At a news conference, a politician offers us a solution to the problems that face America. In a hospital, a doctor prescribes treatment to us for a disease. In front of the congregation, a minister tells us how to get along with each other. What ties these images together? These people are each in a position of 'authority'. What happens if we question any of them? We are shunned by someone. And if the problem persists, or is discovered to be made up? If we die anyway, or get better without treatment? If we get along fine without guidance, or don't with it? Think nothing of it. It doesn't matter. Questioning can be swept away by authorities by using our own societal conditioning against us.
What is societal conditioning? There is a hierarchy in society. No one is truly an authority about anything, but we are conditioned to perceive our worth in relation to others, to look outside ourselves first before searching our own intellect. The statement, "If health is normal and the failure to be healthy is someone's fault, then when a person becomes ill he or she may have done something wrong"(Fitzgerald:91), illustrates a direction society is leaning in. Imagine us being "unhealthy" people. In relation to others, we must have done something wrong for us to be sick. Conditioned to think that way, opportunity arises in the masses for 'authority' to lead us into the 'right' direction and get 'healthier'. The wrench in the works, for example, is the person who gets AIDS from a blood transfusion. What did he do wrong? How can this conditioning be used against us? Easy. No one likes to be wrong.
Michael F. Jacobson is an example of a 'politician', so to speak, offering a solution to America's problems. He advocates prevention as the best means by which Americans can reduce their health costs, reduce deaths and visits to the hospital, etc. That is fine and good, but this man goes further than try to convince us to take preventative health measures. He tries to convince us to give up our freedom and tax dollars to the Federal Government so that it can enforce preventative health on all of us. He is appealing to our social conditioning that good health is good for everyone. Without thinking, we would invariably nod our heads and agree.
He suggests taxing alcohol and tobacco, then he softens us up by stating that a "vast majority of Americans support alcohol and tobacco taxes". We don't want to disagree with the majority, do we? Yet, if his assertion were true, then we would already have huge alcohol and tobacco taxes, especially with a "vast" majority supporting them. Also, his tax scheme would bring in an estimated $16 billion to the Federal coffers, which he suggests could be "applied to treating and preventing alcoholism, with the remainder funding critical health and social programs". Sounds like a good idea. Who doesn't want to reduce alcoholism and who doesn't want to help critical health programs? Legally, though, how far will the term alcoholism be taken? The weekend drinker? Will bars be shut down to "prevent" alcoholism? What do we care, after all, we're not alcoholics. Are we? Leaving things ambiguous only serves to tug on our moral sensibilities so that we agree. Then it serves politics by allowing free reign to decide the definitions. It is curious to note that he goes on to justify the good taxation would do "even if not one dime were applied" to those programs. So why are we considering giving up our money, again? It obviously won't be spent in the manner which we intend. He wants us to pay more in taxes to a system of Federal
Bureaucracy which even he sites as "doing precious little" to promote health. With the cash it already has, though, it gave $200 million to food companies for foreign advertising and facilitated programs for fatty food companies to spend "tens of millions" on advertising campaigns to boost their sales. Government doesn't even set a healthy example where it actively feeds people at Federal institutions. So Mr. Jacobson wants us to pay into a corrupt, many faced entity in the hopes that it will spend our money in a healthy way. It's all for a good cause. Health! And who would argue with that? And what happens when things don't improve, or we feel the brunt of his "federal action" personally when we can't do the things we like to do? We allowed it for a good cause. Are we thinking things through enough to realize the risk we are taking? Not even he is. With his last statement, one should support his idea "whether you're a cold-blooded economist concerned about the budget or a parent concerned about a child's health", he doesn't seem to realize that everything he suggests will effectively take money out of the hands of that concerned parent leaving him unable to care for his child. By handing over more money to government, the economist will go nuts watching the same government waste continue unchecked. Why would the government shape up it's spending practices when it always has a Michael F. Jacobson out there to urge us to give it more money, even as it wastes. See, we are conditioned to not ask questions, only feel and respond to "good" or "bad" feelings, not "good" or "bad" arguments.
Characters in the film "The Road to Wellville" provide examples of people in positions of authority and of how questioning gets swept aside. Two characters, Charles, an entrepreneur, and Mr. Will Lightbody, an ill man, spend their time in Wellville questioning the authorities around them. Charles is being duped by a Mr. Goodlow Bender throughout the film, and a pattern arises from their interaction. Charles expects Bender to have done with his Aunt's money what was intended -- to buy a factory and ovens for a breakfast food business. Bender has spent it and convinces Charles that he needs more, but the atmosphere where this takes place is in public where Charles is easily silenced. Charles is desolate, thinking the worst and that there is nothing to show for his Aunts investment. Bender uses this low to bring Charles up, being the savior and presenting Charles with the boxes for the product. Charles wants to succeed, and not have to go back to his Aunt and tell her he's been swindled. He, at this point, is in the hands of Bender, and will give him more money and follow along this project. Even after this, there are obvious flaws in Benders business practices. But Bender, to Charles, is a successful businessman, mentor, and authority. He overlooks the obvious, ignores his own intellect, and allows his few questions to be overpowered.
Will Lightbody is sick. He wants to be better so that his life will get back to normal. His wife, Elli Lightbody, is in a position of authority to him since she has been to the "Battle Creek Sanitarium" three times before and swears by the healthy guidance of Dr. James Harvey Kellogg. His experience at the "san" is full of strange methods of making one healthy. He questions everything, but the people around him cannot give him answers more than "your bowels are probably filled with a cesspool or bacteria and germs" or "apparently it's safe". These people have long since stopped questioning the Doctor's methods and inventions. Yet, as is revealed in the story, none of it makes Will any healthier, and in the end causes the death of a few people. When Will tells his wife that he wants to leave, she cannot hear him, she complains that he is making a spectacle of himself (social pressure), and accuses him of not wanting to get healthy.
Dr. Kellogg is a man with all the answers, but who never asked the question "does it work for you?". A dictator, everything he says is a statement. Much like a minister of the church rather than a teacher, his interaction with the world is that of commander, the answerer of unasked questions. The people who work for him are all unquestioning, but simply line up to get an earful. When the 'green- faced' lady died, the only thing the nurse could say was "it was very peaceful". She never wondered why someone had died under the care of her 'authority'. As others died at the 'san', they were explained away. People want to believe, and do not want to stand out and be ridiculed or to 'make a scene'. We are conditioned this way, and society enforces it. Authority abuses it.