The Healthcare Debate and a Politics of the Impossible

Vaclav Havel once said, "Masaryk based his politics on morality. Let us try, in a new time and in a new way, to restore this concept of politics. Let us teach others and ourselves that politics should be an expression of a desire to contribute to the happiness of the community rather than of a need to cheat or rape the community. Let us teach ourselves and others that politics can be not only the art of the possible, especially if "the possible" includes the art of speculation, calculation, intrigue, secret deals, and pragmatic maneuvering, but that it can also be the art of the impossible, namely, the art of improving ourselves and the world."

Havel is calling here for a politics that rises above that kind of politics that claims a degree of "realism" and thereby supposes that in order to get anything done in a divisive world, morals must be compromised. Instead of a politics of the practical, the "realistic, the possible, Havel urges us to embrace a politics of the impossible, whereby individuals strive for a good that transcends themselves and ultimately leads to the flourishing of the community, the country. The politics of the impossible does not resolve itself to political efficacy in an intensely partisan climate, but rather, exhorts that partisan political system to change its methods and practices so as to conform itself to the good of the community. Certainly it is a matter of debate about what precisely the good of the community, the country, is, but at least in the midst of that debate the focus is on seeking to understand and cultivate a sense of the morally good that transcends selfish interests, campaign concerns, and absolute political ideologies that have forgotten the people they were intended to serve in the first place. Too often in the current political climate politics sinks to the lowest common denominator, this is the politics of the possible, it takes its cues from the corrupt, influence peddling ways, of small-minded politicians that lack a robust moral imagination. What we need now is a politics of the possible that seeks to conform itself to the best examples of human nature and human community, and implement an ideal that is not yet found in abundance amongst us in this world.

The current debate on health care reform, or as it more often seems to be, health insurance reform, is an excellent source of insight into a place where the politics of the possible are rife, and the politics of the impossible are elusive at best. It seems that every day we hear about political deals being struck between senators and congressmen on various portions of the legislative bills that claim to offer some promise of reform of health insurance and/or health care. Health care reform has become a deeply divisive issue in the country and in the government, leading to a wealth of partisan bickering, special interest lobbying, and shallow news coverage. More and more the effort to reform seems to be dictated by the attitude of "just get it done" rather than any attempt to carefully consider what effective reform means and the longterm implications of policy changes. In short, this is a political situation that is oriented to the least common denominator rather than any kind of morally praiseworthy ideal.

It should be troubling that our politicians are so committed to the politics of the possible even on an issue like health care reform. I happen to believe that there is a moral argument to be made for reforming how health care is delivered and seeking to care for the health of every human person. I think that many of us have intuitions about this moral argument when we talk about the need for compassion and mercy for our fellow human beings. Moreover, I think there are relatively few people that want to see any human being suffering and sick, unable to get the care they need. Nonetheless, we have lost sight of such moral clarity in the current political debate about health care. To date, I have heard recourses to campaign promises, political polls, and budget numbers, but I have yet to hear individuals make the moral argument for health care reform. Undoubtedly, there are those that will say that such an argument will not help us to determine the specific contours of the legislation, it can only stress the need for such legislation. But this view fails to account for the ways in which the ideal that such an argument projects before us then guides how we seek to carry out health care reform. For instance, if we genuinely believe that there is a moral argument for providing some degree of medical care and even health insurance for every human being, then a bill that only gives that care and insurance to 94% of the population is a failure, and simply is not good enough. The politics of the possible will not get us where we need to be on the issue of health care reform. Instead, we need a politics of the impossible that demands more of us, that inspires us to rise above ourselves and work for the good of the community. If we cannot do that on something as morally clear as ensuring that we care for the health and wellbeing of our fellow human beings, then we are in a desperate situation.

I do not believe all is lost, that this world is broken and without hope, such a view would merely capitulate to the politics of the possible. However, I do think there are intelligent and wise voices that have yet to be heard in the debate on health care reform, or at least have not been given their due. Today, to embrace the politics of the impossible, we need to look carefully at who is being allowed to speak, and who is not, who is being set forth as a representative example, and who is not. In short, we must question the authority of the government officials that claim to represent us in this debate on health care reform, an also question the authority of new channels, magazines, and newspapers that hold the keys to the proverbial microphone.