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 »
BUT IS HE A YES VOTE?
Cornyn Attempting to Get McCain Back for Health Vote
3 hours ago
THE LATEST
“TIME HAD RUN OUT” FOR ILL BABY
Charlie Gard’s Parents End Legal Fight
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A lawyer representing Chris Gard and Connie Yates told the High Court 'time had run out' for the baby. Mr. Gard said it meant his 'sweet, gorgeous, innocent little boy' will not reach his first birthday on 4 August. 'To let our beautiful little Charlie go' is 'the hardest thing we'll ever have to do,' his mother said. Charlie's parents said they made the decision because a US doctor had told them it was now too late to give Charlie nucleoside therapy.

Source:
AGENCY SOUGHT TO DELAY IMPLEMENTATION
11 States Sue EPA Over Chemical Rule
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Eleven states have sued the Environmental Protection Agency over its June decision to delay implementation of a chemical safety rule" until 2019. "The state attorneys general, led by New York’s Eric Schneiderman (D), argue the rule is important for 'protecting our workers, first-responders and communities from chemical accidents' and should be allowed to take affect as planned by the Obama administration’s EPA.

Source:
ULTIMATUM ON ACA
Trump: You’re With Us Or Against Us
4 hours ago
THE LATEST
$1.6 BILLION SET ASIDE FOR WALL
House Freedom Caucus Chair: Shutdown Over Wall Funding Unlikely
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) on Monday said that funding for President Trump's controversial border wall is unlikely to cause a government shutdown. 'The odds of a government shutdown are very minimal when it comes to that,' the conservative lawmaker said at an event in Washington, D.C. 'I do think the funding of the border wall will happen,' he added. Appropriators have set aside $1.6 billion to fund new wall and fencing sections on parts of the U.S.-Mexico border covering a few dozen miles."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login