NEXT ARTICLE »
Share
October 16, 2014 7:34 PM
Who Do They Think We Are?
The administrations Ebola evasions reveal its disdain for the American people.
By PEGGY NOONAN
The administrations 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 governments 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 weve already recommended that all nonessential travel to these countries be stopped for Americans. He added: Were 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, its 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 cant get people in and out.
Why cant we have charter flights?
You know, charter flights dont 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, whats not going to happen is disease staying there. Its going to spread more all over Africa and well 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 wayand you may not like thisbut the only way we will get our risk to zero here is to stop the outbreak in Africa.
Ms. Kelly said yes, thats why were sending troops. But why cant we do that and have a travel ban?
If it spreads more in Africa, its going to be more of a risk to us here. Our only goal is protecting Americansthats our mission. We do that by protecting people here and by stopping threats abroad. That protects Americans.
Dr. Friedens 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 dont 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 slogansWe know how to stop Ebola, Our focus is protecting peopleoccasionally 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. Its as if theyve been told: Talk, talk, talk, but dont say anything. Clarity is the enemy.
The language of government now is word-spew.
Dr. Frieden did not explain his or the governments 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 dont 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 safetynothing 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 continents 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 Id hear the official wordage that doesnt amount to a logical thought, and the unspoken air of We dont want to panic you savages, and Id 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: Dont panic. No ones panickingexcept 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 storyrapid response teams and so forth. It reminded some people of the statement in July, during another crisis, of the presidents 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, were 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 were beside ourselves with fear and loathing. Instead of practical, realistic people who are way ahead of our government.
Share
October 16, 2014 7:34 PM
Who Do They Think We Are?
The administrations Ebola evasions reveal its disdain for the American people.
By PEGGY NOONAN
The administrations 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 governments 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 weve already recommended that all nonessential travel to these countries be stopped for Americans. He added: Were 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, its 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 cant get people in and out.
Why cant we have charter flights?
You know, charter flights dont 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, whats not going to happen is disease staying there. Its going to spread more all over Africa and well 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 wayand you may not like thisbut the only way we will get our risk to zero here is to stop the outbreak in Africa.
Ms. Kelly said yes, thats why were sending troops. But why cant we do that and have a travel ban?
If it spreads more in Africa, its going to be more of a risk to us here. Our only goal is protecting Americansthats our mission. We do that by protecting people here and by stopping threats abroad. That protects Americans.
Dr. Friedens 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 dont 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 slogansWe know how to stop Ebola, Our focus is protecting peopleoccasionally 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. Its as if theyve been told: Talk, talk, talk, but dont say anything. Clarity is the enemy.
The language of government now is word-spew.
Dr. Frieden did not explain his or the governments 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 dont 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 safetynothing 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 continents 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 Id hear the official wordage that doesnt amount to a logical thought, and the unspoken air of We dont want to panic you savages, and Id 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: Dont panic. No ones panickingexcept 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 storyrapid response teams and so forth. It reminded some people of the statement in July, during another crisis, of the presidents 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, were 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 were beside ourselves with fear and loathing. Instead of practical, realistic people who are way ahead of our government.
