What @cmyeaton excellently describes as a "cycle of panic and neglect” is truly one of the major dynamics that have shaped global health politics since the 19th century. I have made that argument, from a historical perspective, several times since the start of the pandemic: 1/
Last week I wrote for the @washingtonpost about why Trump's attacks will only exacerbate the problems that have always hampered the WHO, and why the history of global health says we need to break out of the „cycle of panic and neglect” instead 2/
One example I mention in the piece for how the West’s relationship with global health has gone through phases of indifference occasionally interrupted by erratic spikes in attention is HIV/AIDS. 3/
As WHO got more heavily involved in HIV/AIDS towards the late 1980s, when the virus was about to devastate the Global South, Western states started losing interest, as they had largely contained the virus. 4/
Consequently, throughout the 1990s, the WHO struggled to acquire needed funding as the pandemic spread around the globe, and the vast majority of infections and deaths have occurred after people in the West simply stopped caring about the disease. 5/
Another example is Ebola: Whereas there was massive attention for the 2014/15 Ebola epidemic in West Africa, since 2018 Central Africa has been experiencing the second worst Ebola epidemic in recorded history — and it has barely caused a reaction. 6/
I also went on the #InfectiousHistorians podcast to talk about the history of global health and how Covid-19 fits into that story – and we touched on the overall dynamics of “panic and neglect,” or fear and indifference, several times. 7/
In a broader historical perspective Cholera is a striking example of what @cmyeaton calls the cycle of panic and neglect. In the 19th century Cholera actually dominated the European imagination of health threats after it had first reached the continent in the 1830s. 8/
The last major cholera outbreaks in the West occurred in the late 19th century – and ever since the disease has been relegated to an afterthought in the West’s imagination. In a global perspective, however, cholera is still a massive problem. 9/
After all, some of the most devastating cholera epidemics in history occurred very recently, in Haiti in 2010-14 and in Yemen after 2016. And yet, the reaction in the West to such suffering on a massive scale has been shockingly muted. 10/
I have tried to provide such a longer-term historical perspective, going back to the beginnings of what can be called a “modern” international health politics, in several extended threads – here: 11/
And here, with a focus on the 1940s, when the vision of “world health” briefly animated international cooperation and it seemed, for a moment, that it might be possible to establish a more sustained interest in matters of global health 12/
A few weeks back I contextualized Covid-19 historically in this lecture-turned-podcast on “The Age of Pandemics” – and the “cycle of neglect and panic” plays a crucial role in my telling of the history of global health since 1850. 13/
Finally, for those who read German, I’ll have a longer essay in the July issue of @redaktionmerkur making that very argument by looking at how the international community has dealt with the threat of infectious disease from cholera to Covid-19. /end
Democrats are, finally, asserting their right to define the boundaries of normalcy – and their claim to be defending the nation’s true ideals against the reactionary assault.
Some thoughts from my new piece (link in bio):
🧵1/
I wrote about why the “These guys are weird” messaging matters: It crystallizes a central fault line – who gets to define “normal” America? – and catalyzes a significant shift in how Democrats handle (and finally reject!) Republican assertions of representing “real America.” 2/
Since the late 1960s, Republicans have successfully weaponized the idea that they represent the norm that should define the nation. This assertion (in)famously crystallized in the “silent majority” notion Richard Nixon popularized early in his presidency. 3/
ICYMI on the weekend: I wrote about an encounter with enraged Trumpers - and the difficult road ahead for a society in which conspiracies, extremist iconography, and political violence have become ubiquitous.
MAGA on the Beach Redux (link in bio):
🧵1/
I wrote about a run-in with an elderly lady who quickly went from pleasant small talk to launching a conspiratorial tirade about Joe Biden’s war on upstanding patriots and how Trump alone could save the Republic. It tells us something about political culture in America today. 2/
She was an elderly white person, with an academic background, widely traveled, had lived overseas, and, it can be assumed, reasonably wealthy. I’ve spent a fair bit of time reflecting on what, if anything, I should take away from this encounter. 3/
Harris’ arc since 2020 points to how much of a reactionary retrenchment we have experienced, and how much social, racial, and gender progress have come to be viewed as “woke” radicalism that has supposedly gone too far - a position shared by elites across party lines. 2/
Harris was seen as the perfect VP in the summer of 2020: A woman of color, highly qualified and accomplished, who rose to elite status through her abilities and determination, in a party that wanted to tell the world: Yes, we are indeed the champions of multiracial pluralism. 3/
Harris emerged as VP in the summer of 2020 when it seemed the country might finally deal with its defining demons. But as the reactionary counter-mobilization triumphed, she was sidelined. Until now.
My new piece (link in bio):
🧵1/
I wrote about the meaning of Kamala Harris in this particular moment in American history: Her story as VP reflects the post-George Floyd racial reckoning that never came as well as the racial and social retrenchment since 2020. 2/
The Right will go all in on racist and sexist attacks against the Black woman that now stands between them and a return to power. Already in 2020, the Right tried a little birtherism against Harris - unsurprising from a movement that wants to abolish birthright citizenship. 3/
There has been a ton of attention lately for Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led planning operation for a more efficient, more ruthless rightwing regime - peaking in reaction to Trump pretending he doesn’t know anything about it, which is an obvious, brazen lie. 2/
Public attention is necessary: In a very real sense, these plans are on the ballot in November. However, it’s also turned “Project 2025” into a bit of a catchall term - when we should be precise about what it tells us about Trump’s role and about the Right more broadly. 3/
Trump is not the mastermind behind Project 2025. It’s worse: The rightwing establishment has radicalized to the point where their plans are entirely in line with his vengeful desires.
My new piece (link in bio):
🧵1/
I wrote about the relationship between Trump and Project 2025, between the inner circle of MAGA world on the one hand and the institutional and intellectual elites of American conservatism on the other: A radicalizing alliance against democratic pluralism. 2/
Donald Trump lied when he declared he had nothing to do with Project 2025 and knew no one involved in the operation. Not exactly shocking, I know. But there is something more interesting and revealing going on here than just habitual lying. 3/