Hurdles to Kennedy’s confirmation as HHS secretary

OPINION:

Imagine for a moment that a president-elect nominates someone to lead the Department of Health and Human Services and introduces him as a person who will fight food processing companies and pharmaceutical companies and who believes that “for too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex [whatever that means] and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to public health.”

Let’s also imagine this person’s resume includes all of the following:

• Advocating against modern agricultural practices, which, as a practical matter, means advocating the doubling of food prices and ensuring that American farmers will no longer be able to export American-grown food to a hungry planet.

• Working to enrich trial lawyers (probably because he is one).

• Describing the man who nominated him as “a terrible human being. Probably the worst president ever and barely human. He is probably a sociopath.”

• Working for three decades for environmental groups, including the National Resources Defense Council, whose main claim to fame is that it is the most litigious environmental group.

• Stating that as part of the administration, he will be able to clear a path for more mass tort lawsuits against businesses and stating that “once we have the good science out there, the litigators will come in and solve the problem.”

• Launching a war on crop protection products, farm market supports and the agricultural policies that help ensure Americans have the most productive agricultural sector on this planet

• Saying in 2001 that “Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network are less of a threat to the American people than the U.S. hog industry.”

• Proudly advocating the legality of abortion (I guess the abortion industrial complex is acceptable).

• Wanting a law to “punish” people who are skeptical of or deny climate change (not sure what it means to “deny” or be “skeptical” of climate change, but …).

Finally, let’s imagine that this nominee is so far off the fairway that the person who nominated him has to reassure everyone that the nominee is “rational” and will keep strictly to matters within the health and human services jurisdiction. Unfortunately, it is easy to imagine that a committed advocate can connect agriculture and environmental issues to health issues.

In other words, it is safe to imagine that this nominee will ignore any and all red lines regarding jurisdiction and stay in his lane.

What would Republicans in the Senate do with such a nominee? Would senators from farm states stand strong in defense of the folks back home? Or would they cave to the wishes of the president?

Would pro-life senators vote for someone to run the Department of Health and Human Services who is unapologetically pro-abortion?

Would senators knowingly vote for someone who wants to dismantle the companies that keep hundreds of millions alive daily?

Would senators who think that plentiful, affordable and reliable energy is essential to American prosperity vote for someone who favors jailing those who dissent on climate change?

But surely, such a nomination would never happen, and in the unlikely event it did, those in the Senate would never vote to confirm such a person.

Would they?

• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at The Washington Times.