Spontaneous protests have erupted outside the White House. Citizens are now hitting the streets in an effort to express their concern and displeasure with the way the government has handled the Ebola outbreak thus far.
First, in the interest of full disclosure, we should probably point out the obvious: very few of us actually expected Ebola to be the one thing that this President handled with anything that resembled competence or genuine concern for American citizens. That's just the realism talking. We fully expected him to blow this, just like he has everything else. But we also expected the rest of the government – and especially the CDC – to pick up the slack and do something to prevent one of the deadliest viruses known to man from gaining a foothold on American soil.
Before I continue, to those of you who are pointing out the supposed inconsistency of people who argue for government protection against Ebola but stood firm against government control of the healthcare system: you are wrong. You are dead wrong. And here's why: I think we would be in agreement that government control of the healthcare system – to include a mandate to buy insurance – is an overreach, an intrusion into individual liberty and choice. The Constitution stands in agreement with that, despite anything that Chief Justice Roberts may have said.
But the Constitution also supports government measures to prevent the spread of a deadly disease.
Say wha?
Yes.
If I recall correctly, one of the few responsibilities of the federal government that is actually enumerated in the Constitution, is to protect the citizens. That statement justifies the recruitment and maintenance of armed forces, the designation and protection of borders (at least it should), and other national security measures covered within the intelligence agencies. It also justifies the use of temporary – or permanent, if necessary – travel bans or mass quarantines of travelers in order to protect the lives of the citizens. Protecting liberty is a wonderful, massively important thing. But protecting life must always come first, because the freedom to travel at will means very little to someone who has died or lost an entire family – or an entire city – because one man exercised his freedom to travel unwisely.
And let's not sugarcoat this: based on the sometimes exponential abilities of viruses to spread and mutate, every flight that carries just one person from an Ebola stricken nation also carries with it the potential to kill more Americans than 9/11. The federal government estimates that 150 people travel into the United States daily from these countries. And they say that as if it should comfort us.
No.
What would comfort us would be the knowledge that, since the CDC has already proven ineffective at containing Ebola here, we have a government that is willing to recognize and own its complete ineptitude and simply refuse to allow any more through the door.
So what has the President done? In answer to the millions of Americans who have taken to social media to call for an #EbolaTravelBan, he has spent taxpayer money to hire a political operative who will stop the Ebola. Or something.
Save our money, Mr. President, and take this advice for free: Close the borders. Protect the citizens. And if you're lucky, you'll just be labeled the worst President in American history – we won't have to call you “the President who facilitated the deaths of millions of Americans” unless we're speaking of the unborn.
