Alternative questions from the first presidential debate to illustrate a Health in All Policies approach
It’s been some time since I’ve updated my website, and I will post items from this past year over the next few weeks. I will begin with a more recent item: What would the presidential debate have looked like had a Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach been central to the questioning?
HiAP may seem to be a non-partisan approach to political decision-making, but it is in fact very politically divisive. For me, a Health in All Policies mindset is one aspect of a holistic, consistent ethic of life approach to envisioning our civic communities. (I write about that approach in another post.)
The debate on 29 September 2020 consisted of seven principal questions: 1) The Supreme Court; 2) the COVID-19 pandemic response; 3) the economy; 4) the issue of race; 5) why the candidate is the best; 6) climate change; and 7) election Integrity. Each of these main topics had sub-questions, which I’ve pared down for the sake of space. I will address each question as a separate, short post. My focus will be (mostly) on how the questions could be framed in terms of HiAP, rather than an analysis of candidates’ positions or on concrete answers from an HiAP perspective.
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
Jason Johnson Peretz is an Oxford trained Medical Anthropologist and Clinical Research Coordinator at the University of California, San Francisco.