It’s not grabbing the headlines, as it’s been coming for months. But this is still a disastrous decision for America and the world. I wrote and talked about the history of the World Health Organization and its relationship to the U.S. several times over the past few months 1/
In May, I wrote about Trump attacking the WHO for the @washingtonpost, why it would only exacerbate the problems that have always hampered WHO’s effectiveness, and what the history of global public health can tell us about the best way forward. 2/
I wrote an essay for @G_der_Gegenwart (in German) on the history of the WHO, the international community’s response to the threat of epidemics – and why the West needs to break out of the cycle of panic and neglect if we really care about global health. 3/
This longer essay just came out in @redaktionmerkur, on the international response to pandemics from Cholera to Covid-19, emphasized how unusual that moment in the mid-1940s was when the idea of “world health” animated many of those who founded the WHO. 4/ merkur-zeitschrift.de/2020/06/23/das…
Here’s an interview with @swissinfo_de (available in several languages) about why much of the critique of the World Health Organization is based on a misunderstanding of the organization’s past and present. 5/
Back in May I went on the #InfectiousHistorians podcast to talk about the idea of global health and why the founding of the WHO in 1948 marked an important moment in the history of global health politics. 6/
Also from mid-June, this wide-ranging conversation with @dg_history on the political responses to and repercussions of Covid-19 starts with a 15-minute talk on pandemics in global history and the place of the World Health Organization in that story 8/
Finally, if you’re interested in a much more detailed exploration of the story, here’s my book on the history of global health politics in the 20th century (in German, unfortunately – although I’m working on getting an English version published) 9/ wallstein-verlag.de/9783835319196-…
I don’t have anything to add beyond what I’ve written or said publicly already – and I know we’re all pretty tired and have become numb to much of what is going on… But this is still really bad: It has the potential to harm a lot of people - while helping absolutely no one. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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/