Who Do They Think We
Are?
The administration’s Ebola evasions reveal
its disdain for the American people.
The administration’s handling of the Ebola
crisis continues to be marked by double talk, runaround and gobbledygook. And
its logic is worse than its language. In many of its actions, especially its
public pronouncements, the government is functioning not as a soother of public
anxiety but the cause of it.
An example this week came in the dialogue
between Megyn Kelly of Fox News and Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control.
Their conversation focused largely on the
government’s refusal to stop travel into the United States by citizens of
plague nations. “Why not put a travel ban in place,” Ms. Kelly asked, while we
shore up the U.S. public-health system?
Dr. Frieden replied that we now have
screening at airports, and “we’ve already recommended that all nonessential
travel to these countries be stopped for Americans.” He added: “We’re always
looking at ways that we can better protect Americans.”
“But this is one,” Ms. Kelly responded.
Dr. Frieden implied a travel ban would be
harmful: “If we do things that are going to make it harder to stop the epidemic
there, it’s going to spread to other parts of—”
Ms. Kelly interjected, asking how keeping
citizens from the affected regions out of America would make it harder to stop
Ebola in Africa.
“Because you can’t get people in and out.”
“Why can’t we have charter flights?”
“You know, charter flights don’t do the same
thing commercial airliners do.”
“What do you mean? They fly in and fly out.”
Dr. Frieden replied that limiting travel
between African nations would slow relief efforts. “If we isolate these
countries, what’s not going to happen is disease staying there. It’s going to
spread more all over Africa and we’ll be at higher risk.”
Later in the interview, Ms. Kelly noted that
we still have airplanes coming into the U.S. from Liberia, with passengers
expected to self-report Ebola exposure.
Dr. Frieden responded: “Ultimately the only
way—and you may not like this—but the only way we will get our risk to zero
here is to stop the outbreak in Africa.”
Ms. Kelly said yes, that’s why we’re sending
troops. But why can’t we do that and have a travel ban?
“If it spreads more in Africa, it’s going to
be more of a risk to us here. Our only goal is protecting Americans—that’s our
mission. We do that by protecting people here and by stopping threats abroad.
That protects Americans.”
Dr. Frieden’s logic was a bit of a
heart-stopper. In fact his responses were more non sequiturs than answers. We
cannot ban people at high risk of Ebola from entering the U.S. because people
in West Africa have Ebola, and we don’t want it to spread. Huh?
In testimony before Congress Thursday, Dr.
Frieden was not much more straightforward. His answers often sound like filibusters:
long, rolling paragraphs of benign assertion, advertising slogans—“We know how
to stop Ebola,” “Our focus is protecting people”—occasionally extraneous data,
and testimony to the excellence of our health-care professionals.
It is my impression that everyone who speaks
for the government on this issue has been instructed to imagine his audience as
anxious children. It feels like how the pediatrician talks to the child, not
the parents. It’s as if they’ve been told: “Talk, talk, talk, but don’t say
anything. Clarity is the enemy.”
The language of government now is word-spew.
Dr. Frieden did not explain his or the
government’s thinking on the reasons for opposition to a travel ban. On the
other hand, he noted that the government will consider all options in stopping
the virus from spreading here, so perhaps that marks the beginning of a
possible concession.
It is one thing that Dr. Frieden, and those
who are presumably making the big decisions, have been so far incapable of
making a believable and compelling case for not instituting a ban. A separate
issue is how poor a decision it is. To call it childish would be unfair to
children. In fact, if you had a group of 11-year-olds, they would surely have a
superior answer to the question: “Sick people are coming through the door of
the house, and we are not sure how to make them well. Meanwhile they are
starting to make us sick, too. What is the first thing to do?”
The children would reply: “Close the door.”
One would add: “Just for a while, while you figure out how to treat everyone
getting sick.” Another might say: “And keep going outside the door in
protective clothing with medical help.” Eleven-year-olds would get this one
right without a lot of struggle.
If we don’t momentarily close the door to
citizens of the affected nations, it is certain that more cases will come into
the U.S. It is hard to see how that helps anyone. Closing the door would be no
guarantee of safety—nothing is guaranteed, and the world is porous. But it
would reduce risk and likelihood, which itself is worthwhile.
Africa, by the way, seems to understand this.
The Associated Press on Thursday reported the continent’s health-care officials
had limited the threat to only five countries with the help of border controls,
travel restrictions, and aggressive and sophisticated tracking.
All of which returns me to my thoughts the
past few weeks. Back then I’d hear the official wordage that doesn’t amount to
a logical thought, and the unspoken air of “We don’t want to panic you
savages,” and I’d look at various public officials and muse: “Who do you think
you are?”
Now I think, “Who do they think we are?”
Does the government think if America is made
to feel safer, she will forget the needs of the Ebola nations? But Americans,
more than anyone else, are the volunteers, altruists and in a few cases saints
who go to the Ebola nations to help. And they were doing it long before
the Western media was talking about the disease, and long before America was
experiencing it.
At the Ebola hearings Thursday, Rep. Henry
Waxman (D., Calif.) said, I guess to the American people: “Don’t
panic.” No one’s panicking—except perhaps the administration, which might
explain its decisions.
Is it always the most frightened people who
run around telling others to calm down?
This week the president canceled a fundraiser
and returned to the White House to deal with the crisis. He made a statement
and came across as about three days behind the story—“rapid response teams” and
so forth. It reminded some people of the statement in July, during another
crisis, of the president’s communications director, who said that when a
president rushes back to Washington, it “can have the unintended consequence of
unduly alarming the American people.” Yes, we’re such sissies. Actually, when
Mr. Obama eschews a fundraiser to go to his office to deal with a public
problem we are not scared, only surprised.
But again, who do they think we are? You
gather they see us as poor, panic-stricken people who want a travel ban because
we’re beside ourselves with fear and loathing. Instead of practical, realistic
people who are way ahead of our government.
No comments:
Post a Comment