“This is something we will not give up on because we are not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people.” – Paul Ryan, on his budget proposal
What more needs to be said. These are strange times we are living in: one need not even speak truth to power…in the “post-ideological” age it proclaims it itself, unapologetic. Pundits then argue about whether this is a Freudian slip or a rhetorical gesture—perhaps Ryan just wants to build a better system, you know, creative destruction and such (the overdetermination of the term is itself worthy of note: from Marx, to Schumpeter, to the neoliberal appropriations with the “positive” connotations of austerity, cutting to growth; but I digress). This tragicomic speculation is considered politics in America… perhaps I humor myself in thinking that elsewhere a prominent politician making a similar statement would cause more outrage, intentionality regardless (this was, after all, a public speech, unlike Romney’s 47% comment).
Of course, many of us have no qualms in taking Ryan at face value. Just more Republican antics, right? Of course they want to dismantle what is left of the welfare-state. So what of it?—back to sipping tea out of a jar. Yet this cynicism, rather than transcending ideology, is part and parcel of its function: ideology now includes a certain self-deriding distance; it need not even take itself seriously. We see right through it: justice, democracy, equality, etc.—rosaries of old religions. We are so clever now, we free-thinking free spirits—we know they are not to be taken in earnest, approximations of ideals at best. We have consigned our immaturity to the past. Yet we go through the motions, like a child who prematurely perceives the truth of Santa Clause: no matter, play pretend—the presents persist; the present persists. But many others, more seasoned (Althusser, Butler, Zizek—to name a few) have written much on the topic, and I have no desire to further rehash old arguments (for I would have to broach question of subjectivity, agency, structure, etc). Go read books.
A few words to justify the two-part title, in conclusion. Ryan’s slip is, in a way, quite insignificant; it does not bring anything new to light. The attack on access to healthcare is biopolitics par excellence (not that the current system isn’t already a disaster). Healthcare is a socially-distributed good. And the current distribution in America (also globally) is appalling. But once again, the fact that most of us are aware of this changes little. We sigh, accept it, and get on with our lives. Accordingly, I would like to end on a personal anecdote: I was at a lunch discussion of the national debt earlier in the year. Inevitably healthcare came up. Some kid—a real expert—he wanted to be a doctor, if my memory serves me—in full sobriety purported that the government would simply have to ration access to healthcare. His pragmatism was not met without a degree of commendation at our table. Many a soft-hearted liberal chimed in: in no way was it morally proper for the fruits of his labor to go toward heart surgery for some poor, fat bastard, lacking the moral fiber to snap himself into a healthy lifestyle—an organic diet, personal trainer, maybe the occasional massage (I wonder if insurance covers the happy ending?). It was a very Orwellian moment for me: “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” What horror—for I was sitting at the table!
Food for Thought:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/health/americans-under-50-fare-poorly-on-health-measures-new-report-says.html?_r=0