The Biden Administration

[Vkw10]

Not impressed with Zeke Emmanuel, Rahm's brother, for the COVID Task Force.

A Vice Provost at U-Penn.  He wrote a 2014 article essentially saying life should end at 75.  Plus he's an oncologist, not an epidemiologist.

That's not what he said.
He has been good at public health. He is a fine choice.

??  He said he hopes to die at 75 and offered his dreary views on life after age 75.

What has he done in public health that is good?  Please share.

Ezekiel Emmanuel is an oncologist and bioethicist. He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy. He may be on the Task Force as a bioethicist more than a physician.

"Why I hope to die at 75" was published in The Atlantic, October 2014. If https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/ is paywalled, check your library because it's worth reading even if you don't agree with him.

Emmanuel states that he opposes euthanasia, but will refuse many health screenings and treatments once he reaches 75, because our emphasis on maximizing life has lead to many people having years with poor quality of life. He considers 75 the point at which he will have lived "a rich and complete life", so he plans to stop trying to prolong his life then. An excerpt:

I am sure of my position. Doubtless, death is a loss. It deprives us of experiences and milestones, of time spent with our spouse and children. In short, it deprives us of all the things we value.

But here is a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived. It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world. It transforms how people experience us, relate to us, and, most important, remember us. We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic.

[dismalist]

The question, as always, dear friends, is who decides.

[Hegemony]

A doctor once told me that in her experience, many people who declare that their life would not be worth living if [they had a disability/they hit a certain age/they lost a vital function/etc] change their minds decisively when that situation arises. I remember my mother saying that she tried to get her own mother to stop doing various energetic things (foreign trips alone, driving cross-country, etc.) at a certain age, and when she herself hit that age she had to laugh. "Now I see why she resisted!" she said. "I'm still totally myself — I did not hit a certain date and fall off a cliff."

As for Mayor Pete, my vote is that he can be put in charge of whatever they like, because he's smarter than a regular room-full of government functionaries, and he has first-hand experience of aspects of American life that a lot of them do not, e.g. military service, the American Midwest, places to live that are not big cities, actual working knowledge of multiple foreign languages (including Arabic) and the people that speak them. Good for him. And of course I count in his favor the fact that his father was a university English professor. As I tell my son, having a university professor for a parent is as glamorous as it gets.

[mahagonny]

As I tell my son, having a university professor for a parent is as glamorous as it gets.

Sorry, this information is out of date.

The question, as always, dear friends, is who decides.

I think it's organized religion that has been making people think it's their duty to prolong life as much as we can. Not that I want to put down religion, but I think they can adjust their views, now that so many are living into their demented 90's.

[downer]

Not impressed with Zeke Emmanuel, Rahm's brother, for the COVID Task Force.

A Vice Provost at U-Penn.  He wrote a 2014 article essentially saying life should end at 75.  Plus he's an oncologist, not an epidemiologist.

That's not what he said.
He has been good at public health. He is a fine choice.

??  He said he hopes to die at 75 and offered his dreary views on life after age 75.

What has he done in public health that is good?  Please share.

Emmanuel's Atlantic article was about his preferences and was obviously aimed at provoking a dialog. It was very much about his personal values, not a general recommendation. It's part of a more general movement that prioritizes quality of life over length of life. I do wonder what he thinks about having a 78 year old president. Probably he would prefer someone younger. Me too.

As for public health, he has largely devoted his career to health policy, he runs a prominent university center on health policy and he worked with Obama on reforming health insurance. It's a solid record.

[apl68]

I'd be interested in your data source on this-- everything I've seen so far shows the Biden over-performed Clinton not in the urban cores, but in the suburbs. That is, he won largely by winning people who at least sometimes vote for Republicans.

Remember, unless the stars align just right in Georgia he'll have to work with a Republican Senate. He's not in a position to play hardball. A moderate Republican or two in the cabinet isn't necessarily a bad idea--yes, there still are some--someone who genuinely wants to help with the repair process and can talk to Republicans in a way they may listen to. There is so much damage to be undone-- he needs every bit of cooperation and good will he can get.

There is a long history of this on both sides, including both the Bush II and Obama administrations. Generally they are for technocratic and defense positions that shouldn't be about partisanship in the first place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_appointments_across_party_lines

This is a very important point to make.  In recent months it has been clear from certain of their actions--such as talk of packing the Supreme Court and refusing any compromise on urgently needed pandemic relief and stimulus bills--that much of the Democratic leadership has assumed that a "blue wave" in November would give them the total control of all branches of government that they imagined they would have in 2016.  Once again the voters have failed to deliver.  And this year's record voter turnout means that they can't blame it on voter suppression, Russian hacking, post office shenanigans, and all the other dark forces that they've been claiming were arrayed against them to thwart the will of the people.

Trump's gone.  That's something to be glad for.  But voters have made it clear that many of them, including non-trivial numbers of Black and Hispanic voters, are concerned that the national Democratic party has moved too far to the left.  The party leadership needs to listen to that.

[ciao_yall]

I'd be interested in your data source on this-- everything I've seen so far shows the Biden over-performed Clinton not in the urban cores, but in the suburbs. That is, he won largely by winning people who at least sometimes vote for Republicans.

Remember, unless the stars align just right in Georgia he'll have to work with a Republican Senate. He's not in a position to play hardball. A moderate Republican or two in the cabinet isn't necessarily a bad idea--yes, there still are some--someone who genuinely wants to help with the repair process and can talk to Republicans in a way they may listen to. There is so much damage to be undone-- he needs every bit of cooperation and good will he can get.

There is a long history of this on both sides, including both the Bush II and Obama administrations. Generally they are for technocratic and defense positions that shouldn't be about partisanship in the first place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_appointments_across_party_lines

This is a very important point to make.  In recent months it has been clear from certain of their actions--such as talk of packing the Supreme Court and refusing any compromise on urgently needed pandemic relief and stimulus bills--that much of the Democratic leadership has assumed that a "blue wave" in November would give them the total control of all branches of government that they imagined they would have in 2016.  Once again the voters have failed to deliver.  And this year's record voter turnout means that they can't blame it on voter suppression, Russian hacking, post office shenanigans, and all the other dark forces that they've been claiming were arrayed against them to thwart the will of the people.

Trump's gone.  That's something to be glad for.  But voters have made it clear that many of them, including non-trivial numbers of Black and Hispanic voters, are concerned that the national Democratic party has moved too far to the left.  The party leadership needs to listen to that.

Or, that the Democratic party needs to move farther to the left, like many other civilized nations, and embrace global alliances, climate change, a national health care system, a strong social safety net and an equitable education system. Oh, and gun control.

Otherwise, why bother voting when neither party speaks to your concerns?

Rather than try to appease the mythical white suburban voter who might peel a few votes from the Republican party, maybe respond to public opinion polls and global best practices?

[marshwiggle]

Trump's gone.  That's something to be glad for.  But voters have made it clear that many of them, including non-trivial numbers of Black and Hispanic voters, are concerned that the national Democratic party has moved too far to the left.  The party leadership needs to listen to that.

Or, that the Democratic party needs to move farther to the left, like many other civilized nations, and embrace global alliances, climate change, a national health care system, a strong social safety net and an equitable education system. Oh, and gun control.

Wait a minute. Speaking as a Canadian, "farther left" is debatable. Yes, most countries have national healthcare and some of those other things. However, the identity politics is way more intense in the US than many other places, and most other countries don't throw around the term "socialism" as readily as the left do in the US. (Hint: In most countries with things like national healthcare and better social safety nets, "socialism" is a bad thing, since it means much more intrusive government control. The Scandanavian countries, for instance, are NOT socialist.)

[mamselle]

But to many in the US, they are.

M.

[ciao_yall]

Trump's gone.  That's something to be glad for.  But voters have made it clear that many of them, including non-trivial numbers of Black and Hispanic voters, are concerned that the national Democratic party has moved too far to the left.  The party leadership needs to listen to that.

Or, that the Democratic party needs to move farther to the left, like many other civilized nations, and embrace global alliances, climate change, a national health care system, a strong social safety net and an equitable education system. Oh, and gun control.

Wait a minute. Speaking as a Canadian, "farther left" is debatable. Yes, most countries have national healthcare and some of those other things. However, the identity politics is way more intense in the US than many other places, and most other countries don't throw around the term "socialism" as readily as the left do in the US. (Hint: In most countries with things like national healthcare and better social safety nets, "socialism" is a bad thing, since it means much more intrusive government control. The Scandanavian countries, for instance, are NOT socialist.)

Did I list "identity politics" or "intrusive government control" or "socialism" as goals of the Progressive Democratic wing?

Centrist D's can be reluctant to aggressively advocate for national healthcare and better social safety nets, for fear that the Moderate Republicans will start to fear socialism and obscenely high taxes.

Still, if neither party is speaking to your current needs (regardless of your identity), which are affordable housing, a living wage, health care and good schools, then why bother voting?

[fishbrains]

I don't pay enough attention to know about specific picks for the cabinet, but I hope Biden doesn't consider his election a mandate for "change" for whatever social policies he likes as much as it might be a mandate for genuine competence and functionality at the executive level. He should appoint people with actual competence as a primary qualification (as opposed to just mere political affiliation) to avoid being the next one-termer.

Trump's disruption could be kind of fun to watch, but I think many Americans could see his approach wasn't sustainable for the long-term.

This advice could work for college presidents as well (cough, cough).   

[Hibush]

For CIA Director or Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines.
She has been sheltering at Columbia after serving as deputy C.I.A. director and deputy national security adviser, in the Obama administration. Her role  at Columbia appears to be as leader of the major outreach effort called Columbia World Projects, in an senior adminstrative-staff role rather than a faculty role. She has a BS in physics from Chicago and law degree from Georgetown.

[Hibush]

For Energy Secretary: Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall. She is a professor of the practice at Georgia Tech.

This prospect is also sheltering in academia, rather than being an academic recruit. She is in a non-tenure-track position heading an institute at an institution with which she had no relationship before her most recent government service. In this case, a Distinguished Professor of the Practice and Senior Fellow at the Strategic Energy Institute. (She is also a Senior Fellow at the classic shelter, Harvard's Kennedy School. )

Her academic qualifications are top notch. She as a BS from Harvard and a PhD in International Relations from Oxford.

She worked on nuclear issues in both the Obama and Clinton administrations.

The Harvard history brings to mind Mamselle's comment upthread. I can envision the D&I report saying something like "In order to consider a more diverse applicant pool, we also looked at Yale." ;-)

[apl68]

Trump's gone.  That's something to be glad for.  But voters have made it clear that many of them, including non-trivial numbers of Black and Hispanic voters, are concerned that the national Democratic party has moved too far to the left.  The party leadership needs to listen to that.

Or, that the Democratic party needs to move farther to the left, like many other civilized nations, and embrace global alliances, climate change, a national health care system, a strong social safety net and an equitable education system. Oh, and gun control.

Wait a minute. Speaking as a Canadian, "farther left" is debatable. Yes, most countries have national healthcare and some of those other things. However, the identity politics is way more intense in the US than many other places, and most other countries don't throw around the term "socialism" as readily as the left do in the US. (Hint: In most countries with things like national healthcare and better social safety nets, "socialism" is a bad thing, since it means much more intrusive government control. The Scandanavian countries, for instance, are NOT socialist.)

Identity politics and the "S" word have been very much in the mouths of the farther left fringes of the Democratic party.  Has anybody forgotten how far Bernie Sanders got in the primaries?  And they have badly frightened many people away from supporting Democratic candidates, and into the arms of candidates that many of them wouldn't otherwise want to vote for.  Continuing to dismiss these sorts of concerns as nonsense will lead to continued losses at the polls.  Moderate Democrats have made these same points.

It has often been said on The Fora that "you have to teach the students you have, not the students you wish you had."  It's the same way with reaching voters.  Voters are trying to tell the Democratic leadership that they aren't the people that those who live in the "but I don't know a single person who voted for Nixon"--type bubble assume they are.  Yes, they want some improvements in wages, health care, etc.  My mostly Republican state recently voted for a significant minimum wage increase.  But could the Democrats please leave the talk of socialism, and the 1619 project, and you're not a real woman if you don't support Roe v. Wade, and some of this other stuff we've been hearing on the fringes behind them?  That kind of baggage has cost the Democrats dearly in our state legislature this time around.

[Parasaurolophus]

I'd be interested in your data source on this-- everything I've seen so far shows the Biden over-performed Clinton not in the urban cores, but in the suburbs. That is, he won largely by winning people who at least sometimes vote for Republicans.

I'm thinking of things like the fact that Trump increased his share of Republican support from 88% to 94%; that although the Lincoln Project and RVAT raised a boatload of money, Open Labs data shows they were almost entirely ineffective--less effective than other ads, including those by the Democratic party!--and even, in some cases, swayed people over to Trump; that progressive groups and leaders worked tirelessly (sometimes without much help from the campaign) to drive out the vote in key states like Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania; and the widespread success of progressive ballot measures and candidates (even as moderates downballot lost big).

Remember, unless the stars align just right in Georgia he'll have to work with a Republican Senate. He's not in a position to play hardball. A moderate Republican or two in the cabinet isn't necessarily a bad idea--yes, there still are some--someone who genuinely wants to help with the repair process and can talk to Republicans in a way they may listen to. There is so much damage to be undone-- he needs every bit of cooperation and good will he can get.

There is a long history of this on both sides, including both the Bush II and Obama administrations. Generally they are for technocratic and defense positions that shouldn't be about partisanship in the first place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_appointments_across_party_lines

I'm less worried about including people who are registered Republicans but not in elected office than I am elected Republicans, especially from the House or Senate. What worries me most about reaching across the aisle and welcoming them is that while they want things to be better, their vision of "better" is still a hellscape that fucks most people over. I don't want a repeat of 2008 (well, 2009) Obama--he royally dropped the ball, lost the initiative, and squandered his chance to effect lasting change; and while it's an understandable mistake, we've now had more than ten years to learn that you can't just compromise by conceding to Republicans. You can't pull them left; you only end up pulling yourself right, and further alienating the base of support you need the most (i.e. the left wing of the party, which is vastly larger than the number of Republicans you can sometimes peel off).