystem alongside the environment and instead, replacing it with a mass hysteria over carbon-motivated policies, that do more harm than good, does not benefit anyone. For an example look no further than food quality in America. There is an increased consumption of harmful seed oils, which are responsible for many health issues, unfortunately avoiding them seems impossible in the U.S as they are in nigh on every processed food. The same goes for food that is heavily contaminated with colouring. Anyone that has travelled to the U.S can see, let alone taste, the difference between our products in Europe and those in the U.S.
A logical approach would be to ban anything that harms the health of people. The big pharmaceutical companies, however, benefit from ailing public health and would consequently fight the Trump-RFK Jr. administration tooth and nail on any such policy.
So far, the corporate propaganda machine has accelerated its efforts to diminish Kennedy’s efforts for a healthier America. Take this article published in TIME magazine on January 9, 2023, which outlines why ultra-processed foods are bad for anyone’s health. The same magazine published this article on August 28, 2024, just days after RFK Jr. announced his endorsement for Donald Trump and his envisioned efforts to change America’s health system. It is pretty clear how some powerful people, that benefit from the declining health of Americans, try to change the narrative to make people believe that ultra-processed foods are not as bad as we might think.
Unfortunately, in the U.S it seems that the battle for improving the people’s health and the actual fight for actual environmentalism will find many obstacles in big corporations. They are the same corporations that are willing to destroy the food, water, soil and wildlife all to inflate profits which they guard with a vicious jealousy, changing the narrative as they see fit. One must, nevertheless, be optimistic. RFK Jr. is one of the most capable people to change the path of environmentalism and make this an actual unifying issue for all Americans. It is a fight worth fighting.
Image: Flickr/Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. & Gage Skidmore
No image changes made.
Comentarios