An analysis of Dr. Oz's Campaign Positions

Context:
As many may know, Dr. Mehmet Oz recently ran a campaign for one of Pennsylvania's Senate seats against John Fetterman, the state's lieutenant governor. As Dr. Oz is most commonly known to be a doctor on TV who promotes health fads--as well as a cardiatric surgeon--his announcement of his campaign was surprising to many. Oz's position outside of politics means that his political campaign was very dependent on his name recognition as a celebrity, as well as his appeals to the voter base of his chosen party (he ran as a Republican). For this blog post, because I think it's fun, I'm going to be analyzing a page on Oz's senate campaign website, determining if there are dog whistles present, and generally giving my thoughts on the substance of the page overall. For this exercise I'll be looking at his "Vision for Pennsylvania" page.

P1 of big blurb:

The purpose of this portion of his blurb is pretty clearly to establish himself as someone outside of the political establishment. In some ways this seems to be in an effort to emulate the success of Donald Trump; the appeal of Trump, to many, was that he was not a politician, but someone who was "a political outsider." A 'political outsider' may be more effective at getting things done because they are not concerned with the minutae of politics... but this is an illusory concept. As soon as someone runs for office, they are a politician, and care about politics.

"It all starts with YOU. Dr. Oz has advocated for decades that we, the people, are empowered to change our lives for the better."
This is such an obvious appeal to American individualism that it's funny. Dr. Oz has, historically, promoted the idea that some miracle health cure will be able to solve all of one's physical ailments; in the same vein, he is saying that there is potential for individuals (by voting for him... duh) to have the power to affect real political change. He's simultaneously invoking the idea that structural change is necessary, while implying that structural change will come as a result of individual action. It's an appeal to boot-strap-ism, which is popular among the conservative electorate as well.

"Telling people to seek the bare minimum rather than aspiring for greatness leads to an ever-growing chasm between those left behind and the elites, who are all too happy to tell you how to live your life."
1. Dr. Oz is the greatness you should aspire to. That's funny.
2. He's totally failing to acknowledge the irony of the fact that he is an elite, AND that he has spent his entire career telling people how to manage their health and, literally, live their life. He's promoted weight loss grifts, fake supplements, all on a TV show that people refer to for health advice. So I find this really funny. However, in terms of politics, he's very obviously trying to align himself with "regular people." He's not saying his supporters are "left behind" (i.e. poor, i.e. probably not who they want to be) but rather they should be aspiring for better things. But, are the better things being elite? Since he's aligning himself with regular people, wouldn't they be against elites, by definition? This paragraph is very self-contradicting and funny, but I thought I had to point out the irony of him trying to talk about social strata here.

Man, this guy loves individualism. So let's talk about some key Republican talking points here: "school choice" = "parent's rights" = being anti CRT and queer education in schools.
His immigration stuff is super blatant. We need to STOP IMMIGRANTS to PROTECT OURSELVES. i.e., immigrants are coming to get you!! This is used by Republican politicians all the time to get people afraid about immigration. Classic move.
"telling the truth about Corporate America" means, "I am not a part of corporate America, I am anti corporation and establishment, and I'm going to work in YOUR best interest, not big business!" This is a lie. Dr. Oz has spent his life promoting super shady big businesses, like the supplement manufacturer Usana Health Sciences, and spent his TV career making undisclosed advertisements to his viewers in an attempt to make money. Because of the fact that he has essentially been bought by a pyramid scheme style supplement manufacturer that's under investigation by the FDA, I do believe he's got issues with "Big Pharma." Another nod at being anti-establishment, this statement is meant to appeal to a large swath of people, from anti vaxxers to people who want socialized medecine. Being "anti big pharma" is a very easy and vague position to take in American politics, but it is driving home for his intended supporters that he's DIFFERENT in some way than ESTABLISHMENT politicians who are being bought out by pharmeceutical companies. Instead he's being bought out by supplement manufacturers! Which is obviously much better.

My assessment: I've mostly followed Dr. Oz's work about health and wellness, and did not actually follow his Senate campaign very closely. However, you can probably tell I'm not a big fan of his work (besides actually being a surgeon, which I hope he did great at). I would affectionately call Mehmet Oz one of the quintissential grifters of our time. This desire for notoriety and money, however, comes through really clearly on this portion of his campaign website; just as his life was spent seeking his Daddy's approval (read his memoir, I'm not kidding), it seems he's just continuing his vie for public love and affection. He may care about politics, but the idea that he's an anti-establishment outsider is laughable; he's said these things so people would vote for him. And over 2 million people did! Also, I know this is a bit of an anti-Mehmet Oz rant, but he doesn't even live in Pennsylvania. I wish John Fetterman the best... and so did Oprah when she endorsed him! LOL!

AM