Fear and Stupidity

I don’t own a television.  I do listen to public radio – and, during baseball season, some sports radio – but, since neither normally carries political advertising, I’m largely spared the annual flood of nonsense through which American political campaigns are conducted.

I’m glad to miss out on the political ad wars.  The issues which politicians believe voters care about are sometimes trivial, sometimes important.  But the solutions which candidates offer – when they bother to offer any – would embarrass the folks who air late-night infomercials for “miracle” products.

And politicians don’t even offer a money-back guarantee.

Occasionally, between elections, you hear an elected leader offering actual, practical solutions.  During a campaign, all you hear is dumb – and dumber.

Still, not listening to the political ads, I sometimes miss things.  Recently, I was astounded to learn – via posts on social media – that some of my friends have become convinced that our government should ban international flights in order to prevent an Ebola epidemic here. 

The source of these panicky posts appears to be a coordinated campaign by Republican candidates for the House and Senate – though some terrified Democrats have apparently climbed aboard the bandwagon.

Now, I’m used to the inevitability of candidates offering up stupid policy ideas during political campaigns.  But an international flight ban isn’t just stupid – it could be suicidal.

Of course, this hasn’t stopped a majority of Americans telling pollsters they support a ban.  

No surprise there.  Americans will fall for anything – for a little while.  The good news is that most Americans – given time – will get back in touch with their native common sense.

That will have to happen soon, if we aren’t to end up electing a bunch if irresponsible fear-mongers to office.  But in an election campaign, two weeks is an eternity.  I’m betting the Republicans created their Ebola panic a couple of weeks too soon.

We’ll see.

It might be a little early for common sense to reassert itself, but – since I’m not running for anything – let’s give it a try.

In the first place, let’s understand that there are basically no direct flights from West Africa to the United States.  To get from Monrovia, Liberia, to JFK, Dulles or Hartsfield, you normally fly through Europe.

So right there, banning flights from West Africa to the US is nonsense.  There are no flights to ban.

But maybe the idea is to prevent anyone flying from West Africa from entering the US.  How would that work?

Well, clearly, US authorities could monitor passenger manifests and prevent the entry of passengers from West Africa who had taken connecting flights through Europe.

But suppose someone in West Africa really needs to get to the US – on business, for school, to visit family – and there’s a travel ban.  The obvious solution would be to take two non-connecting flights.  Fly to Rome or Paris; spend a day or two dining well; then fly into the US as a passenger from that European city.

Or you book connecting flights from West Africa to Toronto Pearson – and cross into the US by land transport.

Now, understand, anyone doing this would be violating the proposed travel ban.  But assume you’re in West Africa; you’re absolutely certain you don’t have Ebola; and you have important reasons for getting to America.

Is a travel ban going to stop you?

Consider our record of success at preventing illegal immigration – or the importation of marijuana and cocaine. 

Guess what?  In today’s world, you can’t keep people from crossing borders.

Not even North Korea can do that – and North Korea is a police state with two short, militarized borders.

Common sense says a flight ban would be unworkable.  But at the beginning of this piece, I suggested it might also be suicidal.

Here’s why.

At present, US authorities automatically screen everyone flying into the country from nations in which Ebola has erupted.  These passengers are asked several key questions.  Their temperatures are taken.  They are instructed on what to do if they begin to develop symptoms.

Thus far, passengers from West Africa have been cooperative with these sensible screening procedures.  They’re not intrusive, and – really – no one wants to bring Ebola into this country, or pass it on to his loved ones or business associates.

But suppose we imposed a flight ban – and passengers from West Africa started avoiding that ban by taking non-connecting flights or by flying into Canada.

People sneaking in via ­an indirect route could hardly be expected to present themselves to US authorities for screening once they arrived.  They’d be here – among us – but we wouldn’t know anything about them. 

And that’s where things get scary.

Because, sooner or later, someone will enter this country who has been infected – and doesn’t know it.  Under our present screening regime, there’s every chance a symptomatic person would promptly contact proper authorities for treatment.

But if he had sneaked in to avoid a travel ban, there’s a fair chance he’d delay doing so.  And that delay is where the proposed travel ban becomes dangerous.

Fear-based political campaigns are nothing new.  But when politicians propose stupid, dangerous policies in order to win elections, they demonstrate their unworthiness to hold public office.

Let’s hope common sense kicks in soon enough to punish this fear-mongering nonsense.