Opinion

The Politics, Policy, And Personality Of America’s Shoddy Ebola Response

Keith Naughton Public Affairs Consultant
Font Size:

Even if there are no additional cases of Ebola in the United States, President Obama has lost the political battle over Ebola. He underestimated the public concern and overestimated the acuity of the so-called experts at his disposal. Like ISIS, Ebola is not junior-varsity. For a man so purely versed in politics, it is surprising he got the politics wrong. But, more than that, he and his team got the policy wrong as well, with all of it stemming from his own personality.

Every politician who called for travel restrictions is looking pretty good. They get to do speak their favorite words: “I told you so.” Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to flounder, laughably naming a political operative, Ron Klain, as the Ebola czar. Klain may have the bureaucratic sense to coordinate the response, but, for an administration obsessed with its image, having a czar with no medical experience feeds the narrative that the Obama administration is only about politics. Klain could make sense as a top lieutenant, but he is not the right man for the imperial crown.

By now, every political candidate in the country – and that includes those running for dogcatcher – should be calling for a travel ban to halt the spread of Ebola. Perhaps it is not the right policy, but it is a sure thing in politics. If there are more cases, the demand is sound. If there are no more cases, it is appropriate caution.

Containing a communicable disease in this highly interconnected world is a very difficult task. Diseases like Ebola are rather uninterested in our economic and political needs. They are surely not politically correct in their actions.

The danger to public health is one of fact (casualties) and perception (fear). Where Obama and his team have failed is in not appreciating that perception has real costs. And Ebola is not simply a communicable disease with a high fatality rate. It is a disease that has existed in the popular culture for many years as code for the most deadly virus one can contract.

The image of an infected individual getting on a plane and starting a deadly pandemic is a Hollywood staple.  The result is that in both fact and perception Ebola is very dangerous.  Any major outbreak of Ebola, not to mention any reported transmission in the America, should be acted upon firmly and with measures that err on the side of caution.

Obama’s failure to understand the perception danger has been compounded by his reliance on a health care system that is structurally susceptible to breakdown and error. Any time you have a complex system with many moving parts – like a hospital – mistakes and miscommunication are inevitable. As any process within the system becomes routine, such mistakes fall, but never really disappear. With Ebola, an unfamiliar and truly dangerous agent is introduced.

To expect every hospital to be prepared for Ebola is absurd. The protocols for treating infected patients and preventing contamination are rather involved.  Any mistake could spread the disease. The nurse in Spain who contracted Ebola followed procedure, was supervised, yet made a simple mistake in removing her protective gear. For Obama and the CDC to declare that any hospital is prepared for Ebola flies in the face of simple logic.

On top of the importance of controlling Ebola is the chance to engage in an exercise in control and containment. The various agencies of the federal government have practiced fighting bio-attacks and lethal epidemics on a simulated basis. However, practices and scrimmages are not the real thing. The Ebola outbreak was a chance to put the federal government’s plans for containment (or at least parts of that plan) into action and determine what holes exist in the various plans. In certain respects, Ebola is an ideal candidate for such a real world, real time effort. The fact is that Ebola is much less of a transmission threat than the flu, measles, or strep. It is therefore more easily contained if errors are made.

The failure to put these plans into action – even in a stripped-down fashion, means the Obama administration whiffed on an opportunity to make the government more prepared for a potentially lethal pandemic that many epidemiologists believe is only a matter of when, not if.

When you really get down to brass tacks, this problem is not one of simply policy errors, nor of media hysteria (like that’s something new), nor of poor “leadership.” The botched Ebola response is just another dividend of who Barack Obama is.

Consider that, after over a month of pressure for travel restrictions, Obama made the unbelievable comment, “I am not philosophically opposed to a travel ban.” What does philosophy have to do with public health? It almost seems that Obama is treating the presidency as some sort of academic exercise where he hovers above the action in an alternately analytical and indifferent fashion.

Obama seems confounded that everyone cannot be as cool and detached as he is.

Obama entered the White House as the least experienced president in well over 100 years. This fact did not have to be a problem. Presidents can and usually do learn on the job. The difficulty with Obama is that his inexperience is combined with arrogance and stubbornness. These character flaws, not poor “leadership,” are the problem. Obama is simply closed to learning, particularly from his political opponents. He refuses to engage in a wider group of advisers, preferring a sycophantic court. He unthinkingly defers to technocratic advisers, not to develop sound policy, but as a crutch.

The most tragic casualties of Ebola are the people who died from the disease and the others who had to go through the ordeal and survived. Adding to the tragedy is the fact that the president, in his cool detachment and stubbornness, has failed the country. Clearly, Obama has not grown in the office. He is still the callow, inexperienced man who entered it.