IDEOLOGICAL SHOWSTOPPERS

Recently on Bill Maher's "Real Time" HBO political talk show(Oct. 27, 2005), the logic of ideological economistic diversion was illustrated quite nicely. When discussion turned to the exigencies of national health care, the discussion was diverted quite effectively with, euphemism and subterfuge, nicely imperceptibly mixed. During the discussion, the issue was shaping up as to the virtue and necessity of national health care in the face of, some say, 45 million people without any health care insurance. The fools we are for the forceful sway of ideological discourse became apparent quickly. Rather than continue to deepen discussion as to the exigencies of such health care, Tucker Carlson, liberal obscurantist of the highest order, with mechanical ideological efficiency raised the point that in fact health care in Canada costs much more than in the U.S. Innocent enough, seemingly, but note the insidious tactical "logic" of deflection and diversion. Rather than discussing the questions of the priorities and problems of "national health care", Carlson, with calculated conservative yet seemingly mechanical unconsciousness, swerves the topic to 'the measure of money' as the determining and defining factor in the discussion. The ultimate concern for Carlson here is the condescending reassurance that if such a plan costs more than we already spend, how could it possibly be worthwhile. Of course the hidden assumptions in Carlson's sleight of hand are several. Surely Canada's model is not the only model as he would seem to assume. If it were, surely we could learn from such a model and not repeat their mistakes; and, surely there are variations on the Canadian approach. Though the talk show went temporarily into dead air space at Carlson's interjection, one of the other guests recovered from Carlson's 'sucker punch' and pointed out that the real question is not what it will cost but firstly what our priorities really are. Do we really care that millions are without health care? And if it were to cost more than, God forbid, CANADA, then might it not be worth paying the bill? In addition Carlson assumes that we can compare Canadian apples and American oranges in health care. But with proper pundit panache Carlson ups the ante with the claim that 'in fact' fewer Canadians are satisfied with their health care than Americans. God forbid, such powerful polemic, such forceful social scientific data. Surely, therefore Carlson adeptly implies that we must therefore have an inviolably better system. Fortunately Maher saved the day by noting that the dissatisfied Canadians could not possibly have been less satisfied than the 45 million Americans with no health care coverage. We surely should note how quickly and potently the spectre of ''too high a cost" or "not enough money" stops the show. Of course we at such times also quickly forget that billions upon billions are readily available for unjustified wars such as Vietnam and Iraq. Carlson's crowd which includes the AMA, conceivably the most powerful lobby in the world, obviously do not have national health care anywhere on the agenda, at least in the 21st Century, if ever. So the conservatives/neo-conservatives throw up the panoply of idiots such as Carlson proffering the ideological smokescreen of such idiocy, obfuscation, subterfuge and distortion. The "mental block" that we all suffer in the face of such ideological obfuscation extrudes itself in the name of "being realistic" and "mature" about the matter at hand. If one were to "think", so "think" the neo-cons, one would see that such health care is unrealistic and one who considers the possiblity is not (politically) mature. ..... In a college classroom one of my students pulled a similar (unconscious) maneuver. While discussing the costs of repairing the long neglected levees of New Orleans, the student argued that certain federal money couldn't be appropriated for local repairs because it was legally slated for federal use. Well of course. But the point that has to be made once again is how easily our supposedly democratic discourse avoids the human issue of human well-being and safety. One can so easily explain why for decades money could just not quite find its way to the repair of said levees. Now if said levees had been near Santa Barbara or some other wealthy white community, "the money" would have found its way through the bureaucratic barbwire, around the administrative mud holes and out of the coffers of the overly abundant military budgets in time and in sufficient amount to save the day. But the ideologized idiotic mind so easily blocks, diverts and explains away through supposedly "sufficient reason" the anxieties of analytic, bureaucratic-technocratic administrative defensiveness and self-justification. In the meantime, the forgotten "living dead" lost in the margins, intersticies and backwashes of "America" never seem to find a voice and logic capable of sidestepping the ideology of economistic, bureacratic and administrative "reason" long enough to have an effective and affective accounting. That is, we can't stay "conscious" long enough to deal with the human issues in a human language. The spectre of the unconscious mechanical mind is effective enough only to "mind the business" at hand. And the business at hand is always tending to and nurturing the forces preventing the fading of that very black bottom line.