I found Part 3 of Stuckler and Basu’s The Body Economic illuminating in light of the conversations and discussions we had in last week’s class. One of the ideas we had discussed was the ideology behind austerity, why people would believe in this system that so clearly has painful health as well as economic ramifications. We spoke about the perception of America as a society in which every man is for himself, the great American dream of a man pulling himself up by his bootstraps and attaining economic success. In thinking about austerity, this idea is a very important one because it can explain why people would be opposed to austerity in theory. The great American man doesn’t need Big Government to get involved in his health affairs, which is his personal business. The great American man can, and should, take care of himself. Part 3 of The Body Economic echoed this sentiment, that this great-American-man ideal was a key factor that contributed to austerity’s success- but, interestingly enough, Part 3 related this idea to austerity’s success in the U.K. “…The previous Tory government of John Major called the NHS a ‘bureaucratic monster that cannot be tamed’… Ultimately, the Tories’ position was not based on evidence but ideology- the idea that markets, competition, and profits would always be better than government ideology.'” (page 105). Could it be that the media in America, to whom we attributed in large part the circulation of the great-American-man ideal, was so successful that its ideas permeated the culture of the U.K. as well? Or was this ideal never exclusively American to begin with?
In the next chapter, Stuckler and Basu provide more examples of the less-government-is-better-government idea championed by U.K. politicians: “In 2010, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osbourne announced an austerity package… This plan was what the Tories called Big Society, which shrank the role of the state in the hope that local communities would fill the gap. As their pamphlet explained, the plan was ‘underpinned by radical reform of public services to build the Big Society where everyone plays their part, shifting power away from central government to the local level…'” (page 132). Here, the idea we discussed takes on a more frightening yet familiar form: the most vulnerable in society, people who need help (sometimes in large part because of the failures and irresponsibilities of the more well-to-do) are lazy, freeloading off of the economically stable. It is interesting to think further about where this idea came from- is it an offshoot of the great-American-man? Regardless, it is a very dangerous way to think if the end goal is producing a healthy, stable and thriving society.
