... from both (all?) ends of the political spectrum.  E.g., from the Right:  Just lower taxes on the wealthy  and Everything Will Be All Right.  

Or did I miss something?

immigration problem will end.

In our system, we seem to feel there is a political solution to all problems.  

OH, oh, oh--what about Iraq?  Bush assumed we could go in and be welcomed as liberators, solve the problem and get out without much damage or inconvenience. By bombing a few things we can solve any problem.

as a whole, operates under the assumption that there is a cure for all our woes. One may even go so far as to say every four years, one of the two parties runs on the  platform that it can somehow "fix" the country's problems by simply defeating the incumbent.

Sure, gasoline is expensive, but there's no need to inconvenience yourself by giving up your gas-guzzling SUV. I'll just get rid of the gas tax for you.

Part of the difficulty here (regarding SP members giving you suggestions) seems to be difficulty disentangling Brueggemann's concepts of "technological" and "therapeutic."  After considering this for several minutes, it occurs to me that the latter is a derivitive of the former; that the "technological" assumption logically implies that a holistic "therapeutic" regime either must exist or can be made to exist.  "Therapeutic" is the sympathetic mass-distribution of our "technological" capability, and so they can be easy to confuse.

Please correct me if the above is incorrect; I did read Brueggemann, but it was some time ago.

As to tying the above understanding to a political issue, I'm not exactly sure what we're trying to do here?

but I think of them everytime I hear the word "therapeutic"

I really see this script as pertaining to capitalism out of control, more than politics specifically, but I'll try.

This seems to be the key concept here:

so that life may be lived without inconvenience.

I'm thinking of the huge political resistance to even asking the American people to put on a sweater instead of turning up the heat, or to drive more fuel-efficient cars, or to conserve in any way. Conservation is inconvenient; there's no need for us to be inconvenienced.

Um, let's see. The medicalization of every discomfort and the direct marketing of medications to consumers (I'm still scandalized by the change in regulation that permitted that).

The sound byte style of news reportage: it's inconvenient to actually read or listen to whole actual speeches, so we'll come up with a 5-7 word phrase so you don't actually have to think.

Fix traffic congestion by adding lanes, or building new roads, or making HOV lanes, or making toll lanes

Fix all our election problems by going to electronic voting machines, or passing voter id laws, or letting people vote by mail, or letting people vote early, or letting people vote at any polling place.

Fix our schools by making them charter schools, or allowing vouchers, or hiring more teachers, or making it easier to fire teachers, or putting the school system under control of the state, or of a special commission, or changing the school board from elected to appointed (or vice versa), or adding police officers to every school, or restoring the dress code, or restoring uniforms, or making teachers use automated grading software, or making teachers use whatever the current pedagogical fad is.

Oh oh oh! Security theater!!! Making people feel safer by requiring everyone to take their shoes off at the airport! or banning liquids of more than 5 oz in luggage (yet confiscating and dumping out the contents of all larger bottles into one giant bin sitting right there in the airport). And so on and so forth.

Allowing police officers to swab for DNA when you arrest anybody for a violent crime, and keep the results in a database forever.

Sex offender laws, so we know where all the "bad people" are and you don't have to exercise due diligence as a parent because all the "bad people" are already identified for you.

this could definitely apply to recent revelations about poor FDA oversight of Big Pharma and the efficacy rates of certain drugs being much lower than the stats that had previously been released to the public (especially in relation to psychoactive drugs--SSRIs and the like).  

This definition of 'therapeutic' is definitely one shared by drug companies in the U.S.

People are talking about invading Burma because the powers there won't allow aid to get to people who are suffering.  Really?  An invasion?

Those who insist that it is impossible to withdraw from Iraq now don't see any other solution to a world problem than antagonism and military threats.