How Suffering Drives Politics

None

National Journal
Sam Baker
June 18, 2014, 4 p.m.

Someone is al­ways in pain, and there’s al­ways someone else who thinks they’re fak­ing it. That ten­sion, ac­cord­ing to Keith Wail­oo, tells us a lot about the past half-cen­tury of do­mest­ic polit­ics. Wail­oo’s new book, Pain: A Polit­ic­al His­tory (Johns Hop­kins Uni­versity Press, 2014), uses suf­fer­ing — wheth­er it’s phys­ic­al pain or some oth­er form of an­guish — as a vehicle for un­der­stand­ing dec­ades of so­ci­et­al change.

(Keith Negley)As the coun­try grappled with the linger­ing wounds of GIs who had re­turned from World War II, Pres­id­ent Eis­en­hower was un­der pres­sure to cre­ate a dis­ab­il­ity be­ne­fit with­in what was then the Vet­er­ans Ad­min­is­tra­tion sys­tem. But he met steep res­ist­ance from doc­tors — the people you’d think would be most in­ves­ted in caring for the wounded. The Amer­ic­an Med­ic­al As­so­ci­ation ac­cused Eis­en­hower of “plant­ing the seeds of so­cial­ism” — a charge that has been leveled at every politi­cian who has sub­sequently at­temp­ted to ex­pand health be­ne­fits, from Medi­care to Obama­care. Many of the AMA’s mem­bers also ar­gued that dis­ab­il­ity wasn’t a real thing, that it would simply be a mag­net for lazy and disin­genu­ous vet­er­ans in search of a handout. This po­s­i­tion seems ab­surd now, but in the days when the AMA was fight­ing VA be­ne­fits, med­ic­al treat­ment of pain was poorly un­der­stood. Doc­tors of­ten truly be­lieved that their pa­tients simply needed to toughen up, and lo­botom­ies were a shock­ingly well-ac­cep­ted tool for pain re­lief.

Along with the cul­tur­al re­volu­tion of the mid-1960s and the rise of in­di­vidu­al­ism, a new and rad­ic­al the­ory of medi­cine emerged: Doc­tors came to see pain as unique to each per­son, and they em­braced treat­ments that were more tailored to each pa­tient. These cul­tur­al shifts con­sti­tute the most fas­cin­at­ing part of Wail­oo’s book. The chan­ging un­der­stand­ing of pain led the phar­ma­ceut­ic­al in­dustry to flood the mar­ket with new products (even as crit­ics ques­tioned wheth­er com­pan­ies were in­vent­ing ail­ments just to cure them); it also laid the ground­work for polit­ic­al change. Wail­oo ar­gues that the polit­ics of so­cial-wel­fare pro­grams gen­er­ally track slightly be­hind cul­tur­al at­ti­tudes to­ward people in pain. In oth­er words, the broad­er cul­tur­al lib­er­al­iz­a­tion sur­round­ing pain helped to make pro­grams like Medi­caid and Medi­care pos­sible.

As the heady days of the ‘60s and ‘70s came to an end, so did that era’s view of pain. Pres­id­ent Re­agan presided over a massive purge of wel­fare, dis­ab­il­ity, and Medi­caid rolls, cast­ing the pro­grams as mag­nets for fraud and “learned help­less­ness,” as well as a bur­den to tax­pay­ers.

Re­agan also helped ease reg­u­la­tions on the phar­ma­ceut­ic­al in­dustry — a move that fit with his gen­er­al skep­ti­cism of reg­u­la­tion and that over­lapped, even­tu­ally, with AIDS act­iv­ists’ push for faster ap­prov­al of new drugs. But the pen­du­lum later swung back to­ward reg­u­la­tion, amid wide­spread ab­use of drugs like Oxy­Con­tin and ser­i­ous safety prob­lems that led the Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion to pull block­buster products like Vi­oxx, a pain med­ic­a­tion, off the mar­ket.

The polit­ic­al his­tory of pain is largely a ques­tion of pri­or­it­ies. In the ‘50s and ‘60s, the fo­cus was on the phys­ic­al pain of sick people — first vet­er­ans, then the dis­abled, seni­ors, and the poor. Un­der Re­agan, the fo­cus shif­ted to the “pain” of tax­pay­ers who fun­ded wel­fare fraud, even as an­ti­abor­tion con­ser­vat­ives sim­ul­tan­eously came up with a new front in the pain wars — fetal pain. In short, Wail­oo ar­gues, pain is an ef­fect­ive polit­ic­al is­sue. It just de­pends on whose pain you’re talk­ing about.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
2 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×