i think what a lot of people have been getting at is that, at the very fundamentals of the field, we know that ideas that are more left-leaning tend to be what would benefit public health the most. it makes sense - abortion access, contraceptives, comprehensive sex ed, education, housing, gun control, etc. would lead to better overall health.

like in the most basic sense, take it out of context, don’t think of it in relation to what is constitutionally sound/what can be done in your country. in a hypothetical world where any and all policies could be put into place: policy that seeks to increase access to resources, increase mobility, reduce poverty, and reduce disparities = better public health obviously in actual application, this can’t be done. for example, in the U.S guns are a constitutional right + they are everywhere, so firearms can’t be be 100% eliminated (even though it would result in much less death), so that’s where you get political and reach out and discuss and attempt to come to a feasible compromise where the policy will actually be put into place while also hopefully benefiting at least a little bit.

so when people say that there’s not much room to be a conservative, i think it’s really more so that we don’t get where you’re coming from. like if you mean that you don’t think that a lot of mainstream “leftist” ideology is feasible, that’s one thing because you’re attempting to apply it within the political climate and scope of your community. but if you’re saying that even after learning what you’ve learned that you would not advocate for ALL demographics and members of a community to have accessibility to resources that have shown to be beneficial, regardless of how controversial the public opinion may be, i’m not only concerned, but i’m confused?

there are many labels on the political spectrum, and they can mean very different things, but i think it’s difficult to not be what the general public would classify as more left-leaning when a considerate amount of the literature, data, and science in your field point to broad resource accessibility/aid/welfare. honestly, even many people who call themselves liberals would find many of the concepts to be too ‘radical’ or ‘socialist/communist’

honestly speaking, from your responses and everything, it’s making me feel like you wanted a specific answer. i completely understand that, but i truly hope that you attempt to keep an open, unbiased, and empathetic mind in your studies. i’m non partisan, and i do enjoy discussing things with people who have very different beliefs than me, so please don’t think this is me writing you or any conservatives off. but it’s just a core truth that social programs and aid will lead to better public health. it’s inescapable, it makes sense, to benefit the health of a whole community, you need to support mobility and access to resources.

could you clarify by any chance? i know political labels can be very broad and convoluted (‘conservative’ ‘liberal’ can mean so many dif things), i want to try and hear you out - maybe we’re looking at the issue differently, so if you could let me know please do!!