How Suffering Drives Politics

National Journal
Sam Baker
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
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 »
WITH LIVE BLOGGING
Trump Deposition Video Is Online
9 hours ago
STAFF PICKS

The video of Donald Trump's deposition in his case against restaurateur Jeffrey Zakarian is now live. Slate's Jim Newell and Josh Voorhees are live-blogging it while they watch.

Source:
SOUND LEVEL AFFECTED
Debate Commission Admits Issues with Trump’s Mic
10 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.

Source:
TRUMP VS. CHEFS
Trump Deposition Video to Be Released
11 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."

Source:
A CANDIDATE TO BE ‘PROUD’ OF
Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
14 hours ago
THE LATEST

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
×