Federal Ebola Policy – A Stubborn Resistance to Common Sense

Why does the Obama Administration resist a ban on visitors from West African countries plagued by Ebola?  Common sense would seem to compel such a policy. 

But no, presidential spokesmen deny the efficacy of a travel ban because it would be counterproductive.  Those who want to come to the U.S. will simply come here illegally and, thus, we’ll be unable to monitor them. 

Instead, the Administration contends the U.S. will allow such travelers to enter the America but they will be self-monitored for symptoms.  Huh?  Americans are to be put at risk because we don’t want to ban travelers from infected areas?  The idea that people who might carry Ebola will come here illegally is most unlikely.  A person who has Ebola is rather unlikely to have the physical ability or stamina to be able to mount time-consuming hurdles of illegal admission.

 

But leave aside that limp defense of unrestricted travel from danger zones.  It should be a statistical certainty that some of the visitors legally admitted in the absence of a travel ban will have Ebola.  Wouldn’t you, if you might be infected, want to go where your survival rate is, evidently, far higher?

Of course.  Many who come will test positive, self-monitored or otherwise.  What then?  Are we supposed to send them back?  That won’t happen.  American hospitals will be required to admit them.  But wait.  The United States has fewer than twenty isolation beds considered to be safely able to care for Ebola patients.  What are we to do with the overflow?

There will be more cases of Americans infected by Ebola, as ill-prepared American hospitals provide Ebola care as recently seen in Dallas.

The Administration is right about one thing, though.  Focus on stopping Ebola in West Africa.  Several thousand American soldiers are already there to serve that objective.  So why are contrary policies also being pursued which will inevitably result in additional cases of Ebola’s being imported here?

Seen in this light, along with strong public support for a travel ban, President Obama’s resistance is truly baffling.  It makes no sense, common or otherwise.  This is not an issue of liberal vs. conservative.  It’s a matter of protecting public health.  The Administration’s blindness is more than foolish.  It’s dangerous for Americans.

Thoughts on American Exceptionalism

The subject comes to mind as the U.S. sends thousands of U.S. military forces to Liberia to fight Ebola… and our nation is alone in doing so.  Why us?  African neighbors have more immediate worries about Ebola.  It’s on their doorstep and Europe is considerably closer to it than we are.

But helping solve problems around the world is what Americans do.  Sure,  self-interest plays a role but it’s often not the dominant one.  Humanitarian ones are.

Think, in recent  years, of American aid – no strings attached – to victims of tsunamis in the far east, earthquakes in Turkey or AIDS epidemics in Africa.

And survey after survey makes clear that Americans, as individuals, are more generous, more giving, than any other people in the world.

I think it’s appropriate to say, on that basis alone, that America and her people are exceptional.  In certain characteristics, we are superior to others in the world.

 

As a nation, we have valued our world role as a beacon of freedom and self-government.  We want to share our blessings.  That, indeed, makes us exceptional on another plane and that can include arrogance and foolishness as well.

After the Great War, Woodrow Wilson sought to make the world safe for democracy.  We know how that turned out.

 

Yet, after World War II, a similar motivation restored liberal democracy in West Germany and fostered its development in Japan.  The list goes on.  South Korea blossomed; South Vietnam received valiant efforts as did Iraq.  Sad results don’t alter the worthiness – positive exceptionalism – of the enterprises.

And consider this.  We are an exceptional super power.  America conquers and may occupy, for a while, but she always relinquishes her conquests.

Can you think of historical parallels?  Ancient Greece?  Rome?  The Ottoman Empire?  Germany?  None of them.  Not even Great Britain came close.

Why are we exceptional?  It’s certainly not our common genealogy or our millennia-long history which makes us unique.   And despite the land’s many springs, we really can’t say it’s something in the water.  No, America is exceptional because our nation has a special creed.  We believe we are a bright light in the world and take great pride in being so.  Freedom, liberty, opportunity and democracy – the American dream.

Yet, I acknowledge that the self-congratulatory tone is not as prevalent as it used to be. 

President Obama and his fellow liberals/leftists readily come to mind.  Their ambivalence, even hostility, to the concept of American exceptionalism explains, in large part, the decline of our influence in the world.  If our leaders don’t believe America is a force for good, deserving of respect, our friends will be weakened and our foes emboldened.  And so has it been in recent years. 

But, doubters aside, we remain exceptional.  There is considerable reason to believe that those who possess that knowledge will soon be ascendant in Washington D.C. again.  

America’s First Black President Is a Failure – Unanticipated Consequences

America loves to celebrate “firsts” as evidence of social progress.  In 1928, Al Smith was the first Catholic nominee of a major party.  In 1960, a Catholic was elected president and in 2008 a woman was taken seriously as a White House contender and a black man prevailed.  But to be an effective trail blazer, one must be successful.  How many times have we heard those following the trail say “I am grateful to [blank] for showing the way”?  A first is not eagerly followed if the one breaking new ground fails.

 

This is a sad irony and unfair lesson of the Obama Presidency.  His failed presidency (and who can seriously doubt that that is a factual statement six years in?) has nothing to do with his race except in a perverse way.  Does anyone really believe that a white community organizer, who was an undistinguished one term state senator in Illinois and who served as a U.S. Senator for only two years would be catapulted into the White House?  “Hope and change” would have elected that person in 2008?  Rather doubtful.

 

Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm and Jesse Jackson ran in previous years but neither came close to capturing the Democratic Party nomination.  Barack Obama did, indeed, succeed in winning – but not in serving.

There are those who will say “See, a black man shouldn’t be president” and cite him as exhibit A.  That is, of course, preposterous.  Barack Obama, given the paucity of his experience and ill-suited background, should never have run.  He was simply unprepared and ill-equipped.  Skin color had nothing to do with that.

 

However, a would-be trail blazer who fails (or as a former CIA and defense chief has noted, “has lost his way”) does not inspire more qualified people of color to follow his lead.  And that fact will, also, be part of the Obama legacy.

Secret Service Failure – A Lesson in Complacency

The recent news about short-comings in the Secret Service is appalling.  A fence-jumper running loose on White House grounds and inside the residence, an ex-felon carrying a handgun riding in an elevator with the President, and bullets striking 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  And these events were all on top of the scandal of Secret Service personnel engaging in sexual escapades while in foreign lands two years ago on official duties.

What happened to what used to be considered an elite, highly professional force dedicated to protecting the President from harm?

Have its members – or at least many of them – simply become lazy or complacent and thus less professional and competent?

Such would appear to be the case.

However, some have suggested that professionalism  among frontline agents is not lacking.  Rather, supervisors have ignored necessary training and have let political and convenience considerations take precedence over security concerns.  Maybe, but an Agent at the front door who fails to lock it can hardly blame that oversight on inadequate training.

Some fellow conservatives have responded to these alarming stories with a certain nonchalance:  “what do you expect from the government?”   The recent IRS and Veterans Administration problems are cited as illustrations of incompetence, malfeasance and indifference to job performance that permeates all federal bureaucracies.

This reaction has merit but it’s not entirely fair. 

I have no doubt that many government employees are attracted to federal employment by the lure of public service.  People who serve in law enforcement, healthcare and other occupations undoubtedly were filled with pride when they began their service.  I particularly include the Secret Service, given its storied past and previously deserved reputation as an elite governmental unit.

But human nature is a constant.  The best of intentions can be subsumed by self-interest, whether it be one’s comfort, ease or desire for power.  It is a difficult temptation to resist.  Accordingly, people are inclined to think that what one desires is OK because, after all, they’re well motivated – or so they tell themselves.  An objective observer, however, might see a conflict that is ignored. 

People in the government are, of course, just like the rest of us in being afflicted with the frailties of human kind.

But the government, and its bureaucrats, have powers ad authority the rest of us lack.  So their conduct deserves and requires extra scrutiny.

The Secret Service has not had a subject of its protective responsibilities harmed since 1981 when President Reagan was shot.  Over thirty-three years later, it must have been tempting to think that, since nothing had happened in decades, nothing would happen in the future.

Of course, that sentiment is the result of wishful thinking.  It’s stupid and dangerous.  It is, in fact, foolish complacency.

Human nature will not change, no matter how much one might exhort it to be otherwise.  Those in power are subject to its corrupting influences.

The solution?  Fresh blood -- supervisors imbued with a real sense of public service who can foster and demand adherence to appropriate standards that prevent complacency.  And those filling such roles cannot be allowed to fill them for long lest they, too, become complacent.